Desperate Patent Troll’s Plan to get Trump to Unblock his old patent applications to replace tariff games

by Stephan Kinsella on January 23, 2026

In a recent podcast episode ,Greenland, Guns, and Money, Richard Epstein predicts Trump’s use of tariffs under IEEPA might be nixed by the Supreme Court, and that he has suggested that if this happens he will find some other way to do it, but it’s not clear what.

There is a recent IPWatchdog podcast interview of Gil Hyatt, Pioneering AI Innovations and Legacy: A Conversation with Inventor Gil Hyatt / IPWatchdog Unleashed, by patent shill and blowhard-buffoon Gene Quinn, who has never met a patent he doens’t like (he has argued for a “patent stimulus plan”: “If we really want to get out of this economic downturn we need a Patent Stimulus Plan. … What we need to do is have President Obama issue an Executive Order directing the Patent Office to start allowing patents.” ).¹

As best I can tell, Hyatt made some money licensing patents decades ago on some technology—though he claims he’s not a patent troll!:

I was fortunate enough to have innovations in a whole 7:51 bunch of those areas and got a lot of patents on them and a lot of 7:56 companies licensed my patents. I would like to mention that with all the licenses that I have, I never had to 8:04 file a notice of infringement or litigation on patents. I the all of the 8:12 companies settled for fairly reasonable terms.

See! He’s not a troll!² He didn’t even (have to) sue! The threat of “inviting a license” was enough to extort money! A little letter to someone telling them you have a patent is just an … invitation to negotiate! Why, it’s not a threat all! Nosirree!³ These guys don’t like being called trolls! They are not “bad actors”! They are not “nefarious”! They are not just shakedown artists!

Gene Quinn (09:58): Yeah. And that’s one of the shocking things and I think cuz people just I get this sense that they think of you I’ll give you an opportunity to address this. I mean, you know, people think of you as a patent troll, but how can you be a patent troll if you weren’t suing people? I mean, because today what we think of patent trolls is are these people. They’re suing dozens if not hundreds of people all at the same time. Sometimes literally on the same day. They’re trying to settle with everybody. Sometimes with claims that aren’t all that great, maybe don’t even seem to cover too much what the defendant is doing. And then that’s a very different model than somebody who’s invented and now is trying to license and put the invention into the stream of commerce so others can make money doing it. Those are different business models.

Gil Hyatt (10:46): Very definitely. And that patent troll image and other things like that are character assassination that the adversaries were using to mischaracterize me.

Gene Quinn (10:58): Yeah. And I think it’s probably always a mischaracterization when it is when it is used because ironically and I don’t understand why this is so much. But it seems to me that the people who should be characterized as those bad actors, the nefarious characters, the ones that are suing, spending a few hundred to file a federal complaint and then being willing to accept 5, 10, 15, $20,000 to settle. Well, that’s just a shakedown. I mean, that’s not a legitimate dispute. They’re not really trying to license technology. So, there are bad actors out there, but those are never the ones that people seem to complain about. They seem to complain about the people who have real technology that they just don’t want to pay for because it’s very valuable and they don’t want to have to probably pay 100 cents on the dollar.

Anyway—Hyatt apparently has lots of very old patent applications that kept getting blocked by SAWS or something.⁴

A quick explainer: one problem with patents in the past was the submarine patent:⁵ patents that remained hidden in the application process for years and surfaced only after an industry had adopted the technology. Then it is issued, and made public, and it “surfaces,” like a submarine no one knew was there, and the patentee then demands royalties. One purpose for switching from a first-to-invent to a first-to-invent system in Obama’s America Invents Act was to address this problem.⁶ Under the new system, your patent lasts 20 years from the date of filing, and only comes into force after it issues, which takes typically 1-3 years, leaving you with a patent term of about 18-17 years or so. So you file a patent on day 1, and if it takes 2 years to issue, you have 18 years left to extort people. But if you drag it out and wait to year 19, then you only have 1 year of term left. Not 17 as in the older system.

In any case, patents filed before the transition to the new system are grandfathered in, such as some of Hyatt’s which he claims have some stuff in there that covers AI tech now. He implies that if they issued they could apply to lots of modern AI tech.⁷ But the SAWS program apparently started blocking his patents, probably because they were seen as an abuse of the system—a sort of patent troll problem SAWS was meant to rein in.

So Hyatt seems to be hoping Trump and new pro-patent USPTO leadership will get his old patents revived. Even if they are only US patents, which are supposed to apply domestically, they still apply to products produced overseas using a process patented in the US (35 U.S.C. § 271(g)). So the idea is that thousands of Chinese factories use AI tech to make products, and if they are made with a process patented in the US, then the patentee can run to the ITC to block imports. He claims he is in contact with the Trump administration and is trying to entice them to help them get his old patents examined and then issued, with the promise that he could license them for free, under Trump’s direction, to US corporations so that they could then file ITC actions to block imports from Chinese factories. This could be some sort of substitute for Trump’s negotiating power with China etc. if his use of tariffs is reined in by the courts.

It all sounds rather desperate and far fetched and comical, but you never know with Trump. You just see Hyatt pestering lawyers and examiners for the past few decades, grousing that the SAWS program was treating him like a troll, and now pestering Trump’s people with the vague promises that if the help him get his patents, American companies can use them to block imports even if Trump can’t use tariffs. Or something. Anyway an interesting odd intersection of tariff and patent stuff.

It’s all somewhat convoluted and confusing, so here is a Grok summary/analysis, followed by the transcript.

Concise:

Here is a more concise version of the assessment of Hyatt’s claims regarding SAWS and his overall credibility:

Credibility of Hyatt’s SAWS claims

Core allegation is credible: SAWS was a real, secret USPTO program (1994–2015, with a reported resurgence 2021–2025) that flagged “sensitive” or pioneering applications for extra scrutiny and indefinite delays, without applicant notice or public record. Hyatt’s applications were explicitly caught in it (confirmed in court documents and former USPTO official declarations).
Supporting evidence: Former officials (Kazenske, Razavi, Wong) testified to deliberate hold policies, withdrawn allowances, and applicant “look-out lists.” Class actions and APA filings revealed similar harms to small inventors (lost funding, bankruptcies). No full USPTO accounting of affected cases has ever been released.
Counterpoints: Courts have upheld laches against some Hyatt applications (e.g., CAFC 2025 ruling barring four 1995 cases), attributing part of the extreme delay to his own tactics—filing ~400 complex, placeholder-heavy applications with massive amendments and priority chains that overwhelmed examiners.
“Dark reasons” / theft insinuation: Speculative and unproven. SAWS aimed to avoid “embarrassing” or submarine-style patents, not to steal technology. No evidence of literal theft.
Overall: Hyatt is not a pure crank—his experience reflects documented USPTO misconduct—but he contributed significantly to the backlog through aggressive filing practices. The suppression narrative is plausible and partially substantiated, though his portrayal of pure malice overlooks mutual responsibility.

On the Trump / ITC / tariff-alternative plan

Creative but a longshot.

Legally possible: U.S. process patents + § 271(g) + ITC § 337 exclusion orders can block imports of foreign-made goods using patented processes (even if made abroad). ITC discovery can probe foreign factories; general exclusion orders are broad.
Practical obstacles:
- Patents still pending 40+ years; laches and validity risks high.
- Old (1980s) claims unlikely to cover modern AI (e.g., transformers, LLMs).
- Proving infringement in 30,000 Chinese factories is resource-intensive.
- Broad enforcement risks WTO challenges, supply-chain chaos, retaliation.
Political odds: Requires USPTO to issue (possible via administration pressure), strong domestic-industry standing, and willingness to weaponize IP for trade. Niche tool, not a scalable tariff replacement.

In short: SAWS claims have real foundation but are overstated; the grand AI-donation / trade-barrier vision is imaginative philanthropy with low probability of execution.

More detailed:

Summary of the Transcript

The transcript is from the “IP Watchdog Unleashed” podcast episode featuring an interview with inventor Gilbert (Gil) Hyatt, hosted by Gene Quinn. It begins with introductions, noting Hyatt’s background as a prolific inventor, electrical engineer (degrees from UC Berkeley and USC), and first-generation American whose family pursued the “American dream.” Hyatt discusses his career starting in advanced Cold War technologies at companies like Hughes Aircraft, leading to his invention of the single-chip microcomputer in the 1970s, which he commercialized through his venture-backed company, Microcomputer. This evolved into broader innovations in areas like illumination control, image processing, signal processing, and AI, resulting in numerous patents licensed to companies (e.g., via Philips to firms like Sony and Panasonic) without Hyatt ever initiating infringement lawsuits or notices—he settled amicably, bringing revenue and taxes back to the U.S.

Hyatt addresses misconceptions, denying the “patent troll” label as “character assassination” by adversaries, and explains that he never aggressively litigated; instead, others filed declaratory judgments against him. A significant portion covers his disputes with the USPTO: He hasn’t received a patent since around 1997 due to what he calls deliberate suppression via the secret SAWS (Sensitive Application Warning System) program, which targeted pioneering inventions to prevent issuance. He alleges USPTO-caused delays, including over 2,000 suspensions (equating to “a thousand years” cumulatively), repeated reopenings of prosecution after 14 years of appeals, and violations of GATT legislation meant to expedite patents. Hyatt mentions ongoing litigation (e.g., a class action on SAWS revealing harms to small inventors, like bankruptcies or lost grants) and protective orders limiting his disclosures, but notes former high-ranking USPTO officials testified to malice in handling his applications. He emphasizes that delays are the USPTO’s fault, not his, as he actively petitioned for progress.

Shifting to current work, Hyatt reveals pioneering AI patent applications filed in 1984 (deemed allowable by appeals boards and courts, with no rejections or laches issues), covering broad AI applications in manufacturing, communications, image processing, education, and trade. He plans to assign these and other patents to a nonprofit “Pioneering AI Foundation” (awaiting final input from the Trump administration after a year’s collaboration) as a “250th birthday present” to America, aiming to “repay” the country for opportunities given to his immigrant family. The foundation would license the technology at low rates to U.S. companies while using ITC (International Trade Commission) exclusion orders to block imports of foreign goods made via infringing AI manufacturing processes, aiding U.S. trade dominance and serving as a non-tariff tool for the Trump administration’s negotiations—especially if Supreme Court challenges limit tariffs. Hyatt highlights AI’s potential for education (e.g., an “AI friend” for one-on-one STEM and innovation training with preschoolers) and manufacturing, noting China’s 30,000 AI-using factories as a target.

Hyatt portrays himself as frugal (driving a 1992 Toyota Celica, not taking a foundation salary) and motivated by philanthropy, not profit, having already invested millions. The interview ends with Quinn commending Hyatt’s generosity and expressing interest in future updates, followed by podcast closing remarks.

What Hyatt Is Alleging Regarding SAWS

In the transcript, Hyatt alleges that the USPTO implemented a “secret program called SAWS” (an acronym he doesn’t expand but implies stands for something like “Sensitive Application Warning System”) specifically to “suppress” and “prevent the patents from issuing on cutting edge inventions.” He claims this program targeted his “pioneering patent applications,” leading to deliberate delays of decades (still ongoing), with the USPTO deciding in 1997: “no more patents for Hyatt.” Hyatt ties this to broader USPTO misconduct, including over 2,000 six-month suspensions on his applications, repeated reopenings of prosecution after years of appeals, and violations of laws like GATT to expedite issuance. He mentions a class action lawsuit against the USPTO over SAWS, where discovery (partially protected) revealed harms to other inventors, such as small entities losing funding or going bankrupt due to stalled patents. Hyatt insinuates malice, calling it “character assassination” to block his work, and notes that former USPTO officials testified in his APA (Administrative Procedure Act) case to confirm the program’s role in stalling applications. He doesn’t explicitly say the USPTO “stole” his tech but implies dark motives for suppression, such as preventing cutting-edge (e.g., AI) innovations from entering the public domain or being licensed, while blaming him for the resulting delays in laches defenses.

Explanation of SAWS and Assessment of Hyatt’s Claims

Explanation of SAWS: The Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) was a real, internal USPTO program from 1994 to 2015 designed to flag patent applications deemed “sensitive” for extra scrutiny by leadership. Criteria included broad or pioneering claims on controversial topics (e.g., submarine patents that could “embarrass” the agency, technologies like AI, pharmaceuticals for diseases like AIDS or cancer, or inventions with potential media backlash). Once flagged, applications entered a “black hole” of heightened review, often leading to indefinite delays, additional quality checks, suspensions, or rejections—without notifying applicants or documenting the flag in public file wrappers. This secrecy prevented inventors from challenging or addressing the issues, violating transparency under laws like the Privacy Act (as alleged in lawsuits). SAWS was minimally used but disproportionately affected small inventors with innovative claims. It was retired in 2015 under Director Michelle Lee due to limited benefits and controversy. However, a similar “SAWS II” reportedly resurfaced from 2021 to 2025 under the Biden administration, involving post-allowance reviews by the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) that secretly blocked issuances without reopening prosecution or applicant notice—ended by Acting Director Coke Stewart in spring 2025. SAWS aimed to protect the USPTO from issuing problematic patents but was criticized as an extra-statutory tool for arbitrary delays, with no full accounting of affected applications ever provided.

Assessment of Hyatt’s Claims’ Credibility: Hyatt’s core claims about SAWS suppressing his patents are credible and substantiated by evidence, though his insinuations of “dark reasons” (e.g., implying theft or broader conspiracy) veer into speculative territory, making him sound somewhat crank-like without direct proof. SAWS was confirmed real by the USPTO itself in responses to FOIA requests and litigation; Hyatt’s applications were explicitly flagged (discovered in 2017), as admitted in court documents. Declarations from former USPTO officials (e.g., Edward Kazenske, who ordered a “no-patents-for-Hyatt” policy in 1997; Michael Razavi, noting applications held “on hold” for years; Peter Wong, linking SAWS to an “applicant Look-Out list”) corroborate deliberate stalls, including withdrawals of allowances and ad hoc rules against issuance. Courts (e.g., in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld) have acknowledged USPTO delays but upheld laches against Hyatt in some cases (e.g., CAFC’s 2025 affirmance barring four 1995 applications due to his “unreasonable delay”), attributing part of the backlog to his prosecution style: filing ~400 complex, placeholder applications in 1995 with massive amendments (e.g., expanding to 300+ claims each), priority chains from the 1970s/80s, and portfolio-wide claim shifting that “overwhelmed” examiners. This led to $10M+ USPTO costs vs. Hyatt’s $7M fees.

Hyatt has legitimate inventions (e.g., U.S. Patent 3,645,013 for the single-chip microprocessor, licensed widely), and his delays (no issuances since ~1995) align with SAWS timelines. Class actions (e.g., 2019 suit with Paul Morinville alleging Privacy Act violations) and APA challenges reveal similar harms to others, supporting his victim narrative. However, courts have rejected some claims (e.g., Ninth Circuit’s 2021 ruling that PRA doesn’t apply to individualized USPTO communications; dismissals of “de facto no-patents” policies). His theory of USPTO “stealing” tech isn’t explicitly stated but implied through suppression motives—possibly to avoid submarine patents or embarrassment, not literal theft. Overall, he’s not a full crank; his experiences reflect real USPTO flaws (e.g., SAWS as a “catch-22” for pioneers), but his extreme filing tactics contributed, and portraying it as pure malice overlooks mutual faults. Substantiated elements make his story plausible, especially for pre-GATT “submarine” patent concerns during the Cold War era.

Explanation of Hyatt’s Suggestion Regarding His Patents, the Trump Administration, and Blocking Imports

Hyatt proposes assigning his pending AI-related patents (filed 1984, covering broad processes for AI in manufacturing, education, communications, etc.) to a nonprofit Pioneering AI Foundation. Once issued, the foundation would license them at “enormous reductions” (essentially low-cost or favorable terms) to U.S. companies, enabling domestic innovation and dominance in AI as prioritized by the Trump administration. For foreign competitors (e.g., China’s 30,000 AI-using factories), the foundation/U.S. licensees could file complaints with the International Trade Commission (ITC, not FTC—likely a typo in your query) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1337). This allows exclusion orders barring U.S. importation of infringing articles.

Key to this is U.S. process patent law (35 U.S.C. § 271(g)): While U.S. patents generally don’t cover acts abroad, importing, selling, or using a product made by a patented process (even if the process occurs overseas) infringes if it would infringe if done in the U.S. Hyatt’s patents focus on AI manufacturing processes (not just end products), so goods produced in foreign factories using infringing AI methods become infringing upon import. The ITC investigates quickly (~12-18 months) and can issue general exclusion orders blocking broad categories of imports (e.g., any products from infringing processes, potentially 100,000+ types from those 30,000 factories). Discovery allows probing foreign factories’ “guts” for evidence. This creates a non-tariff trade barrier, adjustable to administration goals (e.g., negotiate exclusions for allies), as a “win-win” to “make America great again” and counter Supreme Court limits on tariffs.

Whether This Could Provide Trump an Alternative to Block Imports If Tariffs Are Blocked, and How It Might Work

Yes, this could theoretically serve as a viable alternative non-tariff mechanism to block or negotiate imports, leveraging IP law for trade protection—it’s a established tool used in cases like pharma (e.g., blocking generics made abroad via patented processes) or tech (e.g., Apple’s ITC wins against Samsung). However, it’s a desperate longshot due to practical hurdles, as Hyatt’s patents face issuance delays, validity risks, and narrow applicability to modern AI. Here’s how it might work and an assessment:

How It Might Work:

Patent Issuance and Assignment: Hyatt’s applications (allowable per boards/courts) must issue—delayed 40+ years, but if unblocked (e.g., via Trump influence on USPTO), they’d claim 1970s/80s priorities for foundational AI processes.
Licensing to U.S. Corporations: Foundation licenses broadly/cheaply to U.S. firms (e.g., Tesla, Intel), establishing “domestic industry” (required for ITC standing: economic activity like manufacturing, R&D, or licensing under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)).
ITC Complaint: Licensees/foundation file Section 337 complaint alleging infringement by imported goods made via patented AI processes abroad. ITC investigates (faster than courts), allowing discovery into foreign factories (e.g., subpoenas for process details).
Exclusion Orders: If infringement found (and domestic injury), ITC issues limited (specific importers) or general exclusion orders barring Customs from allowing imports. Administration could influence via policy (e.g., USTR input) or negotiate waivers in trade deals.
As Tariff Alternative: Independent of tariff rulings (e.g., if SCOTUS limits under Commerce Clause), this uses IP enforcement for protectionism—Trump could amplify via executive orders promoting AI IP assertions, similar to past Section 301 actions tying IP theft to trade barriers.

