Gilbert Hyatt sues USPTO director over 280 claims in decades-old patent application

Inventor challenges rejection of claims in an application filed in 1995, renewing questions over prosecution laches and the limits of patent examination.

Inventor Gilbert Hyatt has filed a new lawsuit against US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires, seeking a patent covering 280 claims in an application filed more than three decades ago.

The civil action, filed October 19 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenges a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirming the rejection of the claims on August 17, 2026. Hyatt is seeking relief under Section 145 of the Patent Act, which allows an applicant dissatisfied with a PTAB decision to bring a civil action seeking a judgment that the applicant is entitled to a patent.

According to Patent Litigator, the application, No. 08/461,572, was filed on June 2, 1995, and claims the benefit of an earlier application filed on June 15, 1983. Hyatt seeks a patent on 280 specified claims and challenges several grounds for rejection, including prosecution laches and undue multiplicity.

The lawsuit marks another stage in Hyatt’s decades-long efforts to secure patent protection for inventions described in a portfolio of long-pending applications. It also raises questions about the circumstances in which the USPTO can refuse patent claims because of delays during prosecution.

Prosecution laches at the center of the dispute

A central issue is prosecution laches, an equitable doctrine that can prevent an applicant from obtaining or enforcing patent rights following unreasonable and unexplained delay during prosecution, where the relevant legal requirements are met.

According to the complaint, the USPTO ap

plied prosecution laches to all 280 claims and treated the application as forfeited. Hyatt challenges that determination, arguing that prosecution laches is not a valid basis for rejecting his claims in the circumstances of the case.

He alleges that he did not cause the delays, that the USPTO itself suspended prosecution on multiple occasions, and that the agency failed to provide adequate advance warning that the application could be treated as forfeited. He also disputes whether the USPTO established the necessary intervening rights. These are allegations made by Hyatt, not findings by the court. The district court has not yet ruled on the merits of the new lawsuit.

Hyatt also challenges the rejection of all 280 claims on grounds of undue multiplicity. He argues that the claims define their scope with reasonable certainty and differ sufficiently in scope from one another. The complaint further contests written-description rejections affecting five claims and objections to the application’s specification and drawings.

The claims generally concern systems for controlling industrial robots, production-line or transfer-line robots, and remotely piloted vehicles using combinations of sensor information, stored data, and other inputs.

Earlier litigation creates a significant precedent

The new action follows years of litigation over Hyatt’s patent applications and the USPTO’s use of prosecution laches.

In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO could assert prosecution laches in a Section 145 action. The court vacated judgments in Hyatt’s favor in four separate cases involving other applications and remanded the proceedings.

Following further litigation, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment for the USPTO on prosecution-laches grounds on August 29, 2025, in Hyatt v. Stewart. The court also concluded that earlier rulings foreclosed Hyatt’s arguments that prosecution laches was unavailable as a defense in a Section 145 action.

The US Supreme Court declined to review that decision on June 29, 2026, and denied rehearing on September 4, 2026. Those proceedings provide important context for the latest lawsuit. Although the new case concerns a different application, the previous decisions could affect Hyatt’s arguments over whether prosecution laches can be applied and how the doctrine should operate.

The earlier rulings do not, however, determine the outcome of this new action. The court will need to consider the claims and procedural history of the application at issue, alongside the governing precedent.

What the case could mean for patent applicants

Section 145 offers an alternative route for an applicant seeking judicial relief after an adverse PTAB decision. Rather than pursuing a conventional appeal to the Federal Circuit, an applicant can bring a civil action against the USPTO director and seek a judgment establishing entitlement to a patent.

Hyatt is asking the district court to find that the challenged rejections were erroneous and that he is entitled to a patent on the 280 claims. He is also seeking a determination that the application’s specification and drawings comply with applicable legal requirements.

The dispute highlights the tension between an applicant’s ability to pursue patent protection through prolonged examination and the USPTO’s authority to prevent applications from remaining in prosecution for unreasonable periods.

For other patent applicants, the case could provide further guidance on the application of prosecution laches, particularly where an applicant argues that examination delays were attributable to the USPTO rather than the applicant.

Its wider significance will depend on how the court addresses Hyatt’s allegations and applies existing Federal Circuit precedent to the application filed in 1995.

Source: Michael P. Eddy, Patent Litigator, “Gilbert Hyatt Sues the USPTO Director Under Section 145 for a Patent on 280 Claims of His ‘572 Application”, October 20, 2026.

← Back to News