Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - U.S. PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2024‑1520, 01/22/2026) (Moore, Hughes, Stoll) - Moore, C.J. The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of U.S....more
Less than a year after holding that generic machine-learning patents are abstract in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., the Federal Circuit may be refining where to draw the line on patent eligibility....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement suit, holding that the asserted web conferencing claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked any inventive...more
On January 22, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Rule 12 dismissal of a patent infringement action brought by US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC against Google LLC, holding that the...more
Section 101 eligibility remains one of the most unpredictable and frequently contested areas of U.S. patent practice, particularly for software, artificial intelligence, and machine learning....more
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On April 18, 2025, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the case on the ground that the patents were ineligible under § 101....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment holding asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,652 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Technology in Ariscale, LLC v. Razer USA Ltd.,...more
The new United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John A. Squires was sworn in on September 22, 2025 and wasted no time that week in expanding patent eligibility for AI related inventions. ...more
Every year has its “it” term.In 2025, the crown belonged to AI, and rightfully so. AI dominated the headlines, flooded the USPTO’s dockets, and triggered more §101 rejections than any examiner would care to admit. If you...more
On December 4, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued two memoranda addressing subject matter eligibility and spotlighting an additional pathway to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Once upon a time, patent eligibility was not controversial or difficult to understand. Then along came Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, and with it the Supreme Court’s bright idea to replace statutory clarity with metaphysical...more
From a technical standpoint, everything a computer does involves reading, manipulating, and storing information through microcode instructions that move around 0’s and 1’s. Each operation performed by a processor, such as...more
It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court blessed us with the two-step framework for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. First, one must determine whether the claim at issue is...more
On October 31, 2025, Director Squires spoke to the American Intellectual Property Law Association and provided a forceful statement on his view for the direction of patent law. Of particular interest were his comments on...more
In an opinion synthesizing and applying the current state of Section 101 law, Judge William Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in a district court, held on summary judgment...more
Each year since 2021, we have examined how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been deciding appeals of § 101 rejections from examiners. And so far, the numbers have been remarkably...more
In FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, Appeal No. 24-2335, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by construing a claim term based on disclosures made in a provisional application and an unasserted patent in the...more
In a tale that boldly goes where few celebrity inventors have gone before, William Shatner—yes, that William Shatner—alongside two co-inventors, filed a patent application for a “Smartphone Organization System and...more
The U.S. gave crypto one of its biggest regulatory jolts in years. With the signing of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (“GENIUS”) Act stablecoins now have a legal framework. The GENIUS...more
On August 11, in Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v iFit, Inc., the Federal Circuit offered at least two observations that can benefit patentees seeking patent protection for inventions involving software. First, the court noted...more
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 2024-1177 (Fed. Cir. (D. Utah) Aug. 11, 2025). Opinion by Stoll, joined by Taranto and Scarsi (sitting by designation). PowerBlock sued iFit for infringement of a patent directed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice...more
POWERBLOCK HOLDING, INC. v. IFIT, INC. - Before Taranto, Stoll, and District Judge Scarsi. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Under step one of the Alice test, claims should be considered...more
Modern electro-mechanical systems—ranging from humanoid robots and automated assembly lines, to smart workout equipment and medical devices—combine mechanical and electronic components to automate the performance of physical...more
Following the June 19 anniversary, it's now been 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International — a case that declared a new test for when claims are ineligible for being directed to...more