If we have learned anything from the last twelve years of patent eligibility jurisprudence, it is that the Federal Circuit continues to find new ways to disappoint. The Federal Circuit’s recent nonprecedential decision in...more
In recent years, patent policy has reemerged as a congressional priority, evident in both the reintroduction of prior bills and the emergence of new legislative proposals....more
On February 20, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., holding that claims directed at an “undisputedly human made” host cell...more
Lysosomal storage disorders are a group of inherited diseases that range from treatable (Fabray Disease and Gaucher disease) to fatal (Niemann-Pick disease and Tay-Sachs disease). Drug-induced phospholipidosis (DIP) is...more
US PATENT NO. 7,679,637 LLC v GOOGLE LLC - Before Moore, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Result-oriented claims were found ineligible under 35 U.S.C...more
In US Pat. No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of a patent infringement suit, holding that the claims directed to asynchronous web conferencing were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s rejection of Netflix’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, finding that claims directed to tailoring content specifications for wireless devices were patent...more
On February 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, finding six patents owned by plaintiff invalid for claiming...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
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
In our Case of the Week, a divided Federal Circuit panel reviewed an E.D. Pa. court’s exclusion of two experts’ testimony on infringement and damages issues in a case involving handheld surgical tools for treating spinal...more
Patent eligibility decisions are not new. Courts have grappled with what can and cannot be patented for years, especially in the technology and software spaces. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Our Texas Round-Up for December 2025 covers decisions from the Eastern District addressing subject matter eligibility under Section 101 and the timeliness of expert opinions on non-infringing alternatives....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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit once called the remedy for inequitable conduct “the atomic bomb of patent law.” Inequitable conduct is a defense against patent infringement that can render a patent...more
Section 101 Blog If you work anywhere near patent eligibility, the rhythm is familiar. Another year, another reform drumbeat. Draft language circulates on the Hill. Industry groups publish letters. Academics and the familiar...more
One might be forgiven for assuming, based on a cursory reading of the Constitution or perhaps a fleeting bout of logic, that the U.S. patent system exists to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Historically, this...more
Following a dismissal on the pleadings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after concluding that the asserted patent was...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
On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah that found certain claims of a selectorized dumbbell...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
On July 21, 2025, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL’s (together, “Teads”) Motion to Dismiss Yieldmo, Inc.’s (“Yieldmo”) Amended Complaint alleging that Teads...more