Federal Circuit Says Expert Reports Cannot Save Claims Doomed by Alice

Jan 21, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The Federal Circuit disagreed. The court explained that a § 101 analysis may be undertaken without resolving fact issues and the issue may appropriately be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. “The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact,” the court wrote. In this case, the court found that the expert reports merely provided information on how people obtained mortgages in the pre-Internet era and added little to what was already disclosed in the patents. Mortgage Grader’s expert testified that the invention solved the problem of information asymmetry between borrowers and lenders, which had previously permitted lenders to steer borrowers to predatory loans. The court rejected that argument, noting that conflicts-of-interest and predatory lending were still possible when practicing the asserted claims. In the end, the court held that no reasonable factfinder could find, based on Mortgate Grader’s expert report, that the asserted claims were directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

Mortgage Grader, Inc., V. First Choice Loan Services Inc., No. 2015-1415 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2016) [O’Malley, Taranto, Stark (author)]

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.