Gilbert Hyatt's 2026 Suits Against the USPTO Director: At Least 20 Cases, 15 Section 145 Complaints Challenging Prosecution Laches Rejections.

Gilbert P. Hyatt filed at least 20 suits captioned Hyatt v. Squires in the Eastern District of Virginia between January 14 and October 26, 2026. The defendant in each is John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Fifteen complaints are available so far. Each is a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 145 on a single application, filed in 1995 in all but one case (the '771 application was filed November 1, 1972), and each follows one form: a single count for issuance of a patent on the claims involved in a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that, the complaint says, affirmed the rejection of each claim on at least one ground. Each challenges a prosecution laches rejection that held the whole application forfeited, along with other rejections. The complaints for the other five suits are not available.

The 20 suits

Of the 20 dockets, 16 show an initial assignment entry to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis. In No. 1:26-cv-01197, that entry, dated May 8, 2026, follows a May 5, 2026 intradistrict transfer entry to the Richmond Division as No. 3:26-cv-00385. The other four dockets show no assignment entry.

What the complaints share

Each complaint names the Director in his official capacity only, describes Hyatt as an engineer, scientist, and inventor who has obtained more than 70 issued patents and resides in Clark County, Nevada, and gives his age as 87 (the five complaints filed in January through March 2, 2026) or 88 (the ten filed later). Each pleads jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C. 145 and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 35 U.S.C. 145, says it is timely under 37 CFR 90.3(a)(3)(i), and says the matter has not been appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Each complaint says the application is governed by the transitional rules of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, including 37 CFR 1.129(a), which limits an applicant to two submissions for further limited examination, and that it is a "special" application to be advanced out of turn under 37 CFR 1.102(a) and MPEP 708.01. Each alleges that Hyatt never made a dilatory filing, lists the occasions on which it says the PTO suspended prosecution, and alleges that a PTO examiner's answer came later than a commitment the PTO made to the court in Hyatt v. PTO, No. 1:14-cv-01300 (E.D. Va.). Thirteen of the 15 complaints also allege that the PTO subjected Hyatt's applications to the Sensitive Application Warning System from at least the late 1990s through 2015.

On prosecution laches, each complaint alleges the doctrine is not a valid ground of rejection, particularly for an application subject to the two-submission limit, and alleges that Hyatt did not delay, that any delay is attributable to the PTO, that the PTO gave no advance warning of forfeiture, that it made no sufficient showing of intervening rights, that it unreasonably delayed in asserting laches, and that it has unclean hands. Thirteen complaints also challenge an undue multiplicity rejection of every claim under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, alleging that each claim informs with reasonable certainty about its scope and differs in scope from the claims of Hyatt's co-pending applications. Every complaint challenges at least one written description rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and every complaint alleges that the PTO's objections to the drawings or specification are erroneous.

The prayer in each asks for decrees that Hyatt is entitled to a patent on the claims at issue, that their rejections are erroneous, authorizing the Director to issue a patent on them, and that the specification and drawings comply with the law, plus other relief the court deems just and proper.

Case by case

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00104, filed January 14, 2026. Application No. 08/471,042, filed June 6, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 24 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on November 12, 2025. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 24 claims); written description (claim 174). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00160, filed January 19, 2026. Application No. 05/302,771, filed November 1, 1972, which the complaint says has the benefit of the December 28, 1970 filing date of Application No. 05/101,881. Hyatt seeks a patent on 285 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on November 17, 2025. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 285 claims); written description (137 claims). The complaint says the PTO did not make an undue multiplicity rejection in this application. The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00402, filed February 11, 2026. Application No. 08/460,607, filed June 2, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 326 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on December 15, 2025. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 326 claims); undue multiplicity (all 326 claims); written description (claims 155, 272, 324, 345, 409, 412, and 423); obviousness (claims 324, 412, and 423). The obviousness rejections are of claims 324, 412, and 423 over Altschuler (U.S. Patent 4,294,544), Bolton (U.S. Patent 4,343,037), and Carlson (U.S. Patent 4,523,230). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00403, filed February 11, 2026. Application No. 08/464,512, filed June 2, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 372 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on December 19, 2025. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 372 claims); undue multiplicity (all 372 claims); written description (claims 156, 243, and 479). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00600, filed March 2, 2026. Application No. 08/429,391, filed April 26, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 252 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on December 30, 2025. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 252 claims); undue multiplicity (all 252 claims); written description (claims 85, 148, 329, 392, and 394); indefiniteness (claim 85); obviousness (claim 392). The obviousness rejections are of claim 392 over Hooks (U.S. Patent 4,463,380) and Brown (U.S. Patent 4,754,280). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-00839, filed March 27, 2026. Application No. 08/460,550, filed June 2, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 281 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on January 27, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 281 claims); undue multiplicity (all 281 claims); written description (claims 95, 234, 258, 282, 334, 356, and 382); obviousness (claims 234, 282, 356, and 382). The obviousness rejections are of claims 234, 282, 356, and 382 over Hooks (U.S. Patent 4,463,380), Cohen (GB 1 582 941), Harvey (U.S. Patent 4,348,186), and Hladky (U.S. Patent 4,599,070). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-01197, filed May 4, 2026. Application No. 08/471,695, filed June 6, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 200 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on March 2, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 200 claims); undue multiplicity (all 200 claims); written description (claims 460, 484, 535, 545, and 546); anticipation (claim 546); obviousness (claims 535 and 545). The anticipation rejection is of claim 546 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Hooks Jr. (U.S. Patent 4,463,380). The obviousness rejections are of claims 535 and 545 over Hooks Jr. (U.S. Patent 4,463,380), Strolle (U.S. Patent 4,656,467), and Maine (U.S. Patent 4,457,006).

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-01343, filed May 19, 2026. Application No. 08/466,992, filed June 5, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 344 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on March 27, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 344 claims); undue multiplicity (all 344 claims); written description (claims 99, 105, 138, 170, 177, and 329); obviousness (claims 99, 138, 170, 177, and 329). The obviousness rejections are of claims 99 and 138 over Bennett (U.S. Patent 4,463,372), Zwirn (U.S. Patent 4,532,548), and Nathan (U.S. Patent 4,644,488); claims 170 and 177 over Bennett and Nathan; claim 329 over Bennett, Zwirn, Nathan, and Wood (U.S. Patent 4,268,858). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-01926, filed July 1, 2026. Application No. 08/464,995, filed June 5, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 288 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on April 29, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 288 claims); undue multiplicity (all 288 claims); written description (claims 82, 85, 98, 239, 251, 263, and 275). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-02167, filed July 18, 2026. Application No. 08/457,194, filed June 1, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 328 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on May 18, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 328 claims); undue multiplicity (all 328 claims); written description (claims 162, 167, 185, and 214). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-02500, filed August 11, 2026. Application No. 08/465,198, filed June 5, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 279 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on June 9, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 279 claims); undue multiplicity (all 279 claims); written description (claims 283, 387, 399, 402, and 438); obviousness (claims 402 and 438). The obviousness rejections are of claim 438 over Hooks (U.S. Patent 4,463,380), Tescher (U.S. Patent 4,541,012), and Southgate (U.S. Patent 4,282,511); claim 402 over Hooks, Schmidtlein (U.S. Patent 3,992,707), and Southgate.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-02893, filed September 2, 2026. Application No. 08/461,288, filed June 2, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the October 19, 1984 filing date of Application No. 06/663,094. Hyatt seeks a patent on 282 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on July 1, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 282 claims); undue multiplicity (all 282 claims); written description (claims 156, 165, 180, 194, 228, 229, and 293); obviousness (claim 293). The obviousness rejections are of claim 293 over Hooks (U.S. Patent 4,463,380), Sollish (U.S. Patent 4,028,934), and Southgate (U.S. Patent 4,282,511). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-03198, filed September 28, 2026. Application No. 08/465,203, filed June 5, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 270 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on July 27, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 270 claims); undue multiplicity (all 270 claims); written description (claims 181 and 196); obviousness (claims 181 and 196). The obviousness rejections are of claim 181 over Fleishman (U.S. Patent 4,232,313), Tugaye (U.S. Patent 4,476,494), and Carr, "Geometric Modeling" (1969); claim 196 over Fleishman, Drohan (U.S. Patent 3,715,594), and Mecklenborg (U.S. Patent 4,205,224). The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-03481, filed October 19, 2026. Application No. 08/461,572, filed June 2, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 280 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on August 17, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 280 claims); undue multiplicity (all 280 claims); written description (claims 216, 247, 334, 342, and 343).

Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-03531, filed October 22, 2026. Application No. 08/466,994, filed June 5, 1995, which the complaint says has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 293 claims, and the complaint says the Board affirmed on August 20, 2026. Rejections challenged: prosecution laches (all 293 claims); undue multiplicity (all 293 claims); written description (claims 112, 131, 176, 192, 203, 212, 224, 225, and 394); indefiniteness (claims 112, 176, 192, 203, 212, 224, 225, and 394); obviousness (claims 112, 212, and 225). The obviousness rejections are of claim 112 over King (U.S. Patent 4,100,916), Yin (U.S. Patent 4,521,688), and Bai (U.S. Patent 4,486,835); claims 212 and 225 over King and Yin. The docket shows initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

The five suits whose complaints are not available

The dockets in Nos. 1:26-cv-00968 and 1:26-cv-00969 (both filed April 9, 2026), 1:26-cv-02581 (filed August 14, 2026), 1:26-cv-03482 (filed October 19, 2026), and 1:26-cv-03570 (filed October 26, 2026) are captioned Hyatt v. Squires. The complaints in those five cases are not available. In Nos. 1:26-cv-00969, 1:26-cv-02581, and 1:26-cv-03570, the dockets show a complaint filed by Hyatt, a notice or report attaching the AO 120 patent report form, and initial assignment to District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff and Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis.

Earlier Hyatt section 145 litigation

In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit held that the PTO can assert prosecution laches in a section 145 action and remanded four of Hyatt's section 145 cases. On August 29, 2025, in Hyatt v. Stewart, Nos. 2018-2390 et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Columbia district court's judgment for the PTO on prosecution laches after remand, held that law of the case foreclosed Hyatt's arguments already rejected in Hirshfeld, and affirmed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over certain pending claims. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 29, 2026 (No. 25-1049) and denied rehearing on September 4, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch the dockets for the Director's responses to the complaints, for any order coordinating the cases, and for scheduling orders. Watch whether the Director relies on Hyatt v. Stewart on prosecution laches, and whether more suits on other Hyatt applications follow.