SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC (15-927)

argument 15-927

SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case fifteen nine twenty seven, SCA hygiene products oxybolog versus first quality baby products.

0:09

Mr.

John G. Roberts 0:09

Black?

Michael R. Dreeben 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, it may I please the court. In Petrella, the Court reaffirmed the principle that when Congress enacts a limitations period, That courts may not apply the doctrine of Lachis to shorten the statutory period. In patent law, Congress prescribed a six year look back period from the date of suit and a twenty year patent term. Injecting judicial discretion into the statutory scheme would frustrate the will of Congress and create uncertainty about something as fundamental as the timeliness of suit. There is nothing in the Patent Act which compels the creation of a unique patent law rule And if the Court were to create an exception here, that would invite litigation in the lower courts over a wide range of federal statutes.

John G. Roberts 0:53

You don't dispute that

Michael R. Dreeben 0:54

equitable estoppel applies across the board? That's correct, Your Honor. Equitable estoppel applies. It has been part of the law on the law side of the court since the mid eighteenth century, as the court held in in Dickerson in eighteen seventy nine. It was originally actually called a stoppel in pays and it became known as equitable stoppel, but it has been a legal principle for over a hundred well over a hundred years and it applies to all actions at law and in equity.

Stephen G. Breyer 1:21

For this for this argument. Sure, because of course they dispute that and they have a long list of cases and Austerbach or what Auckerman and so forth going back into history and they have The man who wrote the statute is They have words in the statute, and they say if we look through all of those cases, what we will find is that there is a long history of applying Latches in one legal context or uh that's la that's patents. In any way, almost all patent cases were equitable cases, and so it would be a big change, and you know all those are Now you've come back and you have two argument two cases the other way and you say two were mistaken. So it seems to me what I have to do on that one is read the cases.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:06

And if I come to the conclusion that there is this long history here Then the Lachi should stay. Have I come to the conclusion that no, if you really look at these cases there isn't that history? Then it should go. But neither is it a case one way or the other of us making up anything. It's a question of what was the heart of the law for quite a long time before.

Michael R. Dreeben 2:29

Your Honor, let me address uh

Stephen G. Breyer 2:30

Is that right? I mean that is how I am approaching it, and I am asking you uh to comment on that because I don't want to waste a lot of time reading cases I don't have to read. No,

Michael R. Dreeben 2:38

Your Honor, you don't have to read the cases. What you should read is the statute. The statute is what can be.

Stephen G. Breyer 2:47

The word is unenforceable. Unenforceable. And that could apply just to The the uh uh you know, monkeying around with the patent, doing bad things for the patent, or it could include latches. And the guy who writes it says yeah, it includes latches. And uh you could read it the other way not to. So I didn't get too far with the statute either.

Michael R. Dreeben 3:06

Uh, Your Honor, let's discuss unenforceability. One of the interesting facts about the case is that the Federal Circuit did not actually take up the position that the word unenforceability meant latches. And I think part of the reason for that is for those of us who practice in this area every day, we just don't think of latches as an unenforceability doctrine. Unenforceability brings to mind rendering the patent unenforceable, may not be enforced. And that certainly applies when there has been egregious conduct like patent misuse or a fraud on the patent office, but it does not apply to latches. Patent can still be enforced in this case and any others, seeking damages from the date of suit through the date of trial.

Michael R. Dreeben 3:44

We do not have a dictionary definition here of unenforceability from nineteen fifty two or any other time. Uh the respondents' position is that it was known, but they don't ha actually have any support.