Federal Circuit: Laser Vision Correction Tech Inventor Barred by Laches to Bring Suit Against Advanced Medical and VISX

Holding:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this appeal affirmed a district court's dismissal of an inventorship action for patents relating to laser vision correction technology. Plaintiff-appellant Olivia N. Serdarevic (“Serdarevic”) brought suit on September 15, 2006 against Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (“AMO”) and VISX, Inc. ("VISX") to seek correction of inventorship, claiming she was the co-inventor or inventor of the technology. The patents were issued between 1987 and 1998. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the equitable defense of laches barred the inventorship claim. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Serdarevic’s failure to bring her suit within the six year-limit was unreasonable because she was represented by counsel in 1999 and she did not explain why she was prevented from bringing this action while she was trying to license her alleged invention. Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in holding that Serdarevic had failed to meet her burden to rebut the presumption of evidentiary prejudice, because three witnesses with knowledge of Serdarevic’s inventorship claim all died during the period of her delay. For these reasons, the grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee AMO and VISX was warranted.

Detailed Summary:

In this case, plaintiff-appellant Serdarevic claimed that she is the inventor or co-inventor of technology related to laser vision correction disclosed in six United States patents issued between 1987 and 1998. Serdarevic brought suit on September 15, 2006, against the current owner of the patents, its corporate parent, and the named inventors, seeking correction of inventorship and alleging state-law claims of unjust enrichment and fraud against the named inventors. Opinion, pp.1-2.

All six patents-in-suit have been assigned to defendant-appellee VISX, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant-appellee AMO. Serdarevic claimed to be the sole inventor of the subject matter claimed…

More Updates