presumption should apply here. Instead, ITW argues that MOC’s “egregious conduct” of intentionally copying the '638 patented invention precludes application of the equitable doctrine of laches. (Resp. in Opp’n to MOC '638 MSJ 8, ECF No. 187) “Even if unable to overcome the presumption, a patentee may be able to preclude application of the laches defense with proof that the accused infringer was itself guilty of misdeeds towards the patentee.” Aukerman, 960 F.2d at 1038. This requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant “has engaged in particularly egregious conduct which would change the equities significantly in plaintiffs favor,” such as “[c]onscious copying.” Id. at 1033 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bott v. Four Star Corp., 807 F.2d 1567, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Aukerman, 960
holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud holding that where defense of laches was not pleaded denial of equitable relief on grounds of laches was error holding that laches is an affirmative defense holding that defendants defense of laches was defeated by its egregious conduct of knowingly copfying plaintiffs patented invention recognizing laches as an affirmative defense