IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Federal Circuit
Subscribe to Federal Circuit's Posts

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

by | May 22, 2025 | ,

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception of an invention does not require that the inventor appreciated the invention at the time of conception. Knowledge that an invention is successful is only part of the case for reduction to practice. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. et al. v. Broad Inst. et al., Case No. 22-1594 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, Regents) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, Broad) were each separately involved in research concerning CRISPR systems that “are immune defense systems in prokaryotic cells that naturally edit DNA.” At issue was the invention of the use of CRISPR systems to modify the DNA in eukaryotic cells. Regents and Broad filed competing patent applications resulting in an interference proceeding under pre-AIA law at the US Patent & Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences to determine which applicant had priority to the invention.

The main issue before the Board was a priority dispute over who first conceived of the invention and sufficiently reduced it to practice under pre-AIA patent law. Regents submitted three provisional patent applications dated May 2012, October 2012, and January 2013 and moved to be accorded the benefit of the earliest filing date, May 2012, for the purpose of determining priority. Alternatively, Reagents sought to be accorded either October 2012 or January 2013 as its priority date. The Board found that Regents’ first and second provisional applications (filed in May and October 2012, respectively) were not a constructive reduction to practice because neither satisfied the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The third provisional application, filed in January 2013, was the first to amount to a constructive reduction to practice of the counts in interference. The Board then ruled that Broad was the senior party for the purposes of priority in the interference proceeding because Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when a scientist submitted a manuscript to a journal publisher. The Board ruled that Regents failed to prove conception of the invention prior to Broad’s actual reduction to practice. Regents appealed.

Regents argued that in assessing conception, the Board “legally erred by requiring Regents’ scientist to know that their invention would work.” The Federal Circuit agreed and vacated the Board’s decision. As the Court explained, there are three stages to the inventive process: conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice. At the conception stage, “an inventor need not know that his invention will work for conception to be complete.” Rather, knowledge that the invention will work, “necessarily, can rest only on an actual reduction to practice.” The Board therefore legally erred by requiring Regents to know its invention would work to prove [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Clickbait: Actual Scope (Not Intended Scope) Determines Broadening Reissue Analysis

by | May 15, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s rejection of a proposed reissue claim for being broader than the original claim, denying the inventors’ argument that the analysis should focus on the intended scope of the original claim rather than the actual scope. In re Kostić, Case No. 23-1437 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Stoll, Clevenger, Cunningham, JJ.)

Miodrag Kostić and Guy Vandevelde are the owners and listed inventors of a patent directed to “method[s] implemented on an online network connecting websites to computers of respective users for buying and selling of click-through traffic.” Click-through links are typically seen on an internet search engine or other website inviting the user to visit another page, often to direct sales. Typical prior art transactions would require an advertiser to pay the search engine (or other seller) an upfront fee in addition to a fee per click, not knowing in advance what volume or responsiveness the link will generate. The patent at issue discloses a method where the advertiser and seller first conduct a trial of click-through traffic to get more information before the bidding and sale process. The specification also discloses a “direct sale process” permitting a seller to bypass the trial and instead post its website parameters and price/click requirement so advertisers can start the sale process immediately.

The independent claim recites a “method of implementing on an online network connecting websites to computers of respective users for buying and selling of click-through traffic from a first exchange partner’s web site.” The claim requires “conducting a pre-bidding trial of click-through traffic” and “conducting a bidding process after the trial period is concluded.” A dependent claim further requires “wherein the intermediary web site enables interested exchange partners to conduct a direct exchange of click-through traffic without a trial process.”

The patent was issued in 2013, and the inventors filed for reissue in 2019. The reissue application cited an error, stating that the “[d]ependent claim [] fails to include limitations of [the independent] claim,” where the dependent claim “expressly excludes the trial bidding process referred to in the method of [the independent] claim,” which would render it invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. To fix the error, the inventors attempted to rewrite the dependent claim as an independent claim that omitted a trial process.

The examiner issued a nonfinal Reissue Office Action rejecting the reissue application as a broadening reissue outside of the statutory two-year period. The examiner found that the original dependent claim is interpreted to require all steps of the independent claim, including the trial period, and further to require a direct sale without its own trial, beyond the trial claimed in the independent claim. The inventors attempted to rewrite the dependent claim as the method of independent claim with “and/or” language regarding the trial process versus direct to sale process. The amendment was rejected for the same reasons. The Board affirmed on appeal.

