Reiffin

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendant has raised as a defense and filed a counter-claim alleging that, under the doctrine of prosecution laches, plaintiff should be barred from prosecuting his patent infringement claims against defendant due to the unreasonable and unexplained delay in the prosecution of plaintiffs applications that ultimately resulted in the issuance of the two patents in suit: US Patent Nos 5,694,603 (the ’603 patent) and 5,694,-604 (the ’604 patent). The equitable issue of prosecution laches was tried to the court without a jury on August 18 and 19, 2003. The court here makes its conclusions of law and findings of fact:

I. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The doctrine of prosecution laches was first announced by the Supreme Court in a series of cases in the early to mid twentieth century. See Woodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 , 44 S.Ct. 45 , 68 L.Ed. 159 (1923); Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co., 264 U.S. 463 , 44 S.Ct. 342 , 68 L.Ed. 792 (1924); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 304 U.S. 159 , 58 S.Ct. 842 , 82 L.Ed. 1265 (1938); General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Company, 304 U.S. 175 , 58 S.Ct. 849 , 82…