Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Return Mail, Inc. v. Usps, No. 16-1502 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2019)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1502
Decided
August 9, 2019
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

RETURN MAIL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

UNITED STATES,

Appellees

2016-1502

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2014-00116.

O R D E R

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued its opinion in Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 17-1594 (U.S. June 10, 2019), reversing our judgment and remanding the case to us for further proceedings. Consistent with that opinion, we vacate the Patent Trial and2 2 RETURN MAIL, INC. v. USPS

Appeal Board’s decision in CBM2014-00116, and remand to the Board to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This case is remanded to the Board with instructions to dismiss in light of the Supreme Court’s disposition. FOR THE COURT

August 9, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Return Mail, Inc. v. Usps, No. 16-1502 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2019).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1502-20190809
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1502-20190809

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.