Whether amendments made during reissue enlarge the scope of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Article III Appellate Standing Under the Sun

by | May 15, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final written decision. Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc., Case No. 23-1300 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) (Hughes, J., concurring).

After the Board upheld the validity of challenged claims of a patent owned by Sun Pharmaceuticals in a post-grant review proceeding (PGR), Incyte appealed and sought a determination that the claims were unpatentable. Sun Pharmaceuticals challenged whether Incyte had Article III standing to support an appeal to the Federal Circuit based on a lack of injury-in-fact.

The Federal Circuit focused on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a threshold issue and whether Incyte, as the party seeking review, met its burden of establishing Article III standing at the time it filed its appeal.

As context, the Federal Circuit noted that standing requires a concrete, actual, or imminent injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the court’s decision. Incyte asserted it had standing to appeal based on potential infringement liability and under the competitor standing doctrine.

Addressing potential infringement liability, the Federal Circuit noted Incyte’s reliance on a supplemental declaration from an in-house business development leader submitted during briefing. Noting that Incyte’s Article III standing was “not self-evident,” the Court ruled that Incyte should have presented evidence prior to its reply brief and declined to consider the supplemental evidence. Incyte was on notice that its appellate standing was challenged, and that evidence of its standing should have been submitted at the earliest possible opportunity. Finding no good cause for the delay, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to consider Incyte’s supplemental evidence and, based only on earlier submitted evidence, found that Incyte failed to establish that it had “concrete plans for future activity” that would create a “substantial risk of future infringement.”

In its discussion of the competitor standing doctrine, which allows competitors to challenge patents that could harm their competitive position, the Federal Circuit found the doctrine inapplicable because Incyte failed to show it would suffer economic harm from the Board’s ruling on patent validity. Rather, the Board’s ruling upholding specific patent claims “does not, by the operation of ordinary economic forces, naturally harm a [challenger] just because it is a competitor in the same market as the beneficiary of the government action (the patentee).” As the Court explained, “it is not enough to show a benefit to a competitor to establish injury in fact; the party seeking to establish standing must show a concrete injury to itself.”

The Federal Circuit held that because Incyte had not shown it was currently engaged in or had non-speculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the challenged patent, it was unable to establish injury-in-fact.

In his concurrence, Judge Hughes stated that while Incyte lacked Article III standing, he believed that Federal Circuit precedent was [...]

Continue Reading



read more

False Connection: Post-Application Date Evidence Can Be Considered

by | May 15, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register a mark on the grounds of false connection, explaining that the false connection inquiry can include evidence that arises during the examination after filing. In re Thomas D. Foster, APC, Case No. 23-1527 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, Prost, Stoll, JJ.)

Under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)), a trademark can be refused registration if it “falsely suggests a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” To determine if a mark falsely suggests a connection, the Board can use a non-exhaustive four-part test that inquires whether:

  • The mark is the same, or a close approximation of, the name previously used by another person or institution.
  • The mark points uniquely or unmistakably to that person or institution.
  • That person or institution is not connected with the activities performed by the applicant under the mark.
  • The fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a connection with the person or institution would be presumed.

Here, Thomas D. Foster filed a trademark application for the mark US SPACE FORCE on March 19, 2018, six days after President Trump proposed forming a “Space Force.” Registration was refused on the grounds of a false suggestion of a connection with the US government. The Board affirmed and denied reconsideration. Foster appealed.

Foster argued that the Board improperly considered evidence that post-dated the application’s filing date and that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s findings under the first two elements of the four-part false connections test.

Regarding Foster’s first argument, the Federal Circuit found it permissible to use facts that arise after an application’s filing date and during the examination process to assess a false connection. The Court reasoned that this was consistent with other § 2 inquiries that consider evidence that arises through the date the Board issues its decision, such as likelihood of confusion (§ 2(d)) and distinctiveness (§ 2(f)). Therefore, the Court found that the Board did not err in its consideration of evidence that arose during the examination process.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with Foster’s second argument, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings under the false connection test. Under the first part of the test, the Board found that US SPACE FORCE was the same as, or a close approximation of, a name or identity of the United States. The Court concluded that this was supported by substantial evidence, specifically pre-application evidence (President Trump’s announcement and national news articles discussing the formation of the US Space Force) and post-application evidence (the official establishment of the US Space Force and national news articles). Under the second part of the test, the Board had found that US SPACE FORCE pointed uniquely and unmistakably to the United States. The Board again relied on news coverage and the fact that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

by | May 15, 2025 |

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground that could not have been raised during the IPR proceeding, such as that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use. Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, Case No. 23-1367 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Hughes, JJ.)

IOENGINE owns patents directed to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor that causes communications to be sent to a network server in response to user interaction with an interface on a terminal. Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE after one of Ingenico’s customers was sued for infringement based on Ingenico’s products. Ingenico filed IPR petitions challenging the asserted patents, which resulted in final written decisions that held most of the challenged claims unpatentable.

Back at the district court, IOENGINE proceeded with the remaining claims. At summary judgment, IOENGINE moved, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), to preclude Ingenico from relying on “documentation related to DiskOnKey Upgrade software,” arguing that Ingenico reasonably could have been expected to raise that prior art during the IPR proceedings. The district court ruled that “Ingenico will be estopped from relying on those documents [to prove invalidity] except to the extent . . . that they form part of a substantively different combination of references that could not reasonably have been raised in the IPRs.”

At trial, Ingenico introduced evidence of a prior art USB device known as the DiskOnKey. The DiskOnKey device was offered with various software applications, including an application called Firmware Upgrader, and was equipped with capabilities described in a Software Development Kit (together, the DiskOnKey system). Ingenico argued that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the asserted claims as anticipated or obvious because it was either “on sale” or “in public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or “known or used by others . . . before the date of the invention” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The jury returned a verdict finding the patents were infringed but invalid as anticipated and obvious. Both parties appealed.

IOENGINE did not dispute the jury’s finding that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the claims-at-issue as anticipated or obvious if the DiskOnKey system was prior art, but instead argued that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader portion of the DiskOnKey system was either “on sale” or “in public use,” or “known or used by others . . . before the invention.”

The Federal Circuit found that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader was accessible to the public was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Ingenico had introduced a press release promoting the launch of the Firmware Upgrader and a website from which the Firmware Upgrader was available for download. IOENGINE argued that this evidence did not show actual use, but the Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Hatch-Waxman or Not, Clinical Trials Aren’t Subject to Injunction

by | May 15, 2025 |

Analyzing the permissible scope of an injunction under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s prohibitions on an open-label extension (OLE) of a then-running clinical trial and new clinical trials and remanded for further consideration of whether prohibiting a request for an additional indication was appropriate. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, Case No. 24-2274 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

This appeal is one of several disputes between Jazz and Avadel regarding their competing sodium oxybate products. Jazz markets two such products: Xyrem, approved for treating excessive daytime sleepiness and certain cataplexy, and Xywav, which, in addition to Xyrem’s indications, also may be used for treating idiopathic hypersomnia. Avadel filed a § 505(b)(2) new drug application (NDA) to market its own product, Lumryz. During the pendency of the Lumryz application, Jazz obtained a patent and asserted that Avadel infringed it under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), part of the Hatch-Waxman Act, based on its filing of the Lumryz NDA. The patent was never Orange Book listed, so Avadel did not need to submit any patent certification.

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lumryz. Avadel launched the product, and Jazz amended its complaint to assert traditional § 271(a) – (c) infringement. Ultimately, Avadel and Jazz stipulated infringement, the patent was determined not invalid, and the jury awarded damages based on the post-launch infringement. After further proceedings, the district court permanently enjoined Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, offering an OLE phase of its then-running Lumryz idiopathic hypersomnia clinical trial, and against initiating new clinical trials. Avadel appealed, arguing that each of these restrictions was improper.

The Federal Circuit largely agreed with Avadel, reversing the first two prohibitions, and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration of the prohibition against any new clinical trials. Turning first to the prohibition on new clinical trials, the Court held that initiating new trials for the purposes of submission to the FDA fell squarely within the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor for experimentation (under § 271(e)(1)) and thus could not be enjoined (per §271(e)(3)). Jazz unsuccessfully argued that Avadel had waived its Safe Harbor position, which required factual development.