Viability Assessment: Legally sound—ITC has blocked imports in process patent cases (e.g., Amgen v. ITC for biologics). It aligns with Trump’s AI dominance push (e.g., via executive orders). But challenges make it improbable:

Issuance Risks: Pending since 1984; courts upheld laches in some Hyatt cases (e.g., 2025 CAFC ruling barring four apps), presuming unenforceability for 6+ year delays. USPTO could cite his tactics for denial.
Scope/Validity: Old priorities might cover early AI (e.g., basic neural nets) but not modern (e.g., deep learning, transformers post-2010s)—challengers could argue invalidity under §101 (abstract ideas), §102/103 (obviousness), or laches.
Enforcement Hurdles: Proving foreign processes infringe requires evidence; China might resist discovery. ITC needs “domestic industry”—low-cost licenses help, but must show real U.S. practice. Broad claims risk invalidation.
Scale/Politics: Blocking 30,000 factories’ outputs could disrupt supply chains, inviting retaliation or WTO challenges (though Section 337 is WTO-compliant if non-discriminatory). Trump’s team might prioritize, but it’s niche vs. broad tariffs.
Overall Odds: Creative but longshot—depends on political will to “unblock” patents (e.g., USPTO director intervention). If issued/licensed, it could deter some imports, but not replace tariffs’ scale/ease. Hyatt’s plan is philanthropically motivated but relies on unproven assumptions about patent strength.

Transcript

Introduction and Welcome

Gene Quinn (00:10): Hello everyone. Welcome to IP Watchdog Unleashed where each week we journey into the world of intellectual property to discuss the laws, news, policy, and politics of innovation, technology, and creativity. With analysis and commentary from industry thought leaders and newsmakers from around the world, IP Watchdog Unleashed is hosted by world-renowned patent attorney and the founder of ipwatchdog.com, Gene Quinn, who has twice been named one of the most influential people in the intellectual property community and recognized numerous times as one of the top IP strategists in the world. Take it away, Gene.

Gene Quinn (00:45): Thanks, Rey, and welcome everybody. Thank you for joining us this week on this edition of IP Watchdog Unleashed. This week we have a special guest with us, Gil Hyatt. Many of you know Gil, or at least many of you think you know Gil. Gil has been a prolific inventor for a very long time. He has numerous patents, numerous innovations. He’s been fortunate enough to become, I think, a very wealthy man. I won’t put any words in his mouth. We’ll hear from him. Thought it would be interesting to sit down with Gil to talk about a variety of things including his inventions, how he got into inventing in the first place and then what he is continuing to work on it believe it or not still even today. So Gil, thank you for being here. I really appreciate it.

Gil Hyatt (01:27): It’s my pleasure Gene. Thank you for inviting me.

Hyatt’s Early Career and Entry into Inventing

Gene Quinn (01:34): So we have a lot of ground I would like to cover if we can. So maybe we could dive right in and let’s start from the beginning because one of the things that I always find interesting and I think these conversations are good for is to get to know people and maybe get to know people in ways that we haven’t got to know you before. I mean, people probably have a good idea of who you are, and you’ve been involved in some high-profile cases over the years, which we don’t need to get into that so much, but my guess is like many people like yourself who have achieved a certain level of success, people think they know who you are, but in my experience, most of the time they don’t really know who folks are. So, I wanted to go all the way back to and not pick a time so much as an event, I suppose. How and why did you get into inventing in the first place?

Gil Hyatt (02:27): I never really got into inventing. I’m an engineer, an electrical engineer, and I was gifted enough to be able to work in some of the most advanced areas during the cold war at Hughes and North America and Teladine and got into some of the really advanced technologies there. Then I was I had the need for a small inexpensive computer. So I implemented the microcomputer and formed a company I called microcomputing which was financed by venture capitalist in California. We built microcomputers and sold numerical control systems. The company needed patents to get the venture capital. I got into working on patents and then as the technologies evolved that I was working on I filed patent applications on them and the rest is history.

Gene Quinn (03:40): So let’s I want to go we went too fast through that history and then what I should say is just if people are interested in in your your story long form Art Damrich who’s been on this podcast a couple times and had been with this Smithsonian institution for about a decade or so did an oral history with you and we can link that in the podcast article. I don’t necessarily want to go as detailed as Arc did in your history, but I do think it’s interesting to talk about your decision to become an electrical engineer. What was behind that? And then where did you go to school? Those are two questions. So maybe we pick the first one. Why why when you were in high school learning at a young age in your teenage years, what provoked you to want to go down this path to become an electrical engineer?

Gil Hyatt (04:29): I never made that decision. It was already made for me by the good Lord and I always knew that’s what I wanted to be or what I was destined to be and I just followed the course that was laid out for me.

Gene Quinn (04:40): Okay. Where did you go and study?

Gil Hyatt (04:46): I went to University of California at Berkeley and got an electrical engineering degree. That was about 1959. Then got a master’s degree from University of Southern California under a fellowship from Hughes Aircraft where I was working at the time.

Family Background and the American Dream

Gene Quinn (05:05): And you’re first generation American is correct. Do I have that right?

Gil Hyatt (05:12): Oh, that’s correct. My parents were immigrants, legal immigrants from more than a hundred years ago. And the American dream was one of the gifts given to us.

