Page 3 - AT

A3
U.S. NEWS Monday 18 February 2019

Return to Sender The Postal Service doesn’t
count as a “person,” Re-
turn Mail’s lawyers say. The
Continued from Front Hungerpiller said. By 2006, government disagrees. The
the government and Re- Supreme Court will decide
While visiting clients he turn Mail were talking about who is right.
kept seeing huge trays of licensing options and a for- Hungerpiller said he’s
returned mail. He read that mal pilot program. Partner- pleased the Supreme
every year, billions pieces ing with the Postal Service, Court wants to at least
of mail are returned as un- Hungerpiller said, would hear his case. He said what
deliverable, costing com- have “changed my life.” he has been through to get
panies and the Postal Ser- But the Postal Service ulti- to this point hasn’t made
vice time and money. mately developed its own, him lose faith in his govern-
So he decided to try to similar system for process- ment. Most days he wears
solve the problem. He de- ing returned and undeliver- an American flag pin,
veloped a system that uses able mail, announcing its something he has done
barcodes, scanning equip- launch in 2006. since 9/11. He calls himself
ment and computer data- “I was crushed. I got a dag- a “proud American.” Mitch Hungerpiller of Birmingham, Ala., who invented a
bases to process returned ger in my back,” Hunger- “This is just a process,” computerized system to automate the processing of returned
mail almost entirely auto- piller said. And his business he said. “I honestly be- mail, visits the Supreme Court in Washington, on Feb. 14, 2019,
matically. His clients, from suffered. “Bottom line is lieve that one day I’ll get where his decade-long fight with the post office over patent
financial services compa- that we had to lay off em- justice.”q infringement will be heard. Associated Press
nies to marketing compa- ployees,” Hungerpiller said,
nies, generally direct their adding that it “suffocated
returned mail to Hungerpill- the business.”
er’s company, Return Mail The Postal Service soon
Inc., for processing. Clients went further. It tried to get
can get information about Return Mail’s patent invali-
whether the mail was ac- dated, but failed. Return
tually correctly addressed Mail sued the Postal Ser-
and whether there’s a vice, arguing that the gov-
more current address. ernment should pay for us-
Hungerpiller says develop- ing Return Mail’s invention
ing Return Mail’s system without permission.
took several years. As part A spokesman for the Postal
of the process, the com- Service declined to com-
pany applied for a patent. ment on the case because
In 2004, right before Thanks- it is ongoing.
giving, Hungerpiller got a Just as Hungerpiller thought
call with good news. The his company might be
company would be issued gaining the upper hand,
U.S. Patent No. 6,826,548. the Postal Service switched
“Oh I was so thankful. Best tactics, successfully using a
Thanksgiving of my life,” 2011 patent law overhaul
he said, describing the law to invalidate Return
phone call as “just a wow Mail’s patent.
moment.” To celebrate he Now, at the Supreme
bought decorative copies Court, Return Mail’s lawyers
of the patent for company are arguing that the Postal
leaders. His copy, a plaque Service can’t use that law,
about the size of a piece of the Leahy-Smith America
paper, hangs in his office Invents Act, to challenge
next to a painting of his late Return Mail’s patent. The
father. law says that a “person
Even early on, the Postal who is not the owner of a
Service expressed interest patent,” can file a patent
in Return Mail’s invention, challenge using the law.