Dominion Harbor Group
  • About
  • IPedia
  • News & Press
  • IP Wire
  • Monument
  • Vista
  • Liberty
Select Page

Corporate Counsel: The Federal Circuit’s Alice in Wonderland Logic

Nov 3, 2017

“The more you examine the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde, which upheld the district court’s ruling that Secured Mail’s seven asserted patents were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. Section 101, the more you find its logic curiouser and curiouser…”

By Brad Sheafe | November 02, 2017

It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

The more you examine the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde, which upheld the district court’s ruling that Secured Mail’s seven asserted patents were ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. Section 101, the more you find its logic curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carrol’s Alice might have put it. These Secured Mail patents all address tracking mail through an encoded marking, e.g., a barcode, QR code or URL, on the outside of a mailer which is intended to provide information to the recipient about the contents and the sender.

To nonjudicial eyes—including the expert eyes of highly-trained patent examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)—Secured Mail’s patents appear to describe something practical and useful, an innovation the likes of which the patent system was designed to protect. But to the esteemed judges of the Federal Circuit hearing the Secured Mail case, there was not a single thing even eligible for patent protection in these patents, let alone patentable.

To reach this strange decision the Federal Circuit judges used the Alice test—not Lewis Carroll’s Alice, but one based on similar illogic)—which is derived from the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International case and is the type of analytical guide intended to help in the application of case law to the actual facts of a given case. While the need for such analytical guides spotlights the often-convoluted nature of what jurists write, they can often be helpful to practitioners. But not always, for in this case, the two-step Alice test has only served to make bad law even worse.

Indeed, in the hands of the Federal Circuit, the Alice test has already condemned dozens of issued patents containing hundreds of claims, each representing a property right duly issued by the U.S. government and paid for by the applicant in the form of research and development costs as well as patent application fees. In the Secured Mail case, the Federal Circuit continued, a la Alice’s trip to Wonderland, down that rabbit hole, the bottom of which in this case unfortunately contains nothing but the property rights they have stripped from patent owners.

In the application of step one of the Alice test to the Secured Mail case, the court must, to quote the Federal Circuit opinion, “ascertain whether the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.” In tackling this first step, the district court had determined that the claims of all seven of the asserted patents “are directed to the abstract idea of communicating information about a mail object by use of a marking.”

Let’s take a time out right there: What is “abstract” about communicating tangible information by physically marking a physical object—i.e., an old-fashioned piece of snail mail?

You don’t know? Me, either—but let’s move on.

Full Article Here on Corporate Counsel

 

Recent Posts

  • Press Release: Dominion Harbor Subsidiary Licenses NEC Patent Portfolio to Giantplus Technology Co., Ltd.
  • Press Release: Dominion Harbor Subsidiary Licenses Kodak Patent Portfolio to Parrot SA
  • Press Release: Dominion Harbor Subsidiary Licenses Kodak Patent Portfolio to Flir Systems
  • Press Release: Dominion Harbor Subsidiary Enters Into Agreement With Square
  • Press Release: Dominion Harbor Acquires Second Portfolio of Advanced Panasonic Patents

Archives

  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • January 2014

Address

200 Crescent Court
Suite 1550
Dallas, Texas 75201

connect with us

Contact Us

(214) 414-1164
info@dominionharbor.com
Privacy PolicyTerms and Conditions