United States: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of 35 USC 145 Proceedings

On April 18, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Kappos v. Hyatt, affirming the Federal Circuit's en banc decision and holding that evidence not submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during prosecution is admissible in a civil action brought against the Director of the PTO under 35 U.S.C. § 145 subject only to the limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further held that the district court hearing a § 145 action must make a de novo finding "when the new evidence is presented on a disputed question of fact." Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred.

A patent applicant who appeals an examiner's denial to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) and is "dissatisfied with the decision" of the Board may either appeal to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 141 or bring a civil action against the Director of the PTO in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under § 145. The Federal Circuit's review in a § 141 appeal is expressly limited to the record before the Board. Section 145 includes no such express limitation.

The circumstances that brought Mr. Hyatt to file a § 145 action were unusual. Mr. Hyatt filed his patent application in 1995, prior to implementation of the GATT Uruguay Round changes to United States patent laws. The examiner rejected all 117 amended claims for lack of an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Mr. Hyatt appealed to the Board, which approved 39 claims and overturned 93% of the examiners objections, but sustained the examiner's written description rejections of the remaining 79 claims. Mr. Hyatt then filed a Request for Rehearing, which the Board dismissed on the grounds that he raised new arguments that could have been presented earlier in the prosecution or to the Board. In order to preserve his pre-GATT 17-year patent term, Mr. Hyatt filed a civil action against the Director under § 145, rather than continuing prosecution using available PTO procedures. Mr. Hyatt submitted a written declaration identifying portions of the specification that supported the claims that the Board held lacked written description. Mr. Hyatt's declaration was the only new evidence before the district court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that § 145 creates a sui generis statutory review regime that is distinct from review under other provisions of law. The Court rejected the PTO's argument that a § 145 action should be treated as an administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that therefore district courts should be limited to the record before the PTO and give deference to findings of fact made by the PTO as an executive agency. The Court reasoned that it makes little sense for a district court to defer to factual findings by the PTO when faced with new evidence because "[t]he [PTO], no matter how great its authority or expertise, cannot account for evidence that it has never seen." Instead, the Court held that a § 145 action is not a technical appeal of the Board's decision and therefore not subject to the rules of evidence that limit an appellate court's review to the record below. In reaching its holding, the Court relied on the evidentiary and procedural rules in effect when Congress passed the statute that originated the language of § 145 in 1870 and the 1884 Supreme Court decision in Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, each of which permitted the district court to consider evidence not previously presented to the PTO.

The Court recognized, but rightly dismissed, the concern that allowing new evidence and de novo findings in § 145 actions would encourage applicants to "withhold evidence from the PTO intentionally with the goal of presenting that evidence for the first time to a nonexpert judge." Such a withholding would be against the applicant's interest. As Justice Thomas explained: "An applicant who pursues such a strategy would be intentionally undermining his claims before the PTO on the speculative chance that he will gain some advantage in the 35 U.S.C. § 145 proceeding by presenting new evidence to a district court judge."

Concurring, Justice Sotomayor suggested that nothing in the majority's opinion would prevent a district court from using its discretion to exclude evidence deliberately suppressed or withheld in bad faith.

The decision is unlikely to increase the minimal number of § 145 actions. The circumstances that brought Mr. Hyatt to file an action under § 145—a 1995 filing date, a pre-GATT 17-year patent term and an application that claimed building blocks of the modern computer—were unique. Most applicants faced with the problem of needing to submit new evidence at a late stage of prosecution can easily do so through a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) at the PTO. An RCE is significantly faster and less costly than litigation in a district court. Additionally, as older applications age out of the application pool, particularly those filed before the implementation of the GATT Uruguay Round changes to United States patent laws, § 145 proceedings will become an even less desirable recourse for applicants who need to submit new evidence.

This decision likewise will have minimal impact on patent litigation. It provides little insight into the Court's standard of deference to PTO determinations. As the Court recognized, an action under § 145 is separate and distinct from judicial review under other provisions of law. Furthermore, the decision is consistent with the Court's decision last term in Microsoft v. i4i, in which the Court acknowledged that if the PTO did not have the opportunity to consider a piece of evidence relevant to an invalidity defense, the PTO's judgment may "lose significant force" and the presumption of validity may be "weakened" or "dissipated." Similarly, the Court here acknowledged that a decision by the PTO in the absence of a material piece of evidence may be given less weight than it would otherwise be accorded by a reviewing district court. In neither case, however, does the standard of review alter the established burden of proof. Finally, because the decision in Kappos is limited to a rarely-used statutory cause of action, it is unlikely to have broader implications for litigants.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions