IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Software patent case survives early challenge despite abstract-idea ruling, (Jan 28, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

An asserted claim in a software simulation patent was dismissed as abstract under Alice, while another survived, leaving most of the infringement case intact.

The federal court in Delaware narrowed a software patent infringement suit at the pleadings stage after finding one asserted claim abstract under Section 101, while allowing a second claim covering linked software display screens to proceed as patent-eligible. The ruling leaves most of the case intact, including additional asserted claims and allegations of willful infringement, in a dispute over software simulation and development tools used in Whatfix Private Limited’s “Mirror” product. The court dismissed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,087,007 (the ’007 patent) but declined to dismiss claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,285,948 (the ’948 patent), rejecting Whatfix’s effort to confine the case to those claims and finding willfulness adequately pleaded (Partner One Acquisitions Inc. v. Whatfix Private Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-00209-JFM (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2026)).

Interactive software simulations. The patents at issue claim technology developed by Assima USA LLC for creating interactive simulations of enterprise software. Assima’s “Assima Train” product produces a functional clone of a software system that allows users to interact with and modify simulated interfaces without altering the underlying application. The patents are now owned by Partner One Acquisitions Inc. following its acquisition of Assima in 2019.

The ’007 patent generally concerns capturing elements of a live software program during execution, storing those elements in a simulation file, and allowing users to modify the simulated graphical user interface without running or changing the actual program. The ’948 patent addresses systems in which multiple software display screens are built from linked templates, so that changes to a common element propagate automatically across screens that share that template.

Assima alleges that Whatfix’s Mirror product operates in essentially the same manner and infringes at least one claim of each patent. Whatfix moved to dismiss, arguing that both patents are directed to abstract ideas implemented with generic computer components and consequently fail under the Supreme Court’s Alice framework. Whatfix also contended that Assima’s infringement allegations were limited to claim 1 of each patent and that willful infringement had not been plausibly alleged.

Disputed claims. Before turning to patent eligibility, the court addressed Whatfix’s threshold argument that the complaint effectively asserted only claim 1 of each patent. Whatfix pointed to language in the pleading referring to “at least claim 1” and “one or more claims,” arguing that such formulations precluded reliance on other claims.

The court rejected that approach, finding that Assima’s complaint “clearly puts all claims of the ’007 patent on the table.” While Whatfix had chosen to challenge only claim 1 of each patent under Section 101, the court refused to treat that tactical choice as a concession that no other claims were in dispute. As a result, even where claim 1 of the ’007 patent was dismissed, the remaining claims of that patent were left in the case.

’007 patent. Applying the two-step Alice test, the court concluded that claim 1 of the ’007 patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. The court characterized the claimed advance as enabling users to directly modify graphical user interface elements in a simulation without affecting the underlying software. In the court’s view, that concept closely resembled claims the Federal Circuit has previously found ineligible. For example, claims framed at a high level of generality, which describe a desired result achieved through generic computer components without specifying how the result is accomplished, have been treated as abstract and patent ineligible.

The court emphasized that claim 1 recited results rather than a specific technical solution. Although the claim described identifying graphical user interface elements during execution, storing them in a file, and modifying that file through user interaction, it did not explain how those steps were implemented in a nonconventional way. Instead, the claim relied on generic components such as a processor, files, programs, and user interfaces, described at a high level of generality.

The court rejected Assima’s contention that the claim improved computer functionality by streamlining software development and training. Improvements in user efficiency, the court explained, do not necessarily translate into improvements in the functioning of the computer itself. As written, the claim did not specify any new data structures, algorithms, or programming techniques that would distinguish it from routine computer operations.

Because the claim was directed to an abstract idea at step one, the court proceeded to Alice step two and again found no saving inventive concept. The claim’s reliance on conventional computer tools, without describing any novel technique for achieving the stated result, confirmed its ineligibility. The court dismissed infringement allegations as to claim 1 of the ’007 patent without prejudice.

Linked-template claim. The analysis differed for claim 1 of the ’948 patent. That claim recites a method in which software display screens are instantiated from templates stored in data structures, with later screens referencing earlier templates so that shared elements are reused and updated across displays.

Whatfix argued that this amounted to nothing more than arranging and presenting data for display, a category often deemed abstract. The court disagreed, concluding that the claim was directed to a specific technological solution for managing multi-screen software interfaces. In particular, the claim described a structured way of linking screen templates so that modifications to a common element automatically appear across all associated screens.

At Alice step one, the court found that this approach plausibly reflected a non-abstract improvement to software functionality rather than a mere enhancement of user experience. Unlike claims that simply organize information for display, the ’948 claim addressed a concrete problem in software development: maintaining consistency and efficiency across multiple interfaces that share common components.

Because the claim was not directed to an abstract idea, the court did not reach Alice step two. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was denied as to claim 1 of the ’948 patent.

Willfulness. The court also denied Whatfix’s motion to dismiss Assima’s willful infringement allegations. Under Delaware pleading standards, a plaintiff must allege that the accused infringer knew of the patent, engaged in infringing conduct after gaining that knowledge, and knew or should have known that its conduct constituted infringement.

Assima alleged that it sent a pre-suit notice letter identifying the asserted patents and the accused product. The court held that the letter provided more than sufficient notice at the pleading stage and allowed Assima to pursue enhanced damages if it ultimately proves egregious infringement behavior.

Finally, the court rejected Whatfix’s request to deny leave to amend, noting the court’s liberal amendment policy and the absence of any clear showing that amendment would be futile or prejudicial.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-00209-JFM.

Judge: Murphy, J.

Attorneys: Kenneth Laurence Dorsney (Morris James LLP) for Partner One Acquisitions Inc. and Assima USA LLC. Jared Newton (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for WhatFix Private Ltd. and WhatFix, Inc.

Companies: Partner One Acquisitions Inc.; Assima USA LLC; WhatFix Private Ltd.; WhatFix, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews