Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity Ruling Under § 101

Aug 4, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit first laid out the two-stage framework under the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision. The Federal Circuit explained that the first stage of Alice analyzes the focus of the claims and their character as a whole. The second stage looks more precisely at what the claim elements add, and whether they identify an inventive concept in the application of the idea to which the claim is directed. 

The Federal Circuit found that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept because the claims focus on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying the results. The Federal Circuit explained that it has long treated collecting and analyzing information as abstract ideas. Further, the court stated that merely presenting the result of abstract processes of analysis, without more, such as a particular tool for presentation, is also abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. The court also found that the claims at issue are distinguishable from the claims in Enfish because those claims focused on a specific improvement in database technology. 

The Federal Circuit next turned to stage two of the Alice framework and found nothing sufficient to remove the claims from the class of subject matter ineligible for patenting. In particular, it found that limiting the claims to the particular environment of power-grid monitoring, without more, is insufficient. The court stated that selecting information for collection, analysis, or display does nothing significant to differentiate an ordinary mental process. Further, the court found that the claims at issue do not even require a new type of information or a new analysis technique. Thus, the court concluded that the claims provide no inventive concept. In reaching this conclusion, the court also relied on the lack of nonconventional computer, network, and display components, and the absence of non-generic arrangement of known elements. It found that the required technology was all readily available. 

The Federal Circuit went on to distinguish two recent cases. First, it distinguished DDR Holdings because the claims at issue do not require an inventive device or technique for displaying information. Further, the court distinguished Bascom because the claims do not require an inventive distribution of functionality within a network. Finally, the Federal Circuit noted that the district court found that the claims “purport to monopolize every potential solution to the problem” instead of “patenting a particular concrete solution to a problem.” 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

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.