1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Holding Asserted Software Claims Invalid as Directed to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter

Oct 28, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Michael P. Kahn

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and found that the claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea: the concept of analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior.  The court agreed that the claimed method is nothing more than a combination of several abstract ideas previously found ineligible under § 101, including collecting information, analyzing information and presenting the results of an abstract process.

The court contrasted the claims of the ’500 patent with those at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. In McRO, the court found McRO’s claims patent-eligible because they were directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer animation that used rules to accurately synchronize animated lips for on screen characters. This was previously done by animators; thus, the rules were critical to the implementation of the process on a computer. In contrast, the claims in the ’500 patent did not use rules to improve an existing technological process, but rather merely implemented an old practice in a new environment

Turning to step two of the patent-eligibility inquiry, the court found that the claims fail to add something more or transform the claimed abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. The ’500 patent claims merely use generic computer elements such as microprocessors and user interfaces, which are not enough to transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Moreover, the claims do not propose a solution or overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology.

The court also rejected FairWarning’s argument that the ’500 patent does not pre-empt the field of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulation compliance. The court held that the absence of complete field pre-emption does not demonstrate patent eligibility, and the fact that the ’500 patent’s claims might not pre-empt the entire field of HIPAA compliance does not make them any less abstract.

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatrict Systems, Inc., Case No. 2015-1985 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016).

Share This Insight

Categories

Federal CircuitPatentability
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.