Medinol appeals from a Southern District of New York decision dismissing Medinol’s claims on the ground of laches, and further denying Medinol’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment. Medinol asserts that the Supreme Court “held unequivocally” in SCA Hygiene that laches is not a defense to claims for damages incurred within the 6-year period provided by 35 U.S.C. § 286. Medinol further argues that the Supreme Court’s Petrella v. MGM decision “amounted to a seismic change” in the controlling law regarding claims for money damages for patent infringement under the Patent Act.

Cordis argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Medinol’s motion. First, Cordis argues that the Petrella v. MGM decision could not provide a basis for vacating the judgment as the decision merely reaffirmed “fundamental principles on the availability of laches” and “adhered to general principles regarding the application of laches where there is a statute of limitations.” Cordis further argues that Petrella v. MGM did not address the law on laches in patent cases, but rather, addressed the applicability of laches in copyright cases.