Can the Government Challenge Patents via AIA Proceedings? — Return Mail Gets Cert.

30 October 2018 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: George E. Quillin

Return Mail, Inc. has persuaded the Supreme Court to grant cert. to decide whether the government is a “person” who may petition to institute AIA proceedings.  The government had done just that by naming both itself and the post office as petitioners in CBM2014-00116, captioned The United States Postal Service (USPS) and The United States of America v. Return Mail, Inc.

Return Mail owns U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548 for a system and method of processing returned mail.  The claims challenged in the CBM were obtained during an ex parte reexamination of the ’548 patent requested by the USPS.  After trying unsuccessfully to license the patent to the USPS, Return Mail filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  Three years later, the government filed a petition in the PTO for a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the challenged claims.  Unlike a petition for an inter partes review (IPR) which must be filed within one year, there is no deadline to seek CBM review after being served with a complaint for infringement.

The government prevailed at the PTAB and at the Federal Circuit.  Judge Newman dissented, relying on a point of statutory construction neither party had argued: although the AIA says the petitioner can be any person who is not the patent owner, “The government is not a ‘person’ to whom the post-grant procedures of the AIA re available.”  868 F.3d 1350, 1375.

Taking its cue from Judge Newman’s dissent, Return Mail petitioned for certiorari, framing the question presented as:

“Whether the government is a ‘person’ who may petition to institute review proceedings under the AIA.”

Following Judge Newman’s lead, Return Mail argued that construing the term person to include the government violates a “longstanding interpretive presumption.”  Vermont Agency of National Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 780-81 (2000).

In its opposition brief, the government countered that, in the patent statute, the term does include the government.  The patent statute uses the word, among other places, in § 102 (“A person shall be entitled to a patent. . . .”) and in § 118 (“person to whom an inventor has assigned” an invention may apply for a patent).  Congress has authorized “[e]ach Federal agency” to “apply, obtain, and maintain patents,” 35 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), and the government has amassed an extensive patent portfolio.

Nonetheless, it is possible that the Supreme Court was persuaded by Return Mail’s pair of arguments about limitations on power.  First, Return Mail argued that “the case is but the latest example of patent-law exceptionalism by the Federal Circuit.  In recent years, this Court has repeatedly reversed the Federal Circuit’s rulings for failure to heed the rule that “patent law is governed by the same common-law principles, methods of statutory interpretation, and procedural rules as other areas of civil litigation.  SCA Hygiene Products, 137 S.Ct. at 964.”  Brf at 23.  Second, Return Mail also argued that the Federal Circuit’s ruling “expands the Board’s authority to invalidate issued patents—property protected by the Due Process and Takings Clauses, see Oil States, 138 S. Ct. at 1378-79—and thus further jeopardizes billions of dollars in investments in every sector of the economy.”  Id. at 27.   Echoing Judge Newman’s dissent, Return Mail argued that the question is important because “it concerns the scope of the Board’s delegated authority and the structure of administrative-review mechanisms that have become a central feature of the U.S. patent system.”  Id.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights