DCT

1:25-cv-00001

Hyatt v. Brent

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: *Hyatt v. Brent*, 1:25-cv-00001, E.D. Va., 01/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 145, the latter of which provides for civil actions against the Director of the USPTO.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a court order under 35 U.S.C. § 145 compelling the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to issue a patent on his '012 application, following a final rejection that was affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • Technical Context: The application-in-suit relates to computer-implemented processes for visualizing and controlling complex systems by integrating stored database information with real-time sensor data.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prosecution history for the '012 application spanning nearly three decades. It alleges significant delays attributable to the USPTO, including placement of the application in the "Sensitive Application Warning System" (SAWS) program, which allegedly prejudiced its examination. The case arrives at the district court after a final decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner's rejections, prompting this civil action for de novo review.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1983-06-15 Priority Date (Filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 06/504,691)
1995-05-05 '012 Application Filing Date
1995-12 Plaintiff files preliminary amendment
1996-09 PTO issues restriction requirement
1996-12 Plaintiff responds to restriction requirement
1998-07 Plaintiff files supplemental amendment
2000-06 PTO issues non-final office action rejecting all claims
2000-12 Plaintiff responds to office action
2001-03 PTO issues final office action
2001-04 PTO issues replacement final office action
2002-02 Plaintiff files notice of appeal
2007-05-11 PTO suspends prosecution (first of six listed dates)
2013-10 PTO issues "Requirement" action
2014-03 Plaintiff responds to "Requirement" action
2015-03 PTO issues non-final office action
2015-09 Plaintiff responds to office action
2019-02 PTO issues non-final office action
2019-08 Plaintiff responds to office action
2019-11 PTO issues final office action
2020-08 PTO issues final office action
2021-02 Plaintiff files notice of appeal and amendment
2022-02 PTO issues examiner's answer
2024-10-30 PTAB issues decision affirming rejections
2025-01-01 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent Application-in-Suit Analysis

  • Application Identification: U.S. Patent Application No. 08/438,012, filed May 5, 1995.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not explicitly state a problem, but the subject matter described suggests a need for improved methods of interacting with and controlling complex, data-intensive environments such as integrated circuit manufacturing facilities, architectural layouts, or medical procedures (Compl. ¶13).
    • The Patented Solution: The '012 Application describes processes for managing such environments. The core concept involves storing a database of the environment (e.g., manufacturing data, building information, medical images) in memory, and then displaying images that represent motion through that environment. This visualization is generated by processing the stored database information in conjunction with real-time inputs from sensors (such as head position, eye-tracking, or navigation systems) or an operator input device (Compl. ¶13a-f).
    • Technical Importance: The technology appears directed at early forms of computer-aided design (CAD), simulation, and virtual or augmented reality for industrial, architectural, and medical applications, allowing for dynamic visualization and control based on complex datasets (Compl. ¶13).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint states that Mr. Hyatt seeks issuance of 264 claims, identified as the "Subject Claims" (Compl. ¶11).
    • The complaint specifically names Subject Claims 103 and 194 as being subject to written description and obviousness rejections (Compl. ¶¶45, 68-69) and Subject Claim 103 as being subject to an indefiniteness rejection (Compl. ¶48).
    • The complaint does not provide the language of any independent claims.

III. The Challenged Agency Action

  • Action Identification: The challenged actions are the USPTO's rejections of the Subject Claims of the '012 Application, and the subsequent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 30, 2024, affirming those rejections (Compl. ¶41).
  • Grounds for Rejection: The complaint alleges the rejections were made on multiple grounds, which Plaintiff contends are erroneous:
    • Lack of Written Description under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, against Claims 103 and 194 (Compl. ¶45).
    • Indefiniteness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, against Claim 103 (Compl. ¶48).
    • Prosecution Laches, forfeiting the entire application (Compl. ¶51).
    • Undue Multiplicity under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, against all Subject Claims (Compl. ¶62).
    • Obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, against Claims 103 and 194 over various combinations of prior art references (Compl. ¶¶68-69).
    • Objections to the specification and drawings (Compl. ¶72).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Alleged Erroneous Rejections

The complaint does not contain claim charts. The table below summarizes the dispute regarding the grounds for rejection as framed by the Plaintiff.

Rejection Ground (as alleged) Plaintiff's Stated Position on Why Rejection is Erroneous Complaint Citation
Lack of Written Description (Claims 103, 194) The disclosure of the '012 Application describes the subject matter sufficiently for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the inventor was in possession of the invention as of the filing date. ¶¶46-47
Indefiniteness (Claim 103) The claim informs those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. ¶¶49-50
Prosecution Laches The rejection is erroneous because: Plaintiff did not delay prosecution (¶54); any delay is attributable to the PTO (¶55); Plaintiff's actions were not an "egregious misuse" of the patent system (¶57); and the PTO has "unclean hands" (¶61). Plaintiff also argues prosecution laches is not a valid ground for rejection under the Patent Act for this application (¶53). ¶¶52-61
Undue Multiplicity The Subject Claims distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and each informs with reasonable certainty about its scope. ¶¶63-64
Obviousness (Claims 103, 194) The Subject Claims would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the cited prior art references (Olhausen, Jacobs, Slater, White). ¶¶70-71
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Equitable/Procedural Question: The dispute raises the fundamental question of whether the doctrine of prosecution laches is applicable where the Plaintiff alleges the decades of delay are primarily the fault of the PTO. The court may need to weigh the conduct of both parties over the entire prosecution history.
    • Substantive Question: A core technical question is whether the application's specification, filed in 1995 with priority to 1983, provides adequate written description and definiteness for claims covering a wide range of computer-visualized environments (manufacturing, medical, architectural, etc.), as required by §112.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide the language of the asserted claims, precluding an analysis of key terms for construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Allegations of USPTO Misconduct: The complaint contains extensive allegations of improper conduct by the USPTO intended to prevent the issuance of Plaintiff’s patents. These include:
    • Placing the application into the "Sensitive Application Warning System" (SAWS) program, which allegedly "prejudiced the PTO in its consideration" and directed examiners to use factors irrelevant to patentability (Compl. ¶17).
    • Engaging in a "decades-long campaign to prevent Mr. Hyatt from obtaining further patents," including placing applications in "administrative purgatory" (Compl. ¶42).
    • Allegations that examiners created "disrespectful 'memes'" about the applicant and that PTO management instructed examiners to reject submissions (Compl. ¶43).
    • The complaint asserts that these actions constitute bad faith and give the PTO "unclean hands," which should bar the defense of prosecution laches (Compl. ¶¶44, 61).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case presents a unique combination of procedural and substantive patent law issues for the court's de novo review. The outcome will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of procedural equity: Can the USPTO successfully assert a prosecution laches rejection against an applicant when the applicant alleges that decades of delay were caused by the USPTO's own inaction and systematic, prejudicial handling of the application (e.g., through the SAWS program)?
  • A second issue will be one of substantive compliance: If the court moves past the procedural arguments, it must decide if the '012 Application's specification, which claims priority to 1983, contains a sufficient written description to support the breadth of the subject matter in the 264 claims at issue, and whether that subject matter was non-obvious in view of the cited prior art.