There have been a lot of good reasons given on this forum as to why laches should not be acknowledged as a reason for a partial summary judgement; all of which I am in agreement. I don't think anyone should be concerned about it though.

A key phrase in the filing, taken from th statute, is ",,,after the date the patentee knew or should have known of the alleged infringer's activity." This reasoning is why the judge basically will ignore or casually dismiss APPL's request.

It has been years since I have had to study laches but I recall that, although it is a part of the law, judges are reluctant to acknowledge it. I vaguely recall that statistically it plays a minor part in the overwhelming majority of cases that try to use it.

In order for a defendant to prevail, the court just about needs a video of the nefarious complainant plotters conspiring to delay taking any action, and also that the defendant is found to be eligible for sainthood. If someone has dirty hands they aren't going to be handed the guest towel and invited to the dinner table.