Next, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s injunction against an OLE, concluding that the district court had not applied the Supreme Court’s four-factor eBay (2006) test for injunctions when deciding the appropriateness of such extraordinary relief. Refusing to determine whether an OLE extension qualified as safe-harbored activity in the first instance, the Court explained that only if such activity were deemed to be infringing on an appropriate record could it be enjoined.

Finally, with respect to prohibiting Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, the Federal Circuit concluded that the propriety of that restriction may turn on whether the infringement qualified under the Hatch-Waxman Act, reasoning that an injunction might run afoul of the § 271(e)(4) limitation on the scope of injunctive relief. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Green Light to Register Color Mark for Medical Gloves

by | May 8, 2025 |

Addressing for the first time the test for determining whether a color mark is generic, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s Milwaukee test as the appropriate standard, affirming the Board’s determination that a dark green color mark used on medical examination gloves was generic. In re PT Medisafe Technologies, Case No. 2023-1573 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2025) (Prost, Clevenger, Stark, JJ.)

PT Medisafe filed an application to register a dark green color mark for use in connection with medical examination gloves:

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examining attorney refused registration, alleging that the mark was not inherently distinctive and therefore required a showing of acquired distinctiveness. In response, Medisafe submitted evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including a declaration from a Medisafe vice president, promotional literature, and examples of competitive goods. The examining attorney was not swayed, issuing another office action stating that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness and was generic. Medisafe submitted additional evidence in support of acquired distinctiveness, including additional declarations, but the examining attorney ultimately issued a final office action refusing registration.

On appeal, the Board applied a two-step test to determine whether the applied-for color mark was generic:

  • What is the genus of the goods or services at issue?
  • Is the color “so common within the relevant genus that consumers would primarily associate it with the genus rather than as indicating a unique source of goods [or services] within the genus?”

This test, which was first articulated in the Board’s 2019 decision in Milwaukee Electric Tool v. Freud America, is a “slight variation” of the standard test for genericness set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 1986 decision in H. Marvin Ginn v. International Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, modified for use specifically with color marks.

The Board found that the appropriate genus was “all chloroprene medical examination gloves” and the relevant public included “all such people or businesses who do or may purchase chloroprene medical examination gloves.” The Board likewise agreed with the examining attorney that the color mark was generic because “it is so common in the chloroprene medical examination glove industry that it cannot identify a single source.”

The Board cited 25 examples of third parties using the same or a similar dark green color on medical examination gloves. Medisafe claimed that 15 of those 25 examples were Medisafe gloves, but the Board nonetheless affirmed the refusal, noting that “Medisafe made no such claim as to the other 10,” and “all 25 screenshots [are] probative of genericness because the relevant consumer – even including unspecified ‘authorized resellers’ – could be exposed to . . . gloves that appear under a large number of third-party marks without identifying [Medisafe] as the source or manufacturer.” Medisafe appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Medisafe argued that the Board applied the wrong standard in determining that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

by | May 8, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court further found that the patent specification did not recite sufficient corresponding structure, rendering the claim element indefinite. Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (Prost, Taranto, Stark JJ.)

Fintiv sued PayPal for infringing four patents related to cloud-based transaction systems, also known as “mobile wallet platforms,” “mobile financial services platforms,” or “electronic payment systems.” During claim construction, the district court ruled that the terms “payment handler” and “payment handler service” were indefinite. The court concluded that both terms were means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. Although the claims did not use the word “means,” the district court found that PayPal had demonstrated that the terms were drafted in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function language, effectively substituting “payment handler” for the word “means.” The court also found that the patent specifications failed to disclose corresponding structure capable of performing the claimed functions. As a result, the court held the claims invalid for indefiniteness and entered final judgment. Fintiv appealed.

Fintiv argued that the district court erred in concluding that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f) and that the specifications failed to disclose the structure for the claimed functions. The Federal Circuit disagreed.

