HYATT V. PATO

• Sep 24 2018
|
• Category: CAFC Updates

Gilbert Hyatt, a named inventor on more than 70 issued patents and approximately 400 pending patent applications, sued the United States Patent and Trademark Office alleging that the PTO acted unlawfully in denying his petition for rulemaking. His petition requested that the PTO either promulgate a rule repealing (or declaring unenforceable) MPEP § 1207.04 which allows an examiner to reopen prosecution to enter a new ground of rejection in response to appellant’s brief. Mr. Hyatt appeals from the district court’s grant of the PTO’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFC reverses the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment because Mr. Hyatt’s claims are either time-barred (filed outside of the six-year statute of limitations period) or reliant on mistaken statutory interpretation.   View Decision