SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, No. 13-1564 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSCA owns the 646 patent, relating to adult incontinence products. In 2003 SCA wrote to First Quality, stating that First’s products might infringe the patent. First responded that the patent was invalidated by an earlier patent. SCA then filed an ex parte reexamination request. In 2007, the PTO confirmed the patentability of the original claims and issued new claims. SCA never notified First Quality about the reexamination, believing that it had no obligation to do so because the PTO provides public notice of all reexaminations. First no longer considered the 646 patent “an issue” and, in 2006, expanded its line of incontinence products at a cost of $10 million. SCA did not contact First until 2010, when it filed an infringement suit. SCA claims it spent three years implementing new business structures, evaluating outside counsel, and examining potentially infringing products. The district court dismissed, finding SCA’s claims barred by laches and equitable estoppel. On rehearing, en banc, in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision, Petrella v. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, the Federal Circuit reversed. Laches remains a defense to legal relief in a patent infringement suit after Petrella; courts must weigh the facts underlying laches when considering an injunction. However, absent extraordinary circumstances, laches does not preclude an ongoing royalty.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 17, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.