The Federal Circuit analyzed the “payment-handler” terms, which did not explicitly use the word “means.” Under § 112(f), there is a rebuttable presumption that a claim term does not invoke means-plus-function treatment unless the challenger can show that the term is a nonce term that lacks “sufficiently definite structure” or only recites a function without providing enough structure to perform that function. Fintiv contended that the payment handler terms, both individually and collectively, identified the required structure. However, the Court found that PayPal had successfully rebutted the presumption since the payment handler terms recited functions without reciting sufficient structure to perform those functions. The Court agreed with the district court that the term “handler” did not convey sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Having determined that the payment handler terms invoked § 112(f), the Federal Circuit sought to identify the corresponding structure described in the specifications for performing the payment handler function but found none. The Court concluded that “without an algorithm to achieve these functionalities – and, more generally, given the specifications’ failure to disclose adequate corresponding structure – we hold the payment-handler terms indefinite.”



read more

Royal Play Penalty: No Standing in the End (Zone)

by | Apr 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, finding that the appellant lacked standing because it failed to allege any actual and particularized injury. Michael J. Messier v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, Case No. 24-2271 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2025) (per curiam) (Moore, C.J.; Prost, Stark, JJ.) (nonprecedential)

Michael J. Messier claimed that he is a direct descendent of the kings of France, and that he and his family own intellectual property rights to the Fleur-de-Lis mark used by the NFL’s New Orleans Saints. Messier filed a petition with the Board for cancellation of the Saints’ Fleur-de-Lis mark. Messier’s petition contained no claim that he or his family currently use any fleur-de-lis marks in commerce or any other avenues for revenue, such as licensing. The Board dismissed the petition.

The Board held that pursuant to Sections 13 and 14 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1063 and 1064, to maintain a cancellation action, Messier had to “allege a commercial interest in the registered mark or a reasonable belief in damage from the mark’s continued registration.” Messier’s original and amended petitions failed to do so. The Board noted that Messier did not own or conduct “any business under the mark, and thus he cannot allege entitlement.” Messier appealed.

The Federal Circuit determined that Messier lacked standing to bring the appeal. The Court explained that to demonstrate Article III standing for his appeal, Messier had to demonstrate actual or imminent injury that was concrete and particularized, a causal connection between the alleged conduct and the injury, and potential redressability by a favorable decision. Messier failed to meet his burden, primarily because he failed to demonstrate injury by the Saints’ use of the Fleur-de-Lis mark that went beyond “a general grievance or abstract harm.” Messier did not allege that he used a fleur-de-lis design in commerce whatsoever and thus failed to demonstrate any injury.



read more

Broadcast Alert! Applying Conventional Machine Learning to New Data Isn’t Patent Eligible

by | Apr 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that patents applying established machine learning methods to new data are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., Case No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Goldberg, JJ.)

Recentive sued Fox, alleging infringement of four patents designed to tackle long-standing challenges in the entertainment industry – namely, optimizing the scheduling of live events and refining “network maps,” which determine the content aired on specific channels across various geographic markets at set times. These patents aim to streamline broadcast operations and enhance programming efficiency.

The patents at issue can be divided into two categories: network maps and machine learning training. The machine learning training patents focus on generating optimized event schedules by training machine learning models with parameters such as venue availability, ticket prices, performer fees, and other relevant factors. The network map patents describe methods for dynamically generating network maps that assign live events to television stations across different geographic regions. These methods utilize machine learning to optimize television ratings by mapping events to stations and updating the network map in real time based on changes to the schedule or underlying criteria. The patents’ specifications explain that the methods employ “any suitable machine learning technique” using generic computing machines.

Fox moved to dismiss on the grounds that the patents were subject matter ineligible under § 101. Recentive acknowledged that the concept of preparing network maps had existed for a long time. Recentive also recognized that the patents did not claim the machine learning technique. Nonetheless, Recentive argued that its patents claimed eligible subject matter because they involve using machine learning to generate custom algorithms based on training the machine learning model. Recentive characterized its patents as introducing “the application of machine learning models to the unsophisticated, and equally niche, prior art field of generating network maps for broadcasting live events and live event schedules.”

The district court disagreed and granted Fox’s motion. Applying the Alice framework, at step one, the court determined that the asserted claims were “directed to the abstract ideas of producing network maps and event schedules, respectively, using known generic mathematical techniques.” At step two, the court determined that the machine learning limitations were no more than “broad, functionally described, well-known techniques” that claimed “only generic and conventional computing devices.” The court denied Recentive’s request for leave to amend because it determined that any amendment would be futile. Recentive appealed.

For the Federal Circuit, this case presented a question of first impression: whether claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are patent eligible.

Step One

While Recentive claimed that its machine learning approach was uniquely dynamic and capable of uncovering hidden patterns in real time, the Federal Circuit found these features to be merely standard aspects of how machine learning operates. The Court explained that iterative training and model updates are not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES