RPost says court will decide patent claims against Swiss Post
US registered electronic mail developer RPost has said Swiss Post’s digital mail service IncaMail still infringes on its patent, and that the matter will go to court. The Los Angeles-based company was commenting after the Swiss national postal service cast doubt on the applicability of the RPost patent 219 once again, following a confirmation of its validity in the US by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
The two companies have been engaged in a war of words within and outside the courts since 2009 over RPost’s claims that IncaMail, which was launched in 2008, uses technology similar to its patented email proof of delivery system.
RPost said earlier this month that the US PTO had re-confirmed the validity of its patent, with courts setting up a jury trial date for the Eastern District of Texas in August 2013.
But following the confirmation, Swiss Post issued a statement to Post&Parcel to suggest that the US PTO’s examination had confirmed only a limited application of the patent, which “strengthens Swiss Post in its position that its product IncaMail does not violate any patent rights of RPost”.
A final re-examination certificate of the US PTO decision has not yet been issued, but Swiss Post’s spokesperson told Post&Parcel that “The US patent would henceforth be so limited that Swiss Post would more than ever be of the opinion that its product IncaMail does not infringe the patent rights of RPost.”
Secure digital mail
The importance of the Swiss Post case comes because one of the big attractions for digital postal mail run by postal operators – in comparison to widespread email technology – is its security and trust, particularly in the sending of legal documents. Proof of delivery is seen as an important component of a secure, trustworthy digital mail service.
RPost has also sought legal action against companies including Canada Post, Docusign, Adobe and others over claims of infringing its patent rights.
Khan told Post&Parcel that Swiss Post’s latest dismissal of RPost’s patent was a “desperate attempt to distract” from the US PTO’s upholding of the patent.
He said the PTO had agreed that RPost’s patent provided it with exclusive rights to provide email users with digital proof their messages have been delivered.
Amended
Khan did explain that the US patent had been amended – and the amendment approved by the PTO – to “guide the interpretation of the patent in the US courts” but that the European version of the patent did not need amending because of the different patent system in Europe. He said the amendment would not affect any pending litigation.
He said of Swiss Post’s new claim that RPost’s patent had been limited by the PTO examination: “We do not see this as a narrowing of the scope of the patents because these amendments precisely capture the interpretation we have always used.
“Unless Swiss Post is prepared to say that their system has nothing to do with the successful transmission of emails, IncaMail still infringes and we will see them in court.”
RPost has been suing Swiss Post in Europe as well over the IncaMail service, but after apparently gaining assurance from the company that it would stop using the offending proof-of-delivery service, RPost dropped the case.
Swiss Post then issued a statement denying that it needed to make any changes to its IncaMail service because of a study into the validity of the patent issued before RPost dropped the case.
Khan indicated to Post&Parcel last week that if Swiss Post does not actually make the change, his company would likely re-start legal proceedings in Europe.
