Background

——————————————————–

Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), is a landmark decision that has significant implications for patent applicants and practitioners who seek to apply AI-based methods to new fields. The Federal Circuit has reaffirmed its position that patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can only be secured through the description and claiming of specific technical improvements in AI-based methods. The Federal Circuit’s Ruling

————————-

In this case, the Federal Circuit held that four patents owned by Recentive Analytics, Inc. are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These patents relate to the use of AI-based models to generate network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events. The patents describe how AI-based models can be used to optimize live event scheduling and the creation of network maps, which determine the programs or content displayed by a broadcaster’s channels within particular geographic markets at specific times. The patents at issue are:

1. U.S. Patent No. 10,911,811 (’811 patent)
2. U.S. Patent No. 10,958,957 (’957 patent)
3. U.S. Patent No. 11,386,367 (’367 patent)
4. U.S. Patent No. 11,537,960 (’960 patent)

The Federal Circuit categorized the ’367 and ’960 patents, both titled Systems and Methods for Determining Event Schedules, as the “Machine Learning Training” patents. These patents share specifications and are concerned with the scheduling of live events. The Federal Circuit categorized the ’811 and ’957 patents, both titled Systems and Methods for Automatically and Dynamically Generating a Network Map, as the “Network Map” patents. These patents share specifications and are directed to the creation of network maps for broadcasters. Issue and Holding

—————–

The Federal Circuit framed the issue as whether “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are patent eligible.”

The Federal Circuit held that the claims are patent ineligible because they do not contain sufficient inventive concept to transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter. The court reasoned that the claims are directed to abstract ideas because they merely apply generic AI-based models to a new data environment without disclosing any technological improvements to the AI-based methods themselves. Definition of Invention

————————-

The Federal Circuit used the term “invention” in its opinion. According to the Federal Circuit, an invention is a subject matter that is directed to a patent-eligible invention. Definition of Eligibility

————————-

Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 refers to whether a patent application or patent claims are eligible for patent protection. Eligible subject matter includes a wide range of technologies, such as machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, or any improvement thereof. Rationale Behind the Decision

———————————

The Federal Circuit relied on the following rationales to support its decision:

* The claims do not contain any inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. * The claims are directed to abstract ideas because they merely apply generic AI-based models to a new data environment without disclosing any technological improvements to the AI-based methods themselves. * The application of generic AI-based models to a new data environment does not constitute an inventive concept capable of conferring patent eligibility. Conclusion

———-

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed its position that patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can only be secured through the description and claiming of specific technical improvements in AI-based methods. Patent applicants and practitioners who seek to apply AI-based methods to new fields are advised to focus on describing and claiming specific technical improvements, rather than simply applying generic, off-the-shelf AI-based models. Recommendations to Patent Applicants and Practitioners

——————————————————

* Consider the specific technical improvements made to the AI-based methods themselves, rather than just applying generic AI-based models to a new data environment. * Ensure that the claims contain sufficient inventive concept to transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter. Examples of Specific Technical Improvements:

* Developing AI-based methods that can adapt to new data environments in real-time, or that can learn from experience and improve their performance over time. * Creating AI-based systems that can generate network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events with greater accuracy or efficiency than previous systems. * Improving the accuracy or speed of AI-based methods for determining event schedules or generating network maps.

In addition to the examples mentioned above, patent applicants and practitioners should consider the following:

1. Explain how the AI-based methods will be used in the inventive context, and how they will result in a specific outcome or benefit.
2. Highlight the technical improvements made to the AI-based methods themselves, such as changes to the underlying algorithms or data structures.
3. Mention any data or simulations used to test and validate the AI-based methods, and the results of those tests and validations.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. serves as a cautionary reminder to patent applicants and practitioners to focus on describing and claiming specific technical improvements in AI-based methods in order to secure patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. By doing so, they can ensure that their inventions are eligible for patent protection and that they can effectively differentiate themselves from others in the field. References:

* Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)

* 35 U.S.C. § 101

By focusing on specific technical improvements and providing a clear and concise explanation of how the AI-based methods will be used in the inventive context, patent applicants and practitioners can increase their chances of securing patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They should also be aware of the importance of providing sufficient inventive concept to transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter. By doing so, they can ensure that their inventions are eligible for patent protection and that they can effectively differentiate themselves from others in the field.

Do not confuse “eligibility” and “utility.”

To achieve patent eligibility, applicants must provide a clear and concise explanation of how their inventions will be used in the inventive context, and how they will result in a specific outcome or benefit. They should also highlight the technical improvements made to the AI-based methods themselves, such as changes to the underlying algorithms or data structures. Additionally, they should mention any data or simulations used to test and validate the AI-based methods, and the results of those tests and validations.

© 2025

By focusing on specific technical improvements and providing a clear and concise explanation of how the AI-based methods will be used in the inventive context, patent applicants and practitioners can increase their chances of securing patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

They should also be aware of the importance of providing sufficient inventive concept to transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter. By doing so, they can ensure that their inventions are eligible for patent protection and that they can effectively differentiate themselves from others in the field.

References

Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)

35 U.S.C.