XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[Alphi]

from Dan R via Stocktwits


http://www.scribd.com/doc/225679185/Vrng-v-Goog-Cafc-Notice-Supp-Auth-May-22-2014

2040 Main St., 14th Fl., Irvine, CA 92614
T
[phone]
Joseph R. [e-mail]
May 22, 2014 V
IA
CM/ECF The Honorable Daniel E. O’Toole Circuit Executive and Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The Howard T. Markey National Courts Building 717 Madison Place, NW Washington, D.C. 20439 Re:
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc. et al
, Appeal Nos. 2013-1307, -1313 Argued: May 6, 2014
(Judges Mayer, Wallach, Chen)

I/P Engine’s Citation of Supplemental Authority Dear Mr. O’Toole: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), I/P Engine, Inc. submits this letter addressing new authority relevant to Plaintiff’s Cross-Appeal. On May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
, No. 12-1315 (attached hereto), holding that laches could not bar a copyright claim for infringements occurring during the three-year period of 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit because it failed to recognize that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations “itself takes account of delay.” Slip op. at 11. The Court explained that laches is a “gap-filling, not legislation-overriding” measure.
Id
. at 14. The Court knew of “no case in which [it] has approved the application of laches to bar a claim for damages brought within the time allowed by a federal statute of limitations.”
Id
.
Petrella
requires the Federal Circuit to reverse the laches ruling below. Though the Supreme Court has “not had occasion to review the Federal Circuit’s position” on laches set forth in
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co.
, 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (
en banc
), slip op
.
at 13 n.15,
Petrella
squarely conflicts with
Aukerman
.
Petrella
is clear: “in [the] face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress, laches cannot be invoked to bar legal relief.”
Id
. at 13. Indeed, applying laches to bar legal relief in patent cases poses a sharper conflict with statute than in copyright cases. Whereas § 507(b) of the copyright law is a traditional statute of limitations barring untimely
claims
, 35 U.S.C. § 286 is specifically directed to the time period for recovering
damages
. Invoking the equitable doctrine of laches to constrict the express damages period established by § 286 improperly overrides this legislation and sets “a time limit other than the one Congress prescribed.” Slip op
.
at 15.
Petrella
is intervening authority that requires this Court to overrule
Aukerman
. Such a ruling would require the panel to reject the district court’s decision to apply laches to bar all damages accruing within the six-year period before this suit was filed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted,
s/Joseph R. Re
Joseph R. R