Cluster 2511430

green · 33 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 5 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 5

green Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2005)

Quote Authority · D.N.J. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Symbol Techs., Inc., 301 F.Supp.2d at 1156 (“[U]nreasonable delay alone is sufficient to apply prosecution laches without the requirement that [the patentee] intended to gain some advantage by delay.”).

“[U]nreasonable delay alone is sufficient to apply prosecution laches without the requirement that [the patentee] intended to gain some advantage by delay.”

green Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (2011)

Rule Authority · D. Del.

Plaintiff, relying on Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP, 301 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1157 (D.Nev.2004) (“Symbol Techs.

green Ormco Corp. v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. (2009)

Rule Authority · C.D. Cal. · 2 citations in this opinion

In fact, two district courts have observed that Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Foundation, LP, (“Symbol II”) 301 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1155 (D.Nev.2004), aff'd 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2005) is the only instance where a district court found that prosecution laches operated as a defense.

green Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2007)

Cited · D. Mass. · signal: see

See Symbol II, 301 F.Supp.2d at 1155-56 .

green Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc. (2006)

Cited (see also) · S.D. Tex. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP, 301 F.Supp.2d 1147, 1155-56 (D.Nev.2004) (holding Lemelson’s patents in issue unenforceable for prosecution laches after several decades of delay); Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 270 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1156-59 (N.D.Cal.2003) (denying summary judgment of laches for delays in prosecution of eleven years); Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd, No. 02-7008, 2003 WL 355470 , at *2, *25 (N.D.Ill.