Case Detail
| Case Title | HUNTINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv02249 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-12-24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2018-01-31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | R. DANNY HUNTINGTON | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Danny Huntington submitted two FOIA requests to the Patent and Trademark Office for records concerning its Sensitive Application Warning System program. The agency responded to the first request by indicating that it located 118 pages of records and that it was withholding portions under Exemption 5 (privileges). Huntington appealed the agency denial, which was upheld. His second request was for considerably more items. The agency responded to several items and provided records, some of which again were denied under Exemption 5. He appealed those portions of the denial, which was upheld. Huntington then filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has not yet shown that it conducted an adequate search for records concerning its recently retired Sensitive Application Warning System program, which flagged patent applications based on subject, but that the agency's Exemption 5 (privileges) claims are appropriate. Patent attorney Danny Huntington requested records about the SAWS program, which flagged patent applications based on criteria such as the likelihood that they would cause media controversy; were pioneering or frivolous; posed a danger to individuals, the environment, or national security; or involved controversial or illegal subject matter. After several months of back and forth discussions yielded no response, Huntington filed suit. The agency ultimately disclosed 4,114 pages and five spreadsheets, withholding information under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 5. By the time Boasberg ruled on the case, Huntington was only challenging the agency's search and its Exemption 5 withholdings. Boasberg noted that the agency had not indicated that it had searched all locations likely to contain responsive records. He pointed out that "Defendant has failed to invoke 'the magic words' concerning the adequacy of the search�"namely, the assertion that [the Department] searched all locations likely to contain responsive records.' It has stated only that it 'identified offices reasonably likely to have responsive information and those offices conducted a reasonable search for responsive records.'" Huntington argued that because SAWS had begun in 1994 the agency had failed to digitize all responsive records. But Boasberg observed that "without any evidence that the USPTO's current electronic systems do not contain older records, the Court will not require the agency to describe documents, systems, or equipment that may or may not have once existed and their status now, nor will it infer inadequacy from the absence of such information in Defendant's declarations." Boasberg agreed with Huntington that the agency's description of its search of laptops for responsive records was too vague. He noted that the agency's affidavit "leaves open to question how many work laptops were searched, why those locations but not others were thought to be reasonably likely to contain responsive records, and how the agency concluded that no paper files contain responsive records." Boasberg rejected Huntington's claim that the agency's decision to flag applications was not deliberative because it did not affect whether or not patents were granted. Boasberg indicated that "that view of the privilege is too narrow. Although flagging an application for the SAWS program is not dispositive as to whether the patent will be allowed, it can trigger an additional internal quality-assurance check, the result of which 'could have an impact on the ultimate decision by the patent examiner.'"
Opinion/Order [30]Issues: Search - Detailed description of search, Exemption 5 - Privileges FOIA Project Annotation: Resolving most of the issues remaining from his prior opinion, Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has sufficiently explained its search for records concerning its discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) for flagging patent applications involving particularly sensitive subject matters. Patent Attorney R. Danny Huntington requested the records and the agency disclosed 4,114 pages and five spreadsheets, withholding one document entirely and redacting 132 pages under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). In his prior opinion, Boasberg approved the majority of the agency's search, but observed that certain portions of the search were insufficiently explained. He ordered the agency to either conduct further searches or provide sufficient explanations for why its search was adequate. Boasberg upheld all the agency's exemption claims. After submitting supplemental affidavits, the agency moved for summary judgment. Huntington continued to contend that the search was inadequate and that the agency should have disclosed information showing the date of SAWS application, which Boasberg had allowed the agency to withhold under Exemption 5. This time, Boasberg found the agency had rectified the deficiencies of its first affidavits, except for a misunderstanding as to the scope of a search Boasberg had previously ordered. Rejecting Huntington's claims that the new descriptions of the agency's search were insufficient, Boasberg pointed out that "plaintiff may hypothesize, for example, that all [Technology Center] Directors participated substantively in the SAWS Program and must have responsive records or that other employees must have records because what has been produced to date is thinner than desired. As shown, however, Plaintiff offers no evidence to support those or other suppositions, without which the Court cannot infer an inadequate search." In his prior opinion, Boasberg ordered the agency to explain its search of the records of chief judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Now, Boasberg agreed with Huntington that Boasberg's first order required the agency to search for records of all PTAB judges, not just the chief judges. He told the agency to conduct such a search and provide an explanation of the results. Boasberg had approved the agency's claim that it could not disclose certain application dates because it would allow requesters to determine when SAWS applications were received. Huntington argued that the agency should have either redacted that data or reorganized it in such a way that the dates on which SAWS applications were submitted could not be determined. Rejecting Huntington's suggestion, Boasberg noted that "despite his ingenuity, it is hard to see how either of Plaintiff's solutions resolves the problem raised by Defendant. A gap will be created by the deletion of all the low-volume-day application information just as if only the filing date were redacted."
Opinion/Order [39]Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege, Adequacy - Search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office has now conducted an adequate search for records concerning its Sensitive Application Warning System, which was discontinued in 2015, after finding another 67 pages of documents in response to requests from Danny Huntington. While the agency had disclosed more than 4,000 pages in response to Huntington's requests, Boasberg previously found that the agency had not explained why it did not search records of the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and ordered the agency to conduct further searches. This time, Boasberg agreed with the agency that its search was now sufficient. Huntington challenged the agency's search of electronic records, arguing that the agency's claim that only 72 individual administrative patent judges might have responsive records was too small because a 1998 Department of Commerce Audit Report indicated that the turnover rate of judges may have been 200 percent. Boasberg observed that "this argument is speculative at best and misleading at worst. . . [T]here is no reason to believe that the 1994-98 time period used as the baseline for the PTAB's 'churn rate' is representative of the next 17 years. In fact, the opposite is likely true: not only has PTAB grown from 43 APJs in 1998 to 205 today, but most of the departures driving the alleged turnover occurred in one year (1994) in what the Audit Report described as a 'wave of retirements.'" Huntington argued that the search of the chief judge's office was insufficient because it found no records. Boasberg pointed out that "even if Huntington were granted the search of his dreams, there might just be no there there." Finally, Huntington complained that the use of a singular-form search might miss plural forms. Boasberg indicated that "this is simply incorrect." He added that "unlike plural-form-only searches, those using singular forms include documents containing the plural form."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
