直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Return to Sender: Mail Tracking with Barcodes and URLs Found Not Patent Eligible

October 18, 2017

Authored and Edited by Nate S. Ngerebara; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., No. 16-1728 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, finding that Secured Mail’s patents were directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of communicating information about a mail object using markings. Secured Mail sued Universal Wilde, alleging infringement of seven patents directed to attaching identifiers, such as barcodes or URLs, to mail objects. The district court held that the patents were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Secured Mail’s argument that the district court characterized the claims at an unduly high level of abstraction and that the claims were directed to a “sender-generated unique identifier,” which improved existing processes. The court held that Secured Mail’s patents’ claims were directed to the abstract idea of using a marking on the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object. The court determined that the claims were directed to the abstract concept itself, not improved methods of generating or scanning barcodes, or any particular rules to implement the claimed methods. Accordingly, the court held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea.

The court next rejected Secured Mail’s argument that the district court erred by examining whether the underlying technology was “conventional.” The court explained that the district court found that the claims were “replete” with routine steps and that the purported innovation of a sender-generated identifier was “non-specific and lack[ing] technical detail,” and thus did not transform the abstract concept into patent-eligible subject matter.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP