Hyatt’s Family Tree

by Dennis Crouch

In the ongoing saga between the USPTO and Hyatt, the USPTO recently submitted an interesting family tree of related applications filed by Gilbert Hyatt.  Nice redaction.

It is unclear to me why the entire block is redacted since some of the Hyatt patents have issued and therefore are public as is the application of any unpublished application whose filing-date benefit is claimed by one of issued patents.

HyattLawsuit

25 thoughts on “Hyatt’s Family Tree

  1. 8

    Before the circus participants completely move on from wanting to have a different mode of law based on the “who,” let’s put a link to the discussion from last fall that exhibits more of the same huuey from the same detractors:

    link to patentlyo.com

  2. 7

    Dennis: It is unclear to me why the entire block is redacted since some of the Hyatt patents have issued and therefore are public as is the application of any unpublished application whose filing-date benefit is claimed by one of issued patents

    I think the PTO is trying to avoid wasting time and money swatting away additional lawsuits like the one Hyatt’s attorneys filed a couple years ago (and lost):

    link to law360.com

    Hyatt, who has at least 75 issued patents, has another 399 pending applications filed before 1996 with an estimated 45,000 independent claims and 115,000 total claims, one of the largest claims sets the USPTO has ever seen. The applications also claim priority to overlapping applications dating back to the 1970s, and some are parents themselves to later applications. … The agency also asked Hyatt to choose 600 claims per group for examination to identify the earliest priority date for each of those claims and give a copy of pending claims.

    Hyatt wanted the USPTO to redact information from his submissions, but the agency found that the volume and complexity of the applications qualified for exceptions to patent confidentiality regulations.

    Try to believe it. Yes, this towering genius — the hero of the Patent Everything crowd — whose “contributions” to technology amount to a pile of squat on a rock as far as the history books are concerned,

    By way of contrast, Thomas Edison was the inventor on 1083 utility patents. I’m going to take a guess that most of those patents had less than 10 claims. That’s 10,083 claims.

    The next round of patent reform absolutely needs to address the future Gil Hyatt’s of the world. A simple reasonable cap on the number of claims that can be prosecuted, owned and/or controlled by one entity will go a long way towards preventing others from using a bucket of money and an army of lawyers to throw hornet’s nests inside the PTO. Yes, such changes might impact the “business model” of Nathan and his fellow travellers in the micromentalist innovation community. Does anyone care? Shall we take a poll?

    Plus we can watch the usual handwringers get their Constitutional panties knotted up over a change that will impact nobody except for a tiny, tiny tiny fraction of ultra wealthy people (who they never seem to tire of worshipping, as long as those wealthy people love junky patents!). Fun times!

    1. 7.1

      Aren’t you tired from saving all those children running through the fields of rye in your imagination?

    2. 7.2

      MM,

      Not sure I can agree with this. It seems completely reasonable that some very large entities should own a large number of patents.

      I agree with the intent, though, and perhaps there is a nuanced way to do this that eliminates the very worst behavior without eliminating most legitimate behavior.

      1. 7.2.1

        The itent is even more malacious to those that understand and respect the rule of law.

        Get out of law while you still have your politeness. Do not wait until you are bitter like Malcolm.

  3. 6

    Since Hyatt has sued the PTO all the way to the Supreme Court, even his pending applications are (largely) in the public record. What is to be gained by this double secret redaction? SAWS 2.0?

    1. 6.1

      Has anyone collected all of Hyatt’s “public” applications and put together a family tree similar to the one that the PTO has put together?

      I vaguely recall seeing something like that but perhaps what I recall seeing was some hacked/leaked stuff that nobody except me, the PTO, the Kenyan Usurper, the CIA, some judges, their clerks and Hyatt’s super privileged attorneys know about.

      Or else it was just “public” information that someone decided was worth publishing so the public could see what all the fuss was about inside its own patent office.

      In any event, if anyone knows about a linkie where this information can be readily obtained, please share it.

  4. 5

    Dennis: some of the Hyatt patents have issued and therefore are public as is the application of any unpublished application whose filing-date benefit is claimed by one of issued patents.

    Just to be clear, here: if an issued patent claims priority to an application, that application must also be published at least as early as the publication of the issued patent. Is there such a thing as a “public” but “unpublished” patent application?

    Hyatt’s published patents (71; 1976-present) and published applications (2; 2001-present) are viewable through the USPTO’s patent search site (using “hyatt” and “gilbert” in the inventor fields).

    link to patft.uspto.gov

    link to appft.uspto.gov
    I did just file an application, of course, claiming a method for searching that data from a mobile device and for using a computer “configured” to perform the search automatically and for using a hyperlink to initiate the search. Oh and also using a proxy server configured to facilitate “determining” the “sufficiency” of the outcome. Promote the progress!

    Innovating is so much fun when the bar is dropped to the ground. The incredibly important class of bottom-feeder patent attorneys is eternally grateful.

    1. 5.1

      Unpublished applications must be made public (through PAIR) if they are relied upon as priority documents in published or patented applications. Thus, provisional applications are not “published” but they do become publicly available once the follow-on non-provisional is either published or patented.

      1. 5.1.1

        I think they must be made public. I don’t think they have to be made available via PAIR. I don’t think PAIR has much that was filed prior to 2001 or so.

    2. 5.2

      Don’t forget that, thanks in considerable part to the PTO, Hyatt has “submarine” applications pending so long that they were filed back in the “dark ages” [pun intended], i.e., before publication of U.S. applications was required or enabled. If not-refiled, these “ancient mariners” may also appear mysteriously out of the PTO fog bank with full 17 year “Flying Dutchman” patent terms from whenever they eventually issue regardless of how long the have been allowed to pend [and regardless of how new their many added new claims are].
      As Hal Wegner has pointed out, where else in the world can you keep adding infinite numbers of new claims to applications an infinite number of years later than they the application was originally filed? What kind of “compact prosecution” system, and PTO management docket control, is that?

      1. 5.2.1

        PM: As Hal Wegner has pointed out, where else in the world can you keep adding infinite numbers of new claims to applications an infinite number of years later than they the application was originally filed? What kind of “compact prosecution” system, and PTO management docket control, is that?

        Surely Hal isn’t blaming Wyatt’s exploitation of the system on the USPTO.

        The “old” pre-GATT system was tailor made for submariners and once the doors were opened so that any speculator/grifter could obtain claims to whatever functions he/she could dream up (enablement? structures? please — these brilliant people are too important to be bothered with petty details!), the habitual bottom feeders who had the money to rush in did exactly that.

        What’s really important to remember is that the same folks who bitterly complained about KSR, about Bilksi, about Prometheus, about Alice and about the AIA also complained about the changes that took place in 1995 and demanded that they still be entitled to file applications secretly in the US. But they are very serious people and they only have everybody’s best interests in mind! We must listen to them because otherwise we’ll all be like the Amish. Or something.

      2. 5.2.2

        regardless of how long the have been allowed to pend [and regardless of how new their many added new claims are].

        Allowed to pend? I wasn’t aware there was a mechanism by which the office could stop pointless applications. In fact, it’s something I’ve been complaining about for years.

      3. 5.2.3

        The submarine applications can be defeated through laches, just as Lemelson’s patents were. The PTO tried to kill Hyatt’s applications through various means, and has lost.

        I think its unfair to cast Hyatt as a submarine troll. Hyatt filed suit for an application PENDING since at least 1990, well before GATT. The PTO could have examined and issued his patent before GATT was enacted, and it would have already expired. Instead, the PTO sat on it, and had to be sued to force it to examine it. Its a bit unfair to accuse Hyatt of hiding if the PTO has refused to allow Hyatt to surface for 35 years.

        Also, the problem is not entirely limited to Hyatt. Even after aggressive attempts to limit PTA, every week we see patents with PTA over 5 years.

        1. 5.2.3.1

          I think its unfair to cast Hyatt as a submarine troll.

          Aw, poor Gil Hyatt.

          I feel so sorry that he exploited the patent system to reap undeserved millions off a bogus patent. And then he wasn’t treated like a big rich hero who gets whatever he wants. Boohoohoo. It really tears at my heartstrings.

          It must be so difficult to have so much money and so many submarine patents and so many lawyers, provide little else of real value to ordinary people, and yet be labeled as a “submarine troll.” What an unholy nightmare! It’s like Germany in 1942.

          Even after aggressive attempts to limit PTA, every week we see patents with PTA over 5 years.

          Really? Are you keeping track? I’d like to see the stats if they are available.

          Presumably these are applications that were filed at the height of the exponential increase in patent filing that occurred after the CAFC cast the doors wide open to the lowest form of innovation. Personally, I’ve never a let an application go unexamined for more than 6 months without getting on the horn with the PTO and making something happen.

          Then again, some applicants enjoy the delay because they are pursuing functionally claimed junk that “ripens” when someone far more skilled than the applicant actually goes through the trouble of making and marketing a working product that embodies the applicants’ micromental functionality.

  5. 3

    More likely, the aggressive redactions were motivated by the desire to not highlight the obvious — that many of these patent applications are super old and haven’t been acted on in ages.

    Hyatt’s applications need to all get published so people in the industry can start preparing IPRs and other post-grant challenges to kill them once they issue. The PTO in decades of examination won’t be able to do half the job of prior art analysis that a motivated technology industry will do in two months.

  6. 2

    Dennis,

    I tweeted at you, but in case you don’t see it (and so I can provide more information in more than 140 characters):

    I’m assuming this came from a filing in the district court case. If so, we (EFF) may be able to help you (or anyone else for that matter, that needs pro bono assistance) move to intervene in order to have documents unsealed/unredacted to the extent possible under the First Amendment.

    I’m well aware that many people on this board are not in agreement with EFF’s position on software patents. Regardless however, and putting that aside, EFF is also a strong believer that more information is better than less, and that the First Amendment requires the courts be as open as possible.

    We cannot fully understand our patent system when important information that should be public is kept from the public, whether that be through filing improper redactions or through keeping PTO procedures secret. EFF has moved to intervene in other cases to bring information to the public and we would try to support others who would do the same.

    Vera

  7. 1

    It so what if the PTO was overly cautious and redacted more than necessary? It’s good enough for government work.

Comments are closed.