Patent-Ineligible Claims Dismissed Based On Intrinsic Evidence

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., No. 2016-1728, 2017 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2017) (Before Prost, C.J., Clevenger, and Reyna, J.) (Opinion for the court, Reyna, J.)

Appellant Secured Mail Solutions LLC (“Secured Mail”) appeals from the grant of a motion to dismiss on grounds that the claims of seven asserted patents are directed to subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The patents relate to methods whereby a sender affixes an identifier on the outer surface of a mail object (e.g. an envelope or package). Secured Mail groups the patents into three categories. The “Intelligent Mail Barcode” patents recite a method for verifying the authenticity of a mail object. The “QR Code” patents requires scanning of the encoded data enabling the recipient to request data directly from the sender. The “Personalized URL” patents are similar to the QR Code patents, except the identifier is a personalized network address, or URL.

Appellee Universal Wilde, Inc. (“Wilde”) moved to dismiss Secured Mail’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the patents were not patent-eligible under Section 101. The district court found all seven patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The court reasoned that “the asserted claims, viewed individually or in combination, do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of communicating information about a mail piece by use of marking.”  Secured Mail appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviews a district court’s determination of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 de novo. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  The Court analyzed Secured Mail’s patents pursuant to the two-step process in Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Under Alice step one, the Court held that all seven patents were directed to abstract ideas. “The claims of the three sets of patents are not limited by rules or steps that establish how the focus of the methods is achieved. Instead, the claims embrace the abstract idea of using a marking affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e. the sender, the recipient, and contents of the mail object.”

Under Alice step two, the Court found the claims had “no inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.”  The Court contrasted Secured Mail’s patents to those of DDR Holdings, LLC v., L.P., finding that Secured Mail’s claims do not cite to “a specific way to solve a specific problem as in DDR.” Instead, “the asserted claims cite well known and conventional ways to allow generic communication between a sender and recipient using generic computer technology.”

Finally, the Court held that it was appropriate for the district court to dismiss the case via Rule 12(b)(6). “…[T]his court has determined claims to be patent-ineligible at the motion to dismiss stage based on intrinsic evidence from the specification without need for “extraneous fact finding outside the record.”  See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349; cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v., Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that a Section 1011 inquiry is a question of law).

Therefore, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Universal’s motion to dismiss.

Claims determined to be patent-ineligible based on intrinsic evidence from the specification can be dismissed, at the motion to dismiss stage, without need for “extraneous fact finding outside the record.”

About Troutman Sanders and the Federal Circuit Review

Founded in 1897, Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 650 lawyers practicing in 16 offices located throughout the United States and Asia. Each week, partners Joe Robinson and Bob Schaffer, succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. They provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. This Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. is pleased to publish these summaries each week.

The Author

Robert Schaffer

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Robert Schaffer

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close