Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The defense of laches is often used as an affirmative defense in patent infringement lawsuits in the USA. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the USPTO to use laches as a reason for denying patents to an applicant, who filed hundreds of applications, that were "atypically long and complex", and who filed amendments ...
While claiming that it was applying "laches", the majority argument did not satisfy any of the traditional requirements for a laches defense. Among other things, laches requires delay in pressing a claim, but the Cayuga Nation had pressed its claim repeatedly since the 1800s, being stymied by various rules which prevented Indian nations from ...
Laches has a restricted scope in law for the following reasons: Its principal application was and is to claims of an equitable cast for which the legislature has provided no fixed time limitation. In the case, §507(b)'s three-year window provides for such a limitation. In addition, the Court has cautioned against invoking laches to bar legal ...
This includes "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" (that is, the court will not assist a claimant who is himself in the wrong or acting for improper motives), laches (equitable remedies will not be granted if the claimant has delayed unduly in seeking them), "equity will not assist a volunteer" (meaning that a person cannot ...
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005): Applicability of laches defense to disparagement claims. Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 05-5402 (D.C. Cir. 2006): National Indian Gaming Commission doesn't have oversight jurisdiction in regulating Class II or Class III games in Class III Indian casinos.
Likelihood of misleading; Laches Majority: Clifford: Federal Trademark Act of 1870 Infringement requires a likelihood of misleading purchasers, not exact similitude; with laches, a court may deny past damages but still enjoin future infringement where infringement is clear. In re Trade-Mark Cases: 100 U.S. 82: 1879: 9–0: Substantive
A misled party who, knowing of the misrepresentation, fails to take steps to avoid the contract will be deemed to have affirmed through "laches", as in Leaf v International Galleries; [79] [80] [81] and the claimant will be estopped from rescinding. The time limit for taking such steps varies depending on the type of misrepresentation.
This was the second time the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to the Oneida's land claim. Over a decade earlier, in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v.County of Oneida (1974), the Supreme Court had allowed the same suit to proceed by unanimously holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. [2]