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
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
Our Patent Case Summaries provide a weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial...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
Who should read this article? Companies sued by patent trolls (NPEs) seeking to develop strategies to push back against NPE activity—and specifically companies in the following industries...more
Patent practitioners have seen a shifting landscape for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since the Supreme Court’s 2012 and 2014 seminal decisions in Mayo and Alice. Now, the United States Patent and Trademark Office...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
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
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
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
With the Supreme Court sidestepping Audio Evolution Diagnostics, stakeholders should prepare for litigation risk and engage on PERA reform efforts....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