XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[JJSeabrook]

Aukerman is a 1992, CAFC en banc opinion on applying laches to a patent case. Petrella, the SCOTUS case that just came out, basically held that so long as congress has prescribed a statute of limitations period that laches simply does not apply Laches DOES apply in matters in which there is no prescribed limitations period. Patent cases have a 6 year statute of limitations. That period has been set by congress, and under the holding in Petrella laches would no longer apply since a Patent case has a prescribed 6 year limitations period. The old 1992 Aukerman opinion is completely at odds with that decision as it basically says to hell with limitations and applies laches to bar recovery. SCOTUS said in Petrella that this just ain't the way it's supposed to work once congress has laid down a limitations period, which in our case is 6 years. Petrella indirectly overrules Aukerman. Aukerman and Petrella are so much at odds with each other that I don't know how it would be possible for the CAFC to bring Aukerman under Petrella in a manner that doesn't overrule Aukerman. In their opinion in VRNG, IF they want to keep Aukerman as precedent, I think they will have to go to great lengths to try to distinguish that case, and that decision, I believe, would,in fact, go to SCOTUS. If they simply overrule Aukerman, the laches decision gets reversed with instructions how the court is to handle damages, about 5 more years of past damages for VRNG. The effect would be $$$$$$$$$s LOL



cgraut Member Profile cgraut Friday, May 23, 2014 1:21:32 PM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 52945 Post # of 52947
For a simple man. What does it mean in simple terms And how would effect vrng.

Thanks in advance