Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The phrase “waiting for him to die” comes from the title of a 2018 VentureBeat feature about inventor Gil Hyatt; it is not a finding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had that intent. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment for the agency on prosecution laches in four patent applications, while ruling that a separate set of pending claims was outside the district court’s jurisdiction.
Where the headline comes from
Dean Takahashi’s August 31, 2018, VentureBeat feature used the title “Why 80-year-old inventor Gil Hyatt says patent office is waiting for him to die.” A 2020 law review article identifies the feature and its title, but the original feature and interview context are not available in the court opinions discussed here. The headline should therefore be understood as the feature’s framing—not as a verified verbatim quote from Hyatt or a finding about the USPTO’s motives. The law review citation
What happened in Hyatt’s patent cases
Gilbert P. Hyatt is an inventor and registered patent agent. The Federal Circuit says he began filing patent applications with the USPTO in the early 1970s. In the months before June 8, 1995, he filed nearly 400 applications, which the court calls the “GATT Bubble Applications.” The 2025 appeal concerned four of those applications, not all of them. Federal Circuit opinion, August 29, 2025
According to the Federal Circuit, examiners rejected most, if not all, claims in each of the four applications. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed some rejections and reversed others. Hyatt then pursued review under 35 U.S.C. § 145, a route that allows an applicant in specified circumstances to seek district-court review of a final USPTO decision.
#1 Best Overall
After a trial, the district court ruled for the USPTO on prosecution laches. In its 2025 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment for the agency in the four applications before it. The district court also described Hyatt as having received more than seventy issued patents and characterized his prosecution conduct in the litigated cases as unreasonable and inexcusable; those are the district court’s descriptions and findings, not a broader assessment of his applications. District court findings and conclusions, May 16, 2024
What prosecution laches means in this dispute
Prosecution laches is a defense concerning unreasonable and inexcusable delay in pursuing patent claims, assessed in the circumstances of a particular case. In Hyatt’s litigation, the appellate court addressed whether the USPTO could raise that defense in a Section 145 action and left the judgment for the agency in place. The outcome depends on the record and findings in these cases; it does not establish that every old or delayed application is barred.
Why the court treated some claims differently
The appeal also involved claims that remained pending and were not in dispute before the district court. The Federal Circuit held that the district court lacked Article III jurisdiction over that separate set of claims. That ruling is distinct from its affirmance of the prosecution-laches judgment: the four litigated applications received a decision on the defense, while the pending claims could not be decided as a live controversy in that court. Federal Circuit opinion
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Did the Supreme Court take up the case?
A docket aggregation refreshed August 31, 2026, reports that the Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 29, 2026, and that a petition for rehearing was filed July 24, 2026. The available account does not establish whether the Court acted on the rehearing petition or whether there have been later filings. Supreme Court Report docket aggregation
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Best Value
What the decision does—and does not—say
- It affirms the USPTO’s prosecution-laches defense in four applications before the Federal Circuit.
- It separately finds no Article III jurisdiction over a set of pending claims that were not in dispute before the district court.
- It does not find that the patent office was waiting for Hyatt to die, nor does it establish that the agency acted with that motive.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