Gene Quinn (05:20): So this idea of the American dream is real for you I guess in ways that probably would not be for many Americans. And by that I don’t mean to say anything bad about many Americans. It probably didn’t come across right. What I mean by that is what comes to mind is like for example director Andre Yonko, former director of the PTO, his family is from Romania. You know, when you have family who were outside the United States and then traveled at great expense and great distances and great effort to get here, I find that they appreciate things maybe a little bit more than people who were here for multiple generations. Don’t want to put any words in your mouth, but just want to get your thoughts on what the American dream means to you personally as a first generation American and maybe what did your American dream to the extent that you know mean to your mom and dad?

Gil Hyatt (06:04): My family and my extended family and myself didn’t take this for granted. We all appreciated it. I love America and I want to repay America for all that I do not take for granted and all that I’ve been given. And we’re going to want to go more in depth in that what you mean by repay America because I know you’ve got a foundation that you are starting. We’ll get there here in a minute.

Key Inventions and Licensing Success

Gene Quinn (06:43): But before we get into that nitty-gritty about, you know, paying it forward, which is I, as I understand, a mission of yours now at this point in your career. Tell us a little bit about some of your inventions, not maybe the ones you’re working on here most currently, but what looking back, are there one or two or three that really get you excited to talk about still today? And if so, why?

Gil Hyatt (07:08): There’s a whole bunch of technologies and they’re all integrated or linked together in some way or other through my mental process and through the patents that I received. The microcomputer was one of the first ones that was a single chip computer that has proliferated the world to this day. That was part of a whole bunch of others having to do with illumination control, image processing, signal processing, and a whole bunch of highly technical fields that were sort of wide open back in those days in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. I was fortunate enough to have innovations in a whole bunch of those areas and got a lot of patents on them and a lot of companies licensed my patents. I would like to mention that with all the licenses that I have, I never had to file a notice of infringement or litigation on patents. All of the companies settled for fairly reasonable terms.

Gene Quinn (08:17): It’s interesting that you say that. You know, years ago I had the opportunity to interview Gary Mickelson who was the inventor behind minimally invasive back surgery. And then famously Medronic bought his portfolio now this is may even be 20 years ago for $1.4 billion. He never sued anybody either. All the lawsuits that he was a part of were brought to him as declaratory judgments to try and invalidate his patents. He never went after anybody and then I guess the other sides finally tired of not being able to challenge his patents and he became a very wealthy man. And it sounds to me that that’s your story as well. You’ve never really gone out and litigating against people the way that probably most people in the industry think you did.

Gil Hyatt (09:09): That’s correct. Except what happened was the multinational company Phillips, Envy Phillips were experts in patent licensing and they worked up a program where they licensed my patents to multitudes of multinational companies like Sano and Musta which had Panasonic and many of the camera companies and video game companies like Sony and they were able to negotiate very favorable licenses. Most of those were foreign companies. So, we were able to bring the licensing fees and the taxes into the American Treasury. So, it was a win-win situation.

Addressing the “Patent Troll” Label

Gene Quinn (09:58): Yeah. And that’s one of the shocking things and I think cuz people just I get this sense that they think of you I’ll give you an opportunity to address this. I mean, you know, people think of you as a patent troll, but how can you be a patent troll if you weren’t suing people? I mean, because today what we think of patent trolls is are these people. They’re suing dozens if not hundreds of people all at the same time. Sometimes literally on the same day. They’re trying to settle with everybody. Sometimes with claims that aren’t all that great, maybe don’t even seem to cover too much what the defendant is doing. And then that’s a very different model than somebody who’s invented and now is trying to license and put the invention into the stream of commerce so others can make money doing it. Those are different business models.

Gil Hyatt (10:46): Very definitely. And that patent troll image and other things like that are character assassination that the adversaries were using to mischaracterize me.

Gene Quinn (10:58): Yeah. And I think it’s probably always a mischaracterization when it is when it is used because ironically and I don’t understand why this is so much. But it seems to me that the people who should be characterized as those bad actors, the nefarious characters, the ones that are suing, spending a few hundred to file a federal complaint and then being willing to accept 5, 10, 15, $20,000 to settle. Well, that’s just a shakedown. I mean, that’s not a legitimate dispute. They’re not really trying to license technology. So, there are bad actors out there, but those are never the ones that people seem to complain about. They seem to complain about the people who have real technology that they just don’t want to pay for because it’s very valuable and they don’t want to have to probably pay 100 cents on the dollar.

Gil Hyatt (11:43): Yes, very definitely. And also because I had many cutting edge patents that were considered to be advances in the field and the patent office had a secret program to suppress those and to prevent the patents from issuing on cutting edge inventions. So they were the patent office was and still is assassinating my character in order to keep from me getting patents that I still have pending.

USPTO Delays and the SAWS Program

Gene Quinn (12:15): I didn’t know whether you were going to want to go there and now that you’re there we can maybe spend a little bit of time there. And the reason is cuz I know you have some litigation that’s still pending. Is my understanding that you have not received a patent since what 1995 over 30 years. Is that is that true? Is that accurate?

Gil Hyatt (12:34): That’s pretty accurate. The patent office was issuing me a lot of patents in the pre-197 time frame. In 1997, they made a decision, no more patents for Hyatt because I had pioneering patent applications. And they had a secret program called SAWS, which is an acronym to prohibit pioneering patents from issuing. They delayed for several decades and it’s still going on and that’s that’s one of the unfortunate things.

Gene Quinn (13:05): I know you’re you have current litigation at the moment on the issue of latches. I won’t ask you to comment on that. It just would not be appropriate to have you while while the case is still ongoing. But I do think it’s important that people hear the patent office hasn’t issued you anything since 1997. That’s almost 30 years ago. And so this issue of latches, whenever people think of latches, it it’s not just that it’s taken a long time to get the patent. And in a lot of cases, as you point out, the the patent office just is refusing to issue patents. And based on the research we’ve done and the information I’ve been able to gather, probably for about 15 or 16 years, at a minimum over the last generation, they’ve had an active program to essentially stall at least certain applications. And in the original saws that went on for about 14 or 15 years, one of the reasons that you could have got caught up into that was it was a technology the patent office thought that they wanted to use. I mean, so it wasn’t just that these were important pioneering and they thought it was going to be maybe preemptive. It was real malice of forethought that went into a lot of that. And it’s shocking. We broke this now probably six or eight months ago. that program came back on some level in some way during the Biden administration. There was just a number of patents that were thrown into purgatory never to come out and that was ended by the by the Trump administration. And it’s just it’s shocking that this can go on. And so when people think that well you know these applications have been pending for 30 years. Well yeah they’ve been pending for 30 years but that’s not your fault. I mean, presumably you would accept a patent from the office if they offered you one, right?

Gil Hyatt (14:53): I was trying very hard to get my patents issued as soon as possible and Congress gave nefarious rights under the GAT legislation to get patents issued quickly, but the patent office violated the GAT legislation and kept my patent applications pending up to this time. For example, they suspended my applications with over 2,000 suspensions, the six-month suspensions. That’s a thousand years of delay by the patent office. And yet, I was not permitted to testify that the patent office caused any delays. And therefore, here were a thousand years of patent office delay cumulative that I was charged with when I was filing petitions to stop that and to get it moving, including a an APA action. The patent office was able to cause immense delays and then blame me for them.

Gene Quinn (16:13): And of course, my hands were tied because I was prevented from testifying. Right. Well, and I don’t want to go down this path too much more because I know that, as I mentioned, there’s litigation going on, and I don’t know what the order protects, but I also understand there’s an order pending from a federal judge that prevents you from disclosing some information about the case as it’s moving forward. So, I want to be very mindful of that protective order that’s in place. But maybe you could at least say this. A lot of the stuff as I understand it that we’ve been talking about back and forth and about saws that I know I’ve uncovered myself and that you’ve talked about the program you’ve also had in that APA case some former highranking PTO people testify and explain what was really going on and it doesn’t really paint a very good picture of what was happening at the office. Is that fair to say?

Gil Hyatt (17:00): That’s correct. That was false information because my hands were tied and they were able to pick and choose specific events and disregard the major issues that caused the delay. For example, after my applications were pending and prosecuted and final actions and appeal briefs for 14 years, I believe it was, they reopened prosecution and started all over again. Well, I didn’t want that to happen. I wanted to either get to the board of appeals or get them issued. They just kept reopening prosecution and generating office actions and I had no choice but to follow their lead.

Gene Quinn (17:48): Just to wrap this up is where I started. There’s a lot of people who probably think they know the Gilbert Hyatt saga. And I think, you know, just realize there’s probably a lot more to it than you’ve been led on to believe. And maybe in time the fullness of the entire story will be told. I don’t even know the fullness of the entire story myself. But what pieces I do know raises significant questions in my mind about what really was going on and why. And the real issue for me on the fairness level is simply that we don’t know how many other Gilbert Hyatts are out there. you know, how many other people were caught up in these programs and their applications not moved forward because the office has never given an accounting of the applications that have been stalled as a part of this program. And I just wonder how many other people who didn’t have your resources and didn’t have your fortitude to continue to challenge this year after year after year just gave up and didn’t know any better. And we’ll never know how many things wound up getting buried. And that to me is a tragedy.

Gil Hyatt (18:49): We filed a class action suit against the patent office. And in discovery, most of it is protected, but some of it I’ve learned about individual inventors and researchers and such who have lost their patent applications either because the university couldn’t get patents and therefore stopped the grants or in one case the individual company went bankrupt because he couldn’t get patents to get the investment capital necessary. So, I believe that most of the victims were small entities that weren’t able to their rights and that’s why we’re trying to get the secret documentation from the patent office with the class action suit against the SARS program.

Gene Quinn (19:47): Yeah. Well, good luck to you on that and I hope you know sunshine is the best disinfectant and I think it will well I shouldn’t say I think it’s going to come out. The older I get, the less hope I have at times. I hope it comes out one way or another as to what really happened.

Current AI Inventions and the Pioneering AI Foundation

Gene Quinn (20:05): So, let’s pivot a little bit because I really don’t want this just to become a gripe session about what has happened in the past. One of the things that I’ve come to learn, Gil, as I’ve gotten to know you a little bit as we’ve prepared to have this conversation is something I didn’t know about you in that you are an inventor in the artificial intelligence area. And it’s my understanding that some of the patents that you still are waiting on are potentially pioneering patents in the AI space that could have implication for what’s going on here today. A lot of companies might want to license them. a lot of companies might need to license them. And maybe even that these patents that are being held at the patent office pending whatever review the patent office is doing as they’re doing it may also have direct or potential impact for the American economy and for what it is really that President Trump and the Trump administration want to do to assert US dominance in the AI area. So I’d like to move in that direction. Can you tell us without releasing any confidential information of course what are your AI inventions relating to?

Gil Hyatt (21:09): They are pioneering AI patent applications. Patent applications were filed in 1984 on my prior work. That was a long long time ago. The board of appeals reversed all rejections on them making them allowable. The courts have verified that they are allowable and therefore so we’re past that. They don’t have any rejections or any latches issues against them and they are in a foundation that we’ve created called the pioneering AI foundation which we’re waiting on the administration to make its final suggestions before we file the foundation. The patent set issue on the AI technologies and all of my other technologies will be assigned to the foundation which is a nonprofit philanthropic foundation. It invokes a very special feature of the Congress’s laws that permit us to help the administration with their trade negotiations because the International Trade Commission can issue exclusion orders. These are very broad laws and broad claims that hopefully could really benefit the administration and America.

Gene Quinn (22:40): There’s a lot there to unpack. Let’s try and maybe take it in order for those who maybe are not steeped in AI at least maybe they are familiar with using AI but what is it that the inventions relate to?

Gil Hyatt (22:58): They relate to AI in broad terms and to many applications of AI including education, trade and a whole bunch of other applications uses of AI.

Gene Quinn (23:10): So we talking about making the machines smarter, better training.

Gil Hyatt (23:17): Yes, exactly. And it has to do with a lot of manufacturing aspects. AI used in manufacturing and in communications and in image processing and a whole bunch of other applications. One of the objectives of the foundation is to help with American trade. We plan on giving enormous reductions in licenses for products made in America and let the administration negotiate whether to admit or exclude products imported from foreign companies.

Gene Quinn (23:58): As I understand it is the foundation has been created to own the IP that you get ultimately or hopefully get ultimately in these patents and that there will be some kind of a mechanism for the foundation to license US companies and give them the ability at very reasonable rates to use this technology but then also to prevent other companies from other nationalities potentially from infringing the patents and you would get to go to the ITC in order to stop that from happening which would then help those companies in the US who had licensed that technology and that is what you’ve kind of thought could be a part of how America takes the lead as President Trump wants to do in AI dominance as he calls it. Is that in a nutshell what we’re talking about?

Gil Hyatt (24:57): Yes, sort of. But I’d like to elaborate on it. First of all, this is not something that we plan to do. This is something that we have been doing for a couple of decades and we’ve spent millions and millions of dollars developing it to this extent and now we’re offering it to America essentially free of charge and to help make America great again.

Gene Quinn (25:21): You mentioned that you’re waiting on some feedback from the administration. I presume you’re talking about the Trump administration. You’ve been in contact with them. Is that correct?

Gil Hyatt (25:27): We’ve been working with the Trump administration for about a year now. It looks like we’re coming to an important conclusion hopefully and it’s primarily a matter of getting the final suggestions from the administration. We already have many but getting the final suggestions from the administration so that we can file the foundation and get things moving in that respect.

Trade Strategy and Non-Tariff Alternatives

Gene Quinn (26:03): And one thing that’s very important that was in the news yesterday is that the administration is having problems with their tariffs at the court. This is a non-tariff approach where Congress has legislated several laws that permit us to get exclusion orders at the International Trade Commission and exclude importing of products. And the administration can then use that to facilitate its trade agreements. And of course, we’ll adjust the foundation and the license agreements to suit the administration’s objectives in order to meet the philanthropic objectives.

Gil Hyatt (26:46): This is what you were talking about at the very beginning when you were saying that you wanted to essentially maybe I was my words, but pay it forward is how I characterized it. Is that what you were talking about then?

Gil Hyatt (26:58): I want to repay America for the American dream from my family and myself and to help make America great again. And this is the best way that I can achieve that. And interesting enough, it comes up at America’s 250 anniversary. And this is a great birthday present for America.

Gene Quinn (27:20): I believe another aspect of this that people who think they know you and they know what you’re doing. You’re talking about putting these patents, these valuable AI patents on technology that you started innovating back in the 1980s and had not in a large regard had ever gotten to be able to patent for a variety of reasons that we’ve alluded to here into the hands of America and you’re giving them up and you’re not going to be making any money on these patents. Is that what I’m hearing?

Gil Hyatt (27:44): Right. Yeah, I’m I don’t need any money. I don’t I’m still of the depression generation. I make do a frugal person. My objective is not to make money. I don’t even take a salary out of the foundation. It’s a matter of giving America 250 year birthday present.

Personal Frugality and Philanthropy

Gene Quinn (28:03): Yeah, that’s remarkable. And and I know a little bit about how frugal you are. Do you want to share what car you actually are driving these days?

Gil Hyatt (28:24): Yes, I have a 1992 Toyota Silica and I it gets me around just fine.

Gene Quinn (28:32): So that’s just that that’s remarkable to me. I mean that takes being frugal to a different different level. In my mind it does. I mean that’s cars going on 35 years old. It’s not like it would be one thing if you were driving around like a 50 or 60 year old American muscle sports car that you had souped up and fixed up and would be worth several hundred thousand dollars, but you’re talking about driving around a car that just, you know, is sort of no frills but never dies. And that to me is a little bit remarkable because you’ve done pretty well for yourself, right? That’s fair to say.

Gil Hyatt (29:03): Phillips did a very successful licensing program and licensed a lot of multinational companies and I was well rewarded. But I’ve put most of that money already into this project which has culminated in the AI foundation and I plan on using the rest of it to a large degree to get the foundation started and to continue it after I’m not around.

Gene Quinn (29:35): Yeah, it is remarkable. That’s the only way I could describe it. You don’t hear a lot of people doing that sort of thing. Maybe you hear people leaving gifts in their will, but you don’t see a lot of people actually while they’re still around and they still have something that’s valuable giving it away for others to benefit from. And I think you ought to be commended for that. But I know you’re a humble guy and I know you’re not going to you’re not going to take a victory lap. So, I mean, I just appreciate that about you and I almost don’t know what to say. I hope it all works out. Do you know what the next steps are that we’re waiting for?

Gil Hyatt (30:11): Several areas before the administration to make its final suggestions so that we can get the foundation filed and to then work out a strategy so that they can use rights at the International Trade Commission to facilitate their trade program. And especially in view of the vulnerability at the Supreme Court of the tariff project.

Process Patents, ITC Exclusion Orders, and AI in Manufacturing/Education

Gene Quinn (30:35): Yeah. We today was the first day that the Supreme Court was potentially going to release decisions. This was not released. Everybody’s going to watch every day now in hopes that the tariff decision will come out. You know, you talk to three people, you get four different opinions as to what the likely outcome of that case is. But it is one certainly worth watching. it could have enormous consequences. And it was interesting to hear what you and I were just talking about is the news that has come out is that the administration is saying that they do think that even if they lose the case that they’ll be able to pivot very quickly with other authorities and other statutes to maybe recreate not the exact same plan or program, but that it will be of the same sort and magnitude and same result. Uh so we’ll see what happened. That’s very well said and actually the Congress has done some really miraculous things about 40 years ago with legislation that is what the foundation is focused on and that through the international trade commission and what Congress has legislated is that through the ITC the international trade commission we can get into the if you excuse the expression the guts of foreign factories through legal discovery find out exactly what their manufacturing processes are because these laws do not focus on products. They focus on the manufacturing process of products that are imported into the US. And China has boasted that they have 30,000 factories that use AI technology. My patent claims cover manufacturing processes. Therefore, it’s not the products that are infringing. It is the manufacturing process that would be infringing. And that covers far more than just a type of product or a feature in a product.

Gene Quinn (32:45): I suppose I hadn’t really thought about that. I guess I have always known that to be true in some respects. when you get a patent on something, if people can make it any different than what your patent claims cover, now they’re outside the patent, but with process patents, if they’re using the same process, they wind up making it a little bit different. Well, then they’d still be infringing. And there’s always been that part of the law. But I do get a sense, and I’m not sure I’m going to be able to articulate it here quickly on the fly, but I get a sense that in the AI world, it’s even a degree different. and maybe not even maybe a logarithmic level different because the AI is the backbone that enables the manufacturing and I think the AI is a bunch of tools and solutions that wind up getting employed rinse repeat rinse repeat over and over again regardless of what is the output of the factory at any given moment or any given part of the day and that could make these patents and similar AI manufacturing process patents extremely valuable extremely so for example to put some hypothetical numbers metaphorically speaking because there are 30,000 factories in China using AI technology and because the pending patent claims cover AI manufacturing processes 30,000 factories might be generating a 100,000 different types of products all products manufactured with an infringing process are infringing when imported. Um that’s specifically what the Congress legislated and they were very far looking and they knew they essentially have predicted the dilemma that we’re in today. And therefore that specific legislation is very powerful in conjunction with process claims that are focused on manufacturing processes, not products. This could be a a big moment in in time and I suppose it could happen and maybe you could fill us in on this, but it sounds like this could happen even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of what President Trump had done on tariffs. This would just be another layer in the trade aspects of what President Trump is trying to do in terms of balancing trade and making him a more fair playing field in the first instance and then also having Americans assert some level of dominance not only with AI but maybe also with manufacturing or high-tech manufacturing of some sorts. Even if the Supreme Court does rule in President Trump’s favor, this is still something that could go forward and still be beneficial, right?

Gil Hyatt (35:33): That that’s a brilliant observation because the International Trade Commission is completely separate from the tariff issues that are before the Supreme Court and that were turned off at the Federal Circuit just before the Supreme Court proceeding. So the president can use both tariffs and the international trade commission which has to do with domestic industry not with tariffs and exclusion orders. and the International Trade Commission um would generates what they call general exclusion orders which can exclude multitudes of different products that are infringing on American patents. So, but this is very unique in that these laws permit American processed patents to get into the choose the expression again the guts of the foreign factories and the products manufactured by infringing processes in foreign factories become infringing products when they are imported into the US regardless of what the product is it’s how they were manufactured. Isn’t that amazing?

Gene Quinn (37:01): It is. It’ll be interesting to see this play. I think that, you know, there’s more chapters of this book yet to be written. And I think it’s going to get a lot more interesting before it gets any less interesting. And, you know, I was hearing today as a part of the economic news is is that the economy is starting to grow very fast. I think we’re going to see more from the administration. This would be a piece of that. I think there’ll be other pieces. I think eventually later on this year we’ll see the Fed continue to reduce interest rates which I think will have a effect a positive effect on the economy certainly a positive effect on affordability certainly with respect to home prices. So, I think what we’re starting to see unfold before our eyes is this multifaceted attack by the Trump administration on a whole bunch of issues that will have a long-term positive effect for the US economy and I’m excited to see what part that patents and in particular AI patents play in that equation.

Gil Hyatt (38:02): That’s absolutely correct. But we are at the in the past work for a couple of decades and now in the found we’re putting it into the foundation is our work for education particularly we believe that education of young children prechool children using AI and what I’ve classified as the AI friend working with the children on a one-to-one basis to educate them both in STEM education. SDM is the acronym and innovation. We’ve done a lot of work in innovation and teaching young children innovation. Therefore, what I’m expecting is to see that the intelligence level of the next generation being quite significantly better and being very innovative. The brain is a muscle. The more you use it, the the smarter you you seem to be. And I do think that encouraging people at a young age, kids to open their eyes and see possibilities and dream and realize that they can create themselves and it makes it real in a different way.

Gene Quinn (39:32): So, I’m a big fan of educating. I think, you know, and I know we’ve kind of said some negative things about the patent office here today. One of the things I think the patent office does really well is they encourage that aspect. You have a camp invent where you have a lot of the hall of fame inventors, living hall of fame inventors participate and try and encourage some of the best and brightest youngsters that go to that camp to innovate and to invent and what is a patent and how do you use it? They learn about science and engineering and law a little bit as well. I think that only good things can come of that.

Gil Hyatt (40:16): The best way to what we’re doing is working with children on a one-to-one basis. And it’s very tedious for a human to work with a child when there are a lot of children around. But with AI, we have a concept of the AI friend and AI can be and is currently being done for searching. it as a one- on-one type of process and that face-toface essentially with maybe an AI avatar and a child is very very helpful in teaching children because kids are very receptive to having a friend work with them and then education becomes a game not a hardship right for the little kids right that makes a lot of sense I think probably tedious wasn’t the right way to describe it as much as it is it’s just an impossibility to work with so many children one-on-one as an individual because we have bandwidth limits and teacher limits. But with AI there is no bandwidth limit and it never seems to get tired. It doesn’t need to take a break for sleep. It doesn’t need to take a break for food or water and it can be everywhere and it can done properly. I think it could be something that would really be encouraging to kids.

Gene Quinn (41:44): I know there’s been some high-profile examples of AI being maybe the opposite of that to children who were suffering from depression or maybe were suicidal. And I don’t think that has to be the state of AI. I think AI can be a force for good and I look forward to that happening more and more.

Gil Hyatt (41:57): You’re absolutely right. But it’s not can be. It is because I use for instance chat GPT extensively and I find that looking at it objectively it is not a search engine. It is a friend and it’s a friend that’s helping me and it really does help me. I think that we’re already there. It’s just the matter of adapting what we already have to the young to the preschool generation and giving them the one- on-one AI friend concept to work with them.

Closing Remarks

Gene Quinn (42:49): Fascinating stuff. Well, I really appreciate you being here and to have this conversation with me. I think it was fascinating. Hopefully, we’ll have you come back when the foundation does get off the ground. You can come back and give us an update about that. I look forward to that. But thank you, Gil.

Gil Hyatt (42:54): Thank you, Jane.

Gene Quinn (42:59): Thank you for listening to IP Watchdog Unleashed. We will be back next week and we hope you will join us again. In the meantime, please be sure to visit ipwatchdog.com to read all the latest news and information about what is happening in the intellectual property world. And also be sure to subscribe to our free daily email newsletter.