Gilbert Hyatt Sues the USPTO Director Under Section 145 for a Patent on 280 Claims of His '572 Application.

The parties and the court

The case is Hyatt v. Squires, No. 1:26-cv-03481 (E.D. Va.), filed October 19, 2026. The defendant is John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, sued in his official capacity only. The complaint describes Hyatt as an engineer, scientist, and inventor who has obtained more than 70 issued patents, and says he is 88 years of age and resides in Clark County, Nevada. Jurisdiction is pleaded 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. The complaint says it is timely under 35 U.S.C. 145 and 37 CFR 90.3(a)(3)(i) and that the matter has not been appealed to the Federal Circuit. Hyatt is represented by Baker & Hostetler LLP (Mark W. DeLaquil, Andrew M. Grossman, whose pro hac vice application the complaint lists as forthcoming, and Renee M. Knudsen).

The application and the claims

Application No. 08/461,572 was filed June 2, 1995, and the complaint says it has the benefit of the June 15, 1983 filing date of Application No. 06/504,691. Hyatt seeks a patent on 280 claims (claims 98-237, 239-254, 256-263, 265-293, 296-301, 303-309, 311, 313, 315-321, 323-327, 329-374, 376-378, 380-383, 386-389, 392, 393, and 397) and on no other claims in the application.

The complaint says the claims are generally directed to one of two kinds of subject matter. The first is controlling controlling a production line robot, a transfer line robot, or a remotely piloted vehicle based on information generated by extrapolation or incremental processing of attitude information from both a gyro and a compass, database information stored in a charge storage memory, and ultrasound, video camera, or infrared information, without recitation of satellite or inertial navigation. The second is communicating information to a data link and performing specified operations based on iterative information generated from sensor information, inertial navigation information, information communicated from a data link, and charges or information accessed from a memory using database memory management operations, without recitation of camera, video, radar, or graphics. The complaint says each claim has ascertainable differences in scope from the claims of Hyatt's co-pending applications.

Prosecution history in the complaint

The 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. It alleges Hyatt never made a dilatory filing and that the PTO suspended prosecution at least six times between May 2007 and September 2011 and entered new grounds of rejection as late as April 2022.

It alleges that the PTO took no action on the merits for nearly four years after a March 1997 response and for more than twelve years after an August 2001 response; that in October 2013 the PTO issued a "Requirement" asking Hyatt to select 600 claims for examination across the applications of the "450 Family" and to identify priority support for claims said to be entitled to dates before October 15, 1991; that Hyatt responded in January 2014; and that final rejections in December 2019 and November 2020 were each followed by a Rule 129(a) submission. After an April 2022 final rejection, Hyatt appealed in September 2022, the examiner's answer came in January 2024, and Hyatt filed a reply brief in June 2024. The complaint alleges the examiner's answer was late under a commitment the PTO made in Hyatt v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 1:14-cv-01300 (E.D. Va.). It says that on August 17, 2026, the Board affirmed the rejection of each of the 280 claims on at least one ground. The Board decision is not on the public docket.

The rejections Hyatt challenges

• Written description: claims 216, 247, 334, 342, and 343 were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The complaint alleges the disclosure shows possession of each as of the effective filing date.
• Prosecution laches: all 280 claims were rejected and the application held forfeited. The complaint alleges prosecution laches 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, and that it has unclean hands. It says Hyatt intends to argue, as necessary, for reversal of existing law on the doctrine.
• Undue multiplicity: all 280 claims were rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The complaint alleges each claim informs with reasonable certainty about its scope and differs in scope from the others and from the claims of his other applications.
• Objections: the complaint alleges the PTO's objections to the specification and drawings are erroneous.

Relief sought

The single count seeks issuance of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 145, which allows an applicant dissatisfied with a Board decision to obtain a judgment that the applicant "is entitled to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision" of the Board. The prayer asks for decrees that Hyatt is entitled to a patent on the 280 claims, that their rejections are erroneous, that the Director is authorized to issue a patent on them, and that the specification and drawings comply with the law.

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, vacated judgments for Hyatt in four section 145 actions on other applications filed before June 8, 1995, held that the PTO had shown unreasonable and unexplained delay, and remanded on prejudice. After a bench trial of nearly three weeks, the District of Columbia district court (Senior Judge Royce C. Lamberth) entered judgment for the PTO. On August 29, 2025, in Hyatt v. Stewart, Nos. 2018-2390 et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment on prosecution laches, held that law of the case foreclosed Hyatt's arguments that the defense is unavailable in a section 145 action, and affirmed that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over pending claims for which the Board had reversed the examiner's rejections. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 29, 2026 (No. 25-1049) and denied rehearing on September 4, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch for the Director's answer or a motion under Rule 12, and for the scheduling order. Watch whether the Director relies on Hyatt v. Stewart on prosecution laches, and whether Hyatt presents the argument the complaint previews for changing existing law on the doctrine.