A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Chaides Construction Co. has been abrogated. All 95 flagged citations have been processed; 3 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
95 later cases cite A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.; 95 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court displaced Aukerman's rule that laches may bar recovery of patent damages incurred within Section 286's six-year period.
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
SCA disputes this interpretation of § 282(b)(1), arguing that laches does not make a patent categorically unenforceable. Reply Brief 6-8; see Aukerman, 960 F.2d, at 1030 ("Recognition of laches as a defense ... does not affect the general enforceability of the patent against others"). We need not decide this question. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that § 282(b)(1) incorporates a laches defense of some dimension, it does not necessarily follow that this defense may be invoked to bar a claim for damages incurred within the period set out in § 286.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
Aukerman's rule preserving injunctive relief despite laches does not extend to an injunction against future use of infringing products manufactured and sold during the laches period.
Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp. · E.D. Va. · filed
Notwithstanding the uniformity of these decisions, the principles announced therein do not dispose of all the issues presented in the instant circumstances, for Aukerman, its predecessors, and progeny stand only for the proposition that laches does not foreclose an injunction barring the future manufacture or sale of the infringing products; the cases say nothing about enjoining future use of products that were manufactured and sold during the laches period.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Federal Circuit held that Aukerman's prohibition on prospective laches does not preserve the right to enjoin future use or repair of infringing products sold before suit.
Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corporation · Federal Circuit · filed
Odetics argues that the continued use of the pre-complaint infringing devices is a current (and, indeed, future) violation of section 271(a)-and that therefore the use of laches to abrogate the right to exclude would work an impermissible prospective use of the laches defense. See Aukerman, 960 F.2d at 1040-41, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1335 (rejecting prospective use of laches). Odetics’s position, however, construes the scope of laches too narrowly.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace