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 elaborated on what makes a claim abstract, the role of functional claiming, and the difference between the two Alice steps. The court emphasized that the step-one inquiry often turns on identifying the claimed advance over the prior art.  It identified three recurring categories of abstract ideas from prior cases: longstanding or fundamental human practices; data collection, manipulation, and display, particularly when claimed at a high level of generality; and claims using result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results. The court also explained the line between what is and what is not an abstract idea.

On the confusion side, the Federal Circuit is apparently split as to whether conventionality is considered at step one. In PowerBlock Holdings v. iFit, the court cautioned parties and tribunals “not to conflate the separate novelty and obviousness inquiries … with the step one inquiry….” But, in Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Gen Digital, the court did consider conventionality at step one, stating “claims that recite something ‘already routine and conventional’ are not sufficient.” Practitioners, therefore, need to be careful when arguing 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a forum that may end up at the Federal Circuit.

I will discuss this topic on my next webinar: https://www.barbri.com/course/professional-development/cle/step-one-of-the-alice-framework-recent-federal-circuit-guida_2026-04-14