Technology & Information Law Blog by Charles Gideon Korrell

Tag: elegibility

  • Federal Circuit Overturns ITC’s Patent Ineligibility Ruling in US Synthetic v. ITC

    On February 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a case involving key issues in intellectual property law, particularly the eligibility of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the requirements for enablement under § 112. The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s conclusion that certain patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and, therefore, ineligible for patent protection, marking a significant decision for patent law concerning material compositions.

    Case Background

    US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that several companies had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1337) by importing and selling products that infringed its U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (the ’502 patent). The patent in question covers a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC), a material used in drilling and machining applications.

    After an investigation, the ITC determined that the asserted claims of the ’502 patent were directed to an abstract idea and were thus patent-ineligible under § 101. The ITC’s ruling was based on its conclusion that the patent claims were primarily focused on certain magnetic properties of the PDCs, which it considered to be merely the result of the manufacturing process rather than structural limitations of the claimed composition.

    USS appealed this determination, arguing that the ITC had misapplied the Supreme Court’s Alice test and that the patent claims were not abstract but instead directed to a specific, novel composition of matter.

    Federal Circuit’s Analysis and Ruling

    The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s finding of patent ineligibility and ruled in favor of USS. The court applied the Alice two-step test for determining patent eligibility:

    1. Step One: Are the Claims Directed to an Abstract Idea? The Federal Circuit found that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a specific composition of matter. The court emphasized that the patent defines the PDC by its material composition, including diamond grains, catalyst properties, grain size, and certain magnetic properties. Because these characteristics inform a skilled artisan about the structure and physical properties of the PDC, the claims were not abstract.
    2. Step Two: Do the Claims Contain an Inventive Concept? Since the claims were not abstract under step one, the court did not need to proceed to step two. However, it noted that even if step two had been necessary, the claimed composition involved specific manufacturing parameters that resulted in improved material properties, which could qualify as an inventive concept.

    Enablement Under § 112

    In addition to patent eligibility, the intervenors argued that the claims were not enabled under § 112 because the patent did not adequately describe how to achieve the claimed properties without undue experimentation. However, the Federal Circuit upheld the ITC’s conclusion that the claims were enabled. The court found that the patent specification contained sufficient details on the manufacturing process and provided working examples that a skilled artisan could follow without undue experimentation.

    Key Takeaways for Intellectual Property Law

    1. Clarification on Patent Eligibility for Material Compositions
      • The ruling reinforces that claims defining specific material compositions—especially when tied to measurable properties—are not abstract ideas under § 101.
      • The decision pushes back against an overly restrictive view of patent eligibility that might otherwise exclude innovations in material science.
    2. Reaffirmation of the Enablement Standard
      • The Federal Circuit reiterated that the burden of proving non-enablement is on the party challenging the patent.
      • The court emphasized that some level of experimentation is permissible as long as it is not unduly extensive.

    Conclusion

    The US Synthetic v. ITC decision is a significant win for patent holders in the field of material science. It demonstrates that courts are willing to take a nuanced approach when assessing whether a patent is directed to an abstract idea, particularly in cases involving compositions of matter. Moreover, the ruling affirms that patents must provide enough information to enable a skilled artisan to practice the invention without undue experimentation, but they do not need to be exhaustive in their disclosures. This decision is likely to influence future litigation involving patent eligibility and enablement in the chemical and material sciences industries.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Federal Circuit Affirms Non-Infringement in Mirror Worlds v. Meta: Key Patent Law Takeaways

    On December 4, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., upholding the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Meta (formerly Facebook) on all claims of patent infringement. The case, involving patents related to time-ordered data streams, raised important issues in patent law, particularly regarding claim construction, infringement, and patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

    Background of the Case

    Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC alleged that Meta’s News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log features infringed three of its patents:

    • U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 (’227 patent)
    • U.S. Patent No. 7,865,538 (’538 patent)
    • U.S. Patent No. 8,255,439 (’439 patent)

    These patents cover methods for organizing and displaying digital information in chronological streams, a system designed to replace traditional folder-based file organization.

    Meta denied infringement and sought summary judgment on multiple grounds, including non-infringement and invalidity under § 101. The district court ruled in Meta’s favor, and Mirror Worlds appealed.

    Key Patent Law Issues Addressed in the Decision

    1. Claim Construction and the “Main Stream” Limitation

    One of the primary disputes in the case revolved around the construction of the term “main stream”, a key feature in the patented system. The patents required that every data unit received or generated by the system be included in the “main stream.” Meta argued, and the court agreed, that its accused systems (Multifeed Leaves and TimelineDB) did not store all received/generated data in a single time-ordered structure, as required by the patents.

    🔹 Court’s Ruling: The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that some information used by Meta’s systems—such as coefficient scores (which measure user relationships) and advertising data—was received by backend systems but not stored in the alleged “main stream.” This meant that Mirror Worlds could not prove literal infringement.

    🔹 Takeaway for Patent Owners: When drafting claims, precise language matters. If a claim requires that every piece of data be stored in a certain way, an accused infringer only needs to show that one type of data falls outside that structure to avoid infringement.

    2. The “Glance View” Limitation and Non-Infringement of the ’538 and ’439 Patents

    For two of the patents, Mirror Worlds relied on a feature called “glance view”, which required an abbreviated version of a document to be displayed when a user hovered over it. The court ruled that Meta’s accused features did not satisfy this limitation.

    🔹 Court’s Ruling: The district court found that Meta’s contextual dialog boxes (which appear when a user hovers over a link) provided only metadata—such as the source or author of a post—but did not present an actual summary of the document’s content. Because Mirror Worlds failed to present admissible evidence that the accused systems met this limitation, summary judgment was appropriate.

    🔹 Takeaway for Litigants: If a claim includes a specific display requirement, a successful infringement argument requires clear, admissible evidence that the accused product meets that requirement. Unauthenticated screenshots and expert testimony based on them will likely be excluded.

    3. Section 101 Patent Eligibility (Not Addressed)

    Meta cross-appealed the district court’s rejection of its argument that the patents were invalid under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, which governs patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, because the court affirmed the non-infringement ruling, it declined to address the § 101 issue.

    🔹 Practical Implication: Courts often avoid ruling on patent validity issues when they can resolve a case on infringement grounds. This leaves open questions about whether Mirror Worlds’ patents would have survived a § 101 challenge.

    Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Tale for Patent Holders

    The Federal Circuit’s decision in Mirror Worlds v. Meta reinforces several key lessons for patent owners and litigants:

    1️⃣ Claim precision is critical – If a patent requires that a system include every data unit in a structure, any exception can defeat an infringement claim.
    2️⃣ Evidence matters – Courts will exclude unreliable evidence, such as unauthenticated screenshots, that fail to demonstrate a patent claim is met.
    3️⃣ Patent eligibility remains an open issue – The § 101 challenge was left undecided, but software patents, particularly those covering abstract ideas, continue to face heightened scrutiny.

    For companies developing software-based patents, this case underscores the importance of carefully drafted claims, thorough infringement analysis, and solid evidentiary support when asserting patent rights in court.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Surprise Patent Ineligibility Ruling in Astellas v. Sandoz

    In a major rebuke to a district court’s handling of patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit has vacated a decision that invalidated Astellas’s pharmaceutical patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101—a ruling the lower court made on its own initiative, without either party raising the issue. The court’s strong reaffirmation of the “party presentation principle” signals a warning against judicial overreach in patent litigation.

    Background: The Overactive Bladder Treatment and the Patent Dispute

    Astellas Pharma, the manufacturer of Myrbetriq®, an extended-release formulation of mirabegron for overactive bladder (OAB), sued multiple generic drugmakers, including Sandoz, Lupin, and Zydus, for patent infringement under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The key patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,842,780 (the ’780 patent), covered a sustained-release formulation of mirabegron that overcame the “food effect”—an issue where drug absorption varies significantly depending on whether the patient has eaten.

    During the litigation:

    • The generic manufacturers challenged the patent’s validity only under 35 U.S.C. § 112, arguing that the claims were not enabled, lacked written description, or were indefinite.
    • Sandoz explicitly waived arguments under §§ 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness) before trial.
    • Neither side raised a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent eligibility).

    However, after a five-day bench trial, the district court unexpectedly ruled that the patent claims were invalid under § 101—a legal theory that had never been argued by the defendants. This ruling blindsided Astellas, prompting their appeal.

    Key Patent Law Issues Addressed

    1. Can a Court Invalidate a Patent on Grounds Not Raised by Either Party?

    The Federal Circuit’s resounding answer: No.

    The appeals court held that the district court violated the “party presentation principle”—a fundamental rule in U.S. litigation that courts must decide only the issues framed by the parties.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced this principle, stating that courts should not act as “issue spotters” on behalf of litigants. The Federal Circuit echoed this, emphasizing:

    “It is for the parties—not the court—to chart the course of the litigation.”

    By introducing a new ground of invalidity sua sponte, the district court abused its discretion, undermining due process, and depriving Astellas of an opportunity to defend its patent.

    2. Is Patent Eligibility a Special Case Where a Court Can Rule on Its Own?

    No. The district court seemed to treat § 101 eligibility like a jurisdictional question, which courts must assess even if not raised. However, the Federal Circuit flatly rejected this view, clarifying that patent eligibility is subject to the same statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 as other validity defenses.

    The court noted:

    • The Supreme Court has never held that § 101 must be evaluated independently by courts.
    • Patent challengers bear the burden of proving invalidity—courts cannot assume this burden for them.

    3. Was the ’780 Patent’s “Food Effect” Solution Merely a Natural Law?

    The district court held that Astellas’s discovery of a sustained-release profile that eliminated the food effect was merely an application of a natural law, making it patent-ineligible under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs (2012).

    The Federal Circuit avoided ruling on the merits of this issue, focusing instead on the procedural error. However, it hinted that the district court likely misunderstood the scope of § 101, as formulation patents like Astellas’s typically claim a non-naturally occurring composition—not a law of nature.

    Outcome and Key Takeaways

    IssueFederal Circuit Decision
    Court raising § 101 issue sua sponteAbuse of discretion—violates party presentation principle
    Treatment of § 101 as jurisdictionalError—validity challenges must be raised by parties
    Presumption of validity under § 282Applies equally to § 101 challenges
    Future of Astellas’s patentRemanded for ruling on infringement and § 112 validity defenses

    The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for a proper adjudication—one limited to the issues actually raised by the parties (i.e., enablement, written description, and indefiniteness under § 112).

    What This Means for Future Patent Cases

    1. District Courts Must Stick to the Issues Raised

    This ruling strongly discourages judges from introducing new invalidity arguments. It reinforces that § 101 is not a jurisdictional test and that courts cannot invalidate patents sua sponte.

    2. Patent Defendants Cannot Rely on Courts to Raise Additional Defenses

    Generic manufacturers (and other patent challengers) must affirmatively raise § 101 defenses during litigation. A court cannot do their work for them.

    3. Clarifies That Formulation Patents Are Not Automatically “Natural Laws”

    While the Federal Circuit did not directly decide whether Astellas’s patent was ineligible under § 101, its reluctance to uphold the district court’s reasoning suggests that such pharmaceutical formulation patents remain patentable under existing law.

    Next Steps for Astellas

    On remand, Astellas’s patent infringement claims will continue—but the case will focus only on the § 112 defenses (enablement, written description, and indefiniteness). The generics will have to prove these defenses—which are often harder to establish than obviousness or anticipation.

    See also:

    Article relating to patent office interim guidance on subject matter elegibility.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Contour v. GoPro: Reversal of § 101 Ineligibility Finding for POV Camera Patent

    Contour v. GoPro: Reversal of § 101 Ineligibility Finding for POV Camera Patent

    In a significant development in the evolving landscape of patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding that claims directed to a point-of-view (POV) action camera with real-time streaming and control functionality recite patent-eligible subject matter. The September 9, 2024 decision in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 22-1654, provides meaningful clarification on how courts should assess “technological improvements” under Alice step one.

    Background: Remote Control and Real-Time Streaming in POV Cameras

    Contour’s asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694) cover hands-free POV action cameras configured for remote image acquisition and control. Central to the claims is a “dual stream” architecture: the camera generates a high-quality video file for later viewing and a lower-quality stream that is wirelessly transmitted to a remote device for real-time viewing and control. This design allows users—like a skier with a helmet-mounted camera—to monitor and adjust recordings in real-time using a smartphone app, even when the camera itself is out of sight.

    The district court found the claims ineligible under § 101, characterizing them as directed to the abstract idea of “creating and transmitting video (at two different resolutions) and adjusting the video’s settings remotely.” At Alice step two, the court found no inventive concept, concluding the claims merely invoked generic components performing conventional functions.

    Federal Circuit’s Reversal: A “Technological Solution to a Technological Problem”

    Writing for the panel, Judge Reyna disagreed with the lower court’s characterization of the claims and reversed, holding that claim 11 of the ’954 patent and its counterpart in the ’694 patent are not directed to an abstract idea.

    Importantly, the Federal Circuit emphasized the claim’s requirement for generating two data streams “in parallel” and transferring only the low-quality stream to the remote device. This, the court found, constituted a specific and concrete improvement to the functionality of POV cameras, not merely an abstract idea implemented on conventional hardware.

    The panel highlighted several key precedents in its reasoning:

    • McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016): The court analogized Contour’s claims to those in McRO, where rule-based automation of animation was found to improve computer graphics technology. Similarly, Contour’s dual-stream architecture improved real-time camera control and viewing capabilities.
    • Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016): The court reiterated that claims should not be abstracted away from their specific technological solutions. The district court’s characterization of Contour’s claims at “a high level of abstraction” was criticized as contrary to Enfish.
    • Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020): The panel cited these cases for the principle that claims reciting specific functional improvements to technology—particularly those improving user interaction or system performance—can be patent eligible at step one.
    • Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021): GoPro had relied heavily on Yu, where claims directed to combining two images for enhancement were found ineligible. The court distinguished Yu, noting that Contour involved no “longstanding, fundamental practice” in photography or video recording and instead claimed a concrete, non-generic camera architecture.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Technological specificity matters. The Federal Circuit was persuaded by the “parallel recording” requirement and the specific hardware-software interaction enabling remote streaming and control. Mere invocation of a result is not enough—but a particular claimed structure that achieves it may be.
    2. Avoid abstract overgeneralization. The decision warns against characterizing claims at too high a level of abstraction, a misstep that contributed to the district court’s error.
    3. The context of prior art is relevant—but not dispositive. While GoPro emphasized the use of known components, the court focused instead on their unconventional combination and functional interplay. This reflects a growing trend in § 101 cases toward examining whether claims provide a specific technical solution, even using off-the-shelf hardware.
    4. Preemption concerns remain central. The court noted that Contour’s claims did not risk preempting the field of remote video control. The narrow requirement of dual-stream parallel processing significantly cabined the claim scope.

    Conclusion

    Contour v. GoPro is a noteworthy addition to the Federal Circuit’s body of § 101 jurisprudence. For innovators in imaging technology, real-time communications, or IoT devices, the decision affirms that structural claims improving device functionality—even through combinations of conventional components—may clear the § 101 hurdle when articulated with sufficient technical specificity.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell

  • Broadband iTV v. Amazon: CAFC Doubles Down on § 101 Ineligibility

    Broadband iTV v. Amazon: CAFC Doubles Down on § 101 Ineligibility

    In its recent decision Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling that all asserted claims from five patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion, authored by Judge Reyna, offers a comprehensive application of the Alice two-step framework and reiterates that automation of known practices and abstract ideas remains outside the bounds of patentable subject matter—even when dressed up with user interface features and layered templates.

    The Patents at Issue

    The dispute involved five patents, four of which were from a common family (the ’026, ’388, ’750, and ’751 patents) generally relating to electronic programming guides for video-on-demand (VOD) systems. The fifth, the unrelated ’825 patent, focused on dynamically adjusting the guide based on a viewer’s history to minimize keystrokes.

    The Federal Circuit treated claim 1 of the ’026 and ’825 patents as representative. Claim 1 of the ’026 patent recited a “templatized” electronic program guide created from metadata uploaded by content providers and layered with background, template, and content elements. The ’825 patent’s claim 1 described reordering categories in a viewer-specific guide based on usage history, with claim 15 adding a step of generating new categories.

    Step One: Abstract Ideas Remain Abstract

    Applying Alice step one, the court agreed with the district court that the ’026 patent family was directed to “receiving metadata and organizing the display of video content based on that metadata”—a formulation akin to what the court previously found abstract in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and In re TLI Communications, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

    BBiTV leaned heavily on Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Data Engine Technologies v. Google, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018), arguing that the claims improved user interface functionality. The panel rejected that analogy, distinguishing those decisions as involving specific technological solutions rather than content arrangement based on metadata—a practice deemed more akin to “organizing information,” not an inventive UI architecture.

    For the ’825 patent, the Federal Circuit found the claims directed to the abstract idea of “collecting and using a viewer’s video history to suggest categories of video content”—essentially targeted advertising. As in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso, 996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court reaffirmed that tailoring content based on prior interactions is a longstanding commercial practice and abstract even if done digitally.

    Step Two: No “Significantly More”

    At Alice step two, the court found no inventive concept that transformed the abstract ideas into patent-eligible applications. BBiTV pointed to automatic generation of displays from templates, a content management server, and user-specific guide generation. But the court concluded that all these elements were routine and conventional—citing BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022)—and that automation itself does not rescue an abstract idea.

    The court also dismissed the argument that layering templates or using a log-in step provided the necessary inventive concept, emphasizing that these features were not claimed as technological improvements but merely used as vehicles to execute the abstract idea.

    Strategic Considerations for Protecting UI Innovations

    While Broadband iTV reinforces the high bar for patent eligibility under § 101, particularly for UI-related inventions, it also offers guidance for strengthening future claims. Based on the court’s reasoning and broader commentary on the decision, practitioners should consider the following strategies:

    1. Emphasize Technical Specificity
      Claims should identify the specific technological solution being offered—such as a novel data structure, a new rendering technique, or a UI behavior that solves a particular latency or usability problem—rather than describe high-level functional goals.
    2. Detail the Technical Benefits
      Specifications should clearly articulate how the invention improves a technological process, such as reducing processing time, conserving memory, or enabling new interaction paradigms. Abstract notions of improved “user experience” alone are insufficient.
    3. Avoid Generic Implementations
      When drafting claims, it’s important to incorporate non-generic computing components or unconventional arrangements of conventional elements. Claims that merely recite servers, databases, or templates without more will struggle to survive § 101 scrutiny.
    4. Consider Design Patents for UI Elements
      For UI innovations where the novelty lies in layout or visual arrangement rather than technological function, design patents may offer a more effective path to protection. They can complement utility applications and provide coverage for ornamental aspects.

    Final Thoughts

    This decision continues a trend of eligibility rulings that reject attempts to claim the digital automation of human decision-making or content organization unless coupled with a demonstrable technological advance. It serves as both a warning and a roadmap—highlighting the pitfalls of overbroad functional claims and offering actionable insights for protecting user interface innovations in a post-Alice landscape.ble long-standing commercial or cognitive tasks, even when executed in a modern digital context.

    By Charles Gideon Korrell