Editing Laches (equity) (section)

==Examples==
{{expand section|good, textbook-type examples drawn from secondary sources, giving those sources | small = no|date=January 2016}}
{{primary sources|date=January 2016}}
In the [[United States presidential election in Virginia, 2012#Republican primary|Virginia Republican primary for the 2012 US presidential election]], several candidates did not appear on the ballot because they failed to obtain sufficient petition signatures. Four of the unsuccessful candidates—[[Rick Perry]], [[Jon Huntsman, Jr.|Jon Huntsman]], [[Newt Gingrich]], and [[Rick Santorum]]—sued, claiming that restrictions on the persons allowed to gather signatures were unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TOxDAwAAQBAJ&q=virginia%20republican%20primary%202012%20petition%20unconstitutional&pg=PA32|title=Second Verse, Same as the First: The 2012 Presidential Election in the South|last1=Buchanan|first1=Scott E.|last2=Kapeluck|first2=Branwell D.|date=2014-03-01|publisher=University of Arkansas Press|isbn=9781610755337|language=en}}</ref> Their claim was dismissed by the district court on the grounds of laches, because, in the words of the appellate court: {{blockquote|...plaintiffs could have brought their constitutional challenge to Virginia's residency requirement for petition circulators as soon they were able to circulate petitions in the summer of 2011, but instead chose to wait until after the December 22, 2011 deadline before seeking relief. The district court concluded this delay 'displayed an unreasonable and inexcusable lack of diligence' on plaintiffs' part that 'has significantly harmed the defendants.' Specifically, it determined that the delayed nature of this suit had already transformed the Board's orderly schedule for printing and mailing absentee ballots 'into a chaotic attempt to get absentee ballots out on time.' The district court consequently held that laches barred their request for relief.<ref name="perry">{{cite web|url=http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/121067R1.U.pdf | title= United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, The Honorable Rick Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant-Movant, The Honorable Newt Gingrich, The Honorable Jon Huntsman, Jr., and the Honorable Rick Santorum, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. Charles Judd, Kimberly Bowers, and Don Palmer, members of the Virginia Board of Elections, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees-Respondents, Proceeding No. 12-1067 |date= January 17, 2012 | work=ca4.uscourts.gov | access-date=5 January 2016}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=January 2016}}}} The appeals court upheld the dismissal on grounds of laches, but it added that the challenge would likely have succeeded if it had been brought in a timely fashion.<ref name="perry"/>

In [[Grand Haven, Michigan]], the Northwest Ottawa Community Health System sued [[Grand Haven Charter Township, Michigan|Grand Haven Township]] and Health Pointe, which was in the process of building a competing medical facility in the township, arguing that the township ignored its own zoning ordinance in approving the project. On March 24, 2017, as part of a ruling dismissing the lawsuit, Circuit Court Judge Jon A. Van Allsburg noted that the Northwest Ottawa Community Health System waited more than eight months from the date the project was approved before filing the lawsuit and that during that time, plaintiff Health Pointe had purchased construction materials.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kloosterman|first1=Stephen|title=Judge dismisses hospital lawsuit against township, Spectrum project|url=http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2017/03/judge_dismisses_hospitals_laws.html|access-date=30 March 2017|work=MLive|publisher=MLive Media Group|date=March 29, 2017}}</ref>

The defense of laches is often used as an [[affirmative defense]] in [[patent infringement]] lawsuits in the USA. In 2021, the [[Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] allowed the [[USPTO]] to use laches as a reason for denying patents to an applicant, who filed hundreds of applications, that were "atypically long and complex", and who filed amendments, which increased the total number of claims to roughly 115,000.  This applicant alone forced the USPTO to create an art unit of twelve experienced examiners solely to examine its patents.<ref>Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021). </ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.vklaw.com/ImagineThatIPLawBlog/uspto-getting-faster-how-to-control-the-pace-of | title=USPTO Getting Faster: How to Control the Pace of Patent Prosecution in a More Efficient Patent System }}</ref>