In granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that its claims were not barred by prosecution laches, the court rejected defendant's argument that "plaintiff lacked a reasonable basis for filing the continuation application and therefore plaintiff must have intended to prejudice [defendant]. . . . No doubt there is a potential for abuse of the continuation process. But in this case, defendant relies on little more than the timeline of events to establish that plaintiff abused the system. That timeline -- without additional evidence that plaintiff improperly delayed issuance of [one of the patents-in-suit] -- is insufficient evidence to prove laches."
The Holmes Group, Inc. v. RPS Products, Inc., 4-03-cv-40146 (MAD June 25, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Saylor, J.)