Case Detail
| Case Title | Renewal Services v. United States Patent and Trade Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | San Diego | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2015cv01779 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-08-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-06-29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge William Q. Hayes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Renewal Services | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Renewal Services, a company that provides assistance with patent renewal applications, submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office for records containing addresses, issuance date, and patent number for all patents issued since 2002. Renewal Services said its request was necessitated because the Patent Office has discontinued including patent holders' mailing addresses on patents and that search restrictions on its database made it impossible for Renewal Services to download the information. The Patent Office told Renewal Services that the information was publicly available through its database. Renewal Services appealed the agency's decision, which was upheld. Renewal Services then filed suit. Complaint issues: Withholding not related to exemption claims, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Patent and Trade Office | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Ninth Circuit 16-56088 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [8] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that Renewal Services failed to state a claim showing that the Patent Office has improperly withheld address information when it discontinued providing the information in its Patent Application Information Retrieval database. Renewal Services complained that because the information is publicly available in individual patent applications, FOIA required the Patent Office to make it available online as well. Rejecting Renewal Services' allegations, the court explained that "5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) specifically provides that the agency need not respond to a § 552(a)(3) request for information when the same information is indexed and made public pursuant to the guidelines of § 552(a)(2). Since the allegations of the Complaint in this case establish that Defendant has made the requested records publicly available and indexed, through electronic means, there are no facts alleged which would support the claim that the requested information is 'improperly withheld' pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts or law which would support a claim that Defendant has improperly withheld bulk data information under the FOIA. The Complaint alleges facts which establish that the correspondence addresses are publicly available under § 552(a)(2), and the Complaint fails to allege facts which support a claim that the correspondence addresses in the bulk data information is 'improperly withheld' pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff's contention that privacy exemptions cannot justify the withholding of the addresses and zip codes from the bulk data is not applicable under the facts alleged in this Complaint. Exemptions only apply when there is a withholding of information. In this case, the facts alleged do not support a claim that the information is improperly withheld. When the requested materials are made publicly available by the agency itself, the information is not withheld."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
