Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK
Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)
In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine learning are subject to patenting. The Court found that “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.”
At issue, the machine learning training patents at issue generally recite the functions of collecting the data, iteratively training the model, generating an output, and retraining the model based on new data inputs. The specification also recites “any suitable machine learning technique[,] . . . such as, for example: a gradient boosted random forest, a regression, a neural network, a decision tree, a support vector machine, a Bayesian network, [or] other type of technique” may be used. The network mapping patents uses machine learning to generate optimized network models.
ALSO THIS WEEK
Sage Products LLC v. Stewart, Appeal Nos. 2023-1603, -1604 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2025)
In an appeal from inter partes reviews invalidating all challenged claims of two topical antiseptic patents owned by Sage Products, the Federal Circuit affirmed. On appeal, Sage contended that an artisan would not have understood prior art disclosing a “sterile” composition to have been “sterilized” within the meaning of its claims, including due to known mislabeling of the prior art product in the United States and differing applicable regulatory standards in the United Kingdom. The Federal Circuit rejected Sage’s arguments, finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s contrary finding was supported by substantial evidence. The Court also rejected Sage’s argument that the Board had erroneously found an anticipatory prior art reference to be enabled, holding that the Board was permitted to rely on evidence outside of the reference itself to show the state of the prior art and that the claimed subject matter was in the possession of the public.
The opinion can be found here.
Editors:
Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder
Contributors:
Jeff Liao, Associate