On August 19, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion affirming a Louisiana district court’s invalidation of U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801, owned by Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. (“Wilco”), under the on-sale bar.
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for both panel and en banc rehearing in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., leaving in place its earlier precedential decision in the matter that applying standard machine learning techniques to a new environment is not enough to qualify for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s denial confirms its first major precedential decision on machine learning patents, suggesting a shift in how AI claims will be treated under § 101.
Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field within artificial intelligence that focuses on developing algorithms to automatically learn and improve from experience. In recent years, the surge in machine learning patents underscores the growing interest and investment in this technology. As organizations strive to leverage the power of machine learning to drive innovation and competitive advantage, securing patents in this domain has become increasingly crucial. However, the Federal Circuit’s decision to deny rehearing confirms their view on machine learning patents: inventors must do more than claim the application of generic machine learning models in new settings; they must demonstrate specific technical improvements to the algorithms or computing processes themselves.
Recentive Analytics asserted four patents covering methods of using machine learning to optimize scheduling for live events (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,386,367 and 11,537,960) and to generate “network maps” for television broadcasting (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,911,811 and 10,958,957).
In 2022, Recentive sued Fox Corp., alleging that its NFL broadcast scheduling system infringed these patents. In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the case, finding the asserted claims patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
On April 18, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal. The panel concluded that the patents merely implemented standard machine learning models in new contexts, lacking the inventive concept required by the Supreme Court’s Alice framework. As the panel explained: “Patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.”
Recentive petitioned for both panel and en banc rehearing, arguing that the ruling jeopardized innovation in AI by excluding patent protection for valuable real-world applications. The company warned the decision pushed § 101 doctrine “to its breaking point.”
The court declined to revisit the case, with no judge requesting a poll. The decision stands as the first time the Federal Circuit has directly ruled on the role of machine learning in patent eligibility, drawing a clear line: known algorithms, applied generically, will not suffice.
The Recentive decision reinforces that simply using machine learning to perform a task, even in a new context, is not enough to satisfy Section 101. Like generic computer implementations in Alice, machine learning is now viewed as a common tool rather than a technological breakthrough in its own right. To obtain patent protection, inventors must clearly describe a technical problem and explain how their invention improves the functioning of the technology, not just the outcome. Broad references to “any suitable machine learning technique” may weaken eligibility for machine learning patents, while detailed explanations of specific improvements remain essential.
On June 26, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision in LookSmart Group v. Google LLC, granting Google’s motion to dismiss LookSmart’s infringement lawsuit. The court found that the claims of LookSmart’s patent were directed to an abstract idea and lacked the requisite “inventive concept” required for patent eligibility. Continue reading…
On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., addressing the doctrine of equitable estoppel in patent litigation. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had barred Fraunhofer’s claims due to its five-year delay in filing suit. While the Federal Circuit agreed that Fraunhofer’s silence was potentially misleading, it emphasized that equitable estoppel in patent infringement cases also requires a clear showing of reliance by the accused infringer. Sirius XM failed to meet that burden, making summary judgment inappropriate. Continue reading…
Patent owners are granted a limited monopoly over their inventions, and with that monopoly comes a bundle of rights. These rights fall into two broad categories: exclusive rights and provisional rights. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that clarifies the requirements for patentees to claim provisional rights: they only attach if the patent actually issues before it expires.