News / Insights

  • Yet Another Example of Electric Power Group (EPG) Killing a Patent

    By Michael Kiklis | 06/02/2026 |

    In today’s AGI SureTrack LLC, v. Farmers Edge Inc. case, the Federal Circuit used EPG to once again strike down a patent for failing to recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The technology involves collecting farming operation data using devices attached to farming equipment while the equipment is operating and then processing…

  • Webinar on June 11, 2026: The Subject Matter Eligibility of Machine-Learning Inventions

    By Michael Kiklis | 05/12/2026 |

    The next installment of my continuing patentable-subject-matter webinars (since 2014) will take place on June 11, 2026. It will be devoted to the subject matter eligibility of machine-learning (ML) inventions. Interestingly, ML has met nothing but roadblocks at the Federal Circuit. ML patents have been struck down twice by the Federal Circuit: first, in Recentive,…

  • TJTM Tech. v. Google: Functional Claims Directed to Suppressing Cell Phone Notifications While Driving Found Patent Ineligible

    By Michael Kiklis | 05/05/2026 | Comments Off on TJTM Tech. v. Google: Functional Claims Directed to Suppressing Cell Phone Notifications While Driving Found Patent Ineligible

    If you follow my posts, you’ve seen a lot of functional claims struck down recently by the Federal Circuit. Today’s TJTM Tech. v. Google (nonprecedential) is yet another example. The technology involves suppressing incoming notifications from “calls, texts, emails, etc.” on a mobile phone to prevent distracted driving and automatically notifying the sender with an…

  • RFC Lenders of Texas v. Smart Chemical Solutions: Functional Claims Directed to Monitoring Vehicles for Unauthorized Usage Fail to Recite Patentable Subject Matter

    By Michael Kiklis | 04/29/2026 | Comments Off on RFC Lenders of Texas v. Smart Chemical Solutions: Functional Claims Directed to Monitoring Vehicles for Unauthorized Usage Fail to Recite Patentable Subject Matter

    In today’s RFC Lenders of Texas v. Smart Chemical Solutions case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit needed very little analysis to affirm a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, finding the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The technology involves monitoring vehicles for unauthorized usage. The claims were functionally drafted (e.g., “detecting movement…

  • Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics: Result-Oriented Claims Die via § 101 While Detailed Claims Survive

    By Michael Kiklis | 04/29/2026 | Comments Off on Constellation Designs v. LG Electronics: Result-Oriented Claims Die via § 101 While Detailed Claims Survive

    Here’s my analysis of yesterday’s Constellation Designs Federal Circuit case dealing with patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This case is a good example of how differently the court treats result-oriented claims versus detailed claims.

  • Summarize, Analogize, and Euthanize (SAE): the Federal Circuit’s standard patentable-subject-matter process.

    By Michael Kiklis | 04/23/2026 | Comments Off on Summarize, Analogize, and Euthanize (SAE): the Federal Circuit’s standard patentable-subject-matter process.

    In today’s Nantworks v. Niantic case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit killed two patents directed to data analysis/manipulation by using its normal SAE process. The case involved two patents: the ‘518 (mapping augmented-reality (AR) objects and rendering them on a display) and the ‘051 (incorporating visual objects into a digital representation of an environment surrounding an…

  • Another patentable-subject-matter take down by the Electric Power Group (EPG) line of cases!

    By Michael Kiklis | 04/08/2026 | Comments Off on Another patentable-subject-matter take down by the Electric Power Group (EPG) line of cases!

    In yesterday’s In re McFadden Fed. Cir. case (nonprecedential), the court struck down an application directed to “generating one distribution of information items, then comparing it to a previous distribution of information items, to determine how information should be presented to a consumer.” If Mr. McFadden’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he had another one…

  • Functional claiming = abstract idea! 

    By Michael Kiklis | 03/31/2026 | Comments Off on Functional claiming = abstract idea! 

    In step one of the Alice patentable-subject-matter test under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Fed. Cir. normally reviews the claim and specification and then looks at its case law to see if the claim recites subject matter on the forbidden list of abstract ideas (see my prior posts) to determine if the claim is directed…

  • Recent Federal Circuit Guidance Provides both Clarity and Confusion on Step One of the Alice Framework

    By Michael Kiklis | 03/27/2026 | Comments Off on Recent Federal Circuit Guidance Provides both Clarity and Confusion on Step One of the Alice Framework

    In the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision, the Court left the contours of what exactly constitutes an “abstract idea” undefined, leaving lower courts and patent practitioners to struggle. Recently, the Federal Circuit has provided both clarity and confusion to the abstract-idea analysis. On the clarity side, in GoTV Streaming v. Netflix, the…

  • Federal Circuit remands for an Alice step two determination

    By Michael Kiklis | 03/11/2026 | Comments Off on Federal Circuit remands for an Alice step two determination

    The Fed. Cir. today remanded a patentable subject matter case under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to the district court for an Alice step-two analysis in Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Gen Digital. I’ve been writing about how there is a split at the Fed. Cir. on whether conventionality is used at step one. Well, in…