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.
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.