No. 18-1285

Gilbert P. Hyatt, et al. v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law mandamus manual-of-patent-examining-procedure patent-act patent-and-trademark-office patent-appeal patent-appeal-rights patent-appeals patent-examination patent-examiner patent-office patent-office-procedure patent-prosecution statutory-interpretation steinmetz-v-allen
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Environmental Securities Patent Trademark Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether MPEP § 1207.04 violates patent applicants' statutory right of appeal following a second rejection

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 134 of the Patent Act provides that an “applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Section 6 provides, in turn, that the “Appeal Board shall...on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents pursuant to section 134.” Interpreting those provisions’ predecessors, U.S. ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy when the Patent and Trademark Office refused to allow an appeal to proceed to the Appeal Board’s predecessor. 192 U.S. 548 (1904). A century later, the PTO adopted a rule, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1207.04, authorizing patent examiners to block an applicant’s appeal from ever reaching the Appeal Board by reopening patent prosecution to enter additional rejections. Accordingly, the question presented is: Whether MPEP § 1207.04 violates patent applicants’ statutory right of appeal following a second rejection.

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-24
Reply of petitioners Gilbert P. Hyatt, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-07-10
Brief of respondent Iancu, Andrei, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office in opposition filed.
2019-06-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 10, 2019.
2019-06-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 10, 2019 to July 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-05-10
Brief amicus curiae of Raymond A. Mercado, Ph.D. filed.
2019-05-10
Brief amici curiae of U.S. Inventor Small Business Technology Council, et al. filed.
2019-04-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 10, 2019 to June 10, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-04-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 10, 2019.
2019-04-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 10, 2019)

Attorneys

Gilbert P. Hyatt, et al.
Andrew Michael GrossmanBaker & Hostetler LLP, Petitioner
Andrew Michael GrossmanBaker & Hostetler LLP, Petitioner
Iancu, Andrei
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Raymond A. Mercado, Ph.D.
Paul Douglas Kamenar — Amicus
Paul Douglas Kamenar — Amicus
U.S. Inventor Small Business Technology Council, Orbital Research Inc., and Cleveland Medical Devices Inc.
Maura Kathleen MoranCambridge Technology Law, LLC, Amicus
Maura Kathleen MoranCambridge Technology Law, LLC, Amicus