Hyatt v. Kappos
251 F. Supp. 3d 181
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gilbert P. Hyatt sued the USPTO Director challenging PTO decisions and filed extensive materials under seal; Court must decide what to unseal.
- Parties agree to use the Hubbard six-factor test to resolve sealing disputes but disagree on outcome and weight of statutes on confidentiality.
- Hyatt contends 35 U.S.C. §122 keeps patent applications/prosecution confidential and therefore much should remain sealed; PTO argues litigation openness limits §122’s effect.
- The sealed record includes court memorandum opinions, party briefs, administrative records, expert reports, and patent prosecution materials—totaling many thousands of pages.
- The Court reviewed proposed redactions, found many justifications too broad (e.g., blanket "valuable trade secrets"), and directed more specific, itemized justifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether documents filed in this litigation should remain sealed | §122 preserves confidentiality of patent applications/prosecution; secrecy is core to patent system | Court filings are presumptively public; §122 governs PTO handling, not what must remain sealed in litigation | Court applied Hubbard factors and favored public access to court orders and materials relied upon by the Court, while allowing selective sealing of supporting administrative records |
| Whether 35 U.S.C. §122 controls the Hubbard analysis | §122 "controls" and its statutory privacy interest should outweigh Hubbard factors | §122 governs PTO practice but does not bind the court; parties invoking §122 conceded it is not dispositive | Court held §122 is not binding on sealing in litigation and declined to treat it as dispositive; applied Hubbard instead |
| Weight of public access vs. plaintiff privacy/property interests | Strong privacy and property interest in application details that justify broad sealing | Strong presumption of public access (especially where government is a party) and need to understand court rulings; selective redaction sufficient | Court found public access interest strong for opinions/briefs relied on by Court; recognized privacy interest in prosecution files and allowed those supporting exhibits to be sealed to requested extent |
| Standard/level of specificity required for redactions | Broad labels (e.g., "valuable trade secrets") sufficient to justify redaction | Court requires granular, document-by-document justification for each redaction | Court ordered Hyatt to provide specific justifications for each proposed redaction (within 20 days and periodically thereafter); agreed redactions permitted for briefs but supporting exhibits generally sealed if requested |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir.) (establishing six-factor test for sealing judicial records)
- In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657 (D.C. Cir.) (statutory confidentiality can very rarely outweigh public-access factors)
- Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir.) (heightened public interest when government is a party)
- Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir.) (strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings)
- E.E.O.C. v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir.) (restating Hubbard factors)
- McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 919 (D.D.C.) (parties who invoke judicial process have a reduced privacy claim)