Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service Lawsuit Explained

Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service was a significant lawsuit that made headlines in 2014. The case was filed by Return Mail Inc., a company that specializes in processing undeliverable mail, against the United States Postal Service (USPS).

At the heart of the lawsuit was a dispute over a contract to process undeliverable mail. Return Mail Inc. claimed that the USPS had unfairly awarded the contract to a competitor, and that the contract was actually a monopoly that prevented other companies from entering the market.

The USPS had a long-standing contract with a company called R.R. Donnelley & Sons to process undeliverable mail. However, in 2013, the USPS awarded the contract to a new company called Matrix Group, which was owned by a former USPS employee.

Additional reading: Mail to Canada from Us

The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on whether the government is a "person" who can file a petition to institute post-grant review or inter partes review proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent.

Return Mail Inc. obtained a patent on an invention that expedites the process of identifying the correct destination address for undeliverable mail. The United States Postal Service (USPS) was interested in a license agreement for the use of this invention.

The USPS filed a petition to institute an ex parte review of Return Mail's patent after Return Mail informed them that the use of their own system would infringe on the patent. The Patent Office found that Return Mail's invention was patentable.

The case has been ongoing for years, with the USPS eventually petitioning the Patent and Trademark Appeals Board for a CBM review, alleging that the invention was not patentable. The Board found the patent invalid based on patent-ineligible subject matter.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, stating that if the government is not a "person" for purposes of the AIA, it is for the legislature to clarify, not the courts.

Consider reading: Priority Mail to Canada

The case documents for Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service are a treasure trove of information for anyone looking to understand the intricacies of this landmark case. The documents are publicly available and can be accessed online.

You can find the cert petition, which is the initial document filed with the Supreme Court, in the Case Documents section. This document is titled "Cert. Petition -- Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf".

The cert petition is a crucial document that outlines the main arguments of the case and sets the stage for the rest of the litigation. It's a great place to start if you're looking to get a sense of the overall issue at play.

The case documents also include an appendix, which provides additional information and evidence to support the claims made in the cert petition. This document is titled "Appendix -- Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf".

In addition to the cert petition and appendix, the case documents include several amicus briefs, which are filed by outside parties who are not direct participants in the case but have an interest in the outcome. These briefs can provide valuable insights and perspectives on the issues at play.

Here is a list of some of the key case documents:

The question of whether the United States Postal Service (USPS) is a "person" able to seek review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) was at the center of the Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service case.

The USPS argued that it should be considered a "person" because it is subject to civil liability and can assert a defense of patent invalidity, just like other potential infringers. This is a fair point, as it would allow the USPS to challenge a patent de novo before the Patent Office, rather than only as an infringement defense.

The court ultimately concluded that a federal agency like the USPS is not a "person" able to seek such review under the statute, which seems to be a bit of a technicality.

A different take: Wine Storage Service

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a federal agency is not considered a "person" able to challenge the validity of a patent post-issuance. This ruling was made in the case of RETURN MAIL, INC. v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 did not intend to include federal agencies in the definition of "person". This means that federal agencies like the Postal Service cannot petition for review proceedings to challenge the validity of a patent.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Justice Gorsuch why Congress would allow reexams but not IPRs, to which he responded that he could understand the argument that Congress didn't want to let the government go to its own agency to invalidate private party patents. However, he wondered why Congress would allow an ex parte proceeding initiated by a government agency's request instead of a more robust adversarial process.

In contrast, federal agencies can use an invention without being enjoined from using it, and they are treated differently in the Court of Federal Claims than regular defendants. This is because Congress has provided special provisions for the government's ability to obtain a patent and protect its rights to inventions.

The Court has a long history of precedent where the government is not considered a "person", even when it would be beneficial for them to be treated as such. This precedent dates back over a century, and it makes sense to prevent unintended scenarios from occurring.

Dissent is a natural part of any society, and it's not uncommon for individuals to disagree with the status quo.

The concept of dissent is closely tied to the idea of freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right in many countries. This right allows individuals to express their opinions and criticize the government without fear of retribution.

Dissent can take many forms, from peaceful protests to vocal criticisms on social media. In the article, we see examples of how dissent can be used to bring about change, such as the use of satire to criticize government policies.

The article highlights the importance of dissent in a healthy democracy, where citizens are free to express their opinions and hold their leaders accountable. This is reflected in the examples of how dissent can be used to challenge unjust laws and policies.

Dissent is not always easy, and it can come with risks and consequences. However, as the article shows, the rewards of dissent can be great, leading to positive change and a more just society.