• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Headline Stack
Main image for “Oh Yes, Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman”—Supreme Court Says Post Office (and the Government) Can’t Challenge Patents in Patent Office Proceedings
Publications|Alert

“Oh Yes, Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman”—Supreme Court Says Post Office (and the Government) Can’t Challenge Patents in Patent Office Proceedings

Patent Alert

6.11.2019

Who — or what — is a “person” authorized under the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to challenge the validity of patents in Patent Office proceeding? That is the question that the Supreme Court answered on Monday, holding that the United States Postal Service (and the Government generally) may not seek to invalidate patents in these proceedings.

The AIA, which was enacted in 2011, provides for three types of litigation-like proceedings in the Patent Office for challenging the validity of patents: inter partes review (or “IPR” for short), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business method patent review (“CBM”). These proceedings have become popular and cost-effective alternatives to federal court litigation for those companies or people seeking to invalidate patents. Under the AIA, any “person” other than the patent owner may file one of these proceedings. That is just what the U.S. Postal Service did after Return Mail, Inc., accused it of infringing a patent directed to methods of processing undeliverable mail due to inaccurate or outdated recipient addresses. The Postal Service filed a CBM proceeding that, ultimately, invalidated Return Mail’s patent.

In Return Mail, Inc.v. United States Postal Service, the Supreme Court held that the Government (including government agencies like the U.S. Postal Service) is not a “person” and thus was not authorized to file the CBM proceeding in the first place. The Court first applied a “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign.” The Court then reasoned that because the AIA does not expressly define “person,” and because the Postal Service could point to nothing else in the text or context of the AIA to show affirmatively that the Government should be included within the definition, the Government could not be considered a “person” for purposes of filing IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs.

The Government, however, has not filed that many AIA review proceedings (only about 20), and thus the immediate impact of this ruling may be small. But the lesson from this case may have a broader reach because many statutes, not just the AIA, use the term “person” to define who may take or receive the benefit of certain actions. Thus, the Court’s reasoning could limit government action in other contexts. But the effect of this case will depend on the particular statute in question.

The case is Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service et al., Case No. 17-1594 (U.S., June 10, 2019).

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Erik Paul Belt
Erik Paul Belt

Partner

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Patents
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel