Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations
    • COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: False DMCA counter-notification can be actionable even if the content in question is never actually restored
    • PATENT—D. Del.: SXM beats patent infringement suit on equitable estoppel grounds
    • PATENT—E.D. Tex.: LG did not infringe on television patents a jury found invalid at trial
    • PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Obviousness of email sorting system affirmed
    • TRADE SECRETS—S.D.N.Y.: Health and wellness company’s trade secrets and trade dress claims against former employees dismissed
    • TRADEMARK—D. Utah.: Fitness equipment company denied attorney fees despite jury finding of willful infringement
    • TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register applicant’s mark GOOD TIMES for bourbon reversed
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations

    IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Obviousness of email sorting system affirmed, (Mar 26, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC | Unified Patents, LLC
    Organizations Mentioned:Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC | Unified Patents | Unified Patents, LLC

    By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

    Claims relating to the automatic filtering of electronic messages from a plurality of senders were properly found obvious by the PTAB because the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

    A patentee failed to show any error in a P ...

    By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

    Claims relating to the automatic filtering of electronic messages from a plurality of senders were properly found obvious by the PTAB because the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

    A patentee failed to show any error in a PTAB determination that his email sorting system was unpatentable as obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The board’s determination that a prior art reference rendered the claims obvious was based on substantial evidence, including the plain language of the reference (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026)).

    Peter Henrik Pedersen was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (the ’920 patent), which was directed to the filtering of electronic messages using a central system to determine how messages from a plurality of sources were distributed to individual recipients. Unified Patents, LLC (Unified) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1 and 14-17 on the ground of obviousness. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review and found the challenged claims unpatentable. Pedersen appealed.

    Obviousness. Pedersen argued that the board failed to identify where a particular piece of prior art disclosed the messenger-specific, user-specified delivery parameters called for in the claim language. He conceded that the prior art reference taught the limitation for specific types of messages but did not differentiate between messages received from different messengers. Reviewing the prior art reference, the court found that the board had cited several examples of the prior art reference sorting messages by sender. This was substantial evidence to support the board’s obviousness determination.

    The court affirmed the decision of the board.

    The Case is No. 24-2090.

    Judge: Kleeh, T.

    Attorneys: Robert Greenspoon (Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC) for Peter Henrik Pedersen. Kelly Rose Hughes (Unified Patents, LLC) for Unified Patents, LLC.

    Companies: Unified Patents, LLC

    Cases: Patent FedCirNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use