Posts Tagged ‘patentable subject matter’

I’m providing some of my slides from my webinar yesterday on the patent eligibility of machine learning. These slides include an updated list of abstract ideas found by the Federal Circuit as well as the slides for the Electric Power Group (EPG) line of cases. The EPG section includes Recentive, RPI, and Ollnova, which is…

In Arendi v. Oath Holdings (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit today struck down four patents using Electric Power Group (EPG). Interestingly, the district court had found three patents (the ‘356, ‘854, and ‘993 patents) invalid for reciting patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and one patent (the ‘843 patent) as satisfying § 101.…

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…

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,…

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 v. Google (nonprecedential) is yet another example.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…

In today’s RFC Lenders of Texas v. Smart Chemical Solutions case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit needed very little analysis to affirm a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, finding the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §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…

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.

In today’s Nantworks v. Niantic case (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit killed two patents directed to data analysis/manipulation by using its normal SAE process.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…

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…