IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Invalidity of in-store product location patents affirmed in suit against Target Corp., (Feb 6, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

District court correctly found asserted claims patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to abstract ideas and lacking an inventive concept.

In a non-precedential disposition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a Wisconsin federal district court’s ruling granting summary judgment that all asserted claims of a licensing entity’s six patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The appellate court held that the claims were directed to abstract ideas involving the collection, analysis, retrieval, and display of information, and that the asserted limitations, such as cross-referencing products, providing suggestions, and using mobile or wireless devices, did not supply an inventive concept sufficient to transform those ideas into patent-eligible subject matter (Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp., No. 24-1545 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, Innovaport LLC, is an assertion entity holding patents related to systems and methods for providing product location information. The defendant/appellee, Target Corporation, operates a nationwide chain of large-format retail stores. The dispute concerned six related patents that shared a common specification and priority lineage: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,775,260 (the ’260 patent), 8,787,933 (the ’933 patent), 9,489,690 (the ’690 patent), 9,990,670 (the ’670 patent), 7,231,380 (the ’380 patent), and 7,819,315 (the ’315 patent). Collectively, the patents claimed methods and systems for providing product location information within a store by accessing databases containing product location data and additional information such as price, availability, inventory levels, and cross-referenced relationships between products.

Innovaport filed suit in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging infringement of multiple claims across the six patents. Target moved for summary judgment, arguing that all asserted claims were invalid under § 101. Innovaport cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the claims were directed to patent-eligible technological improvements. The district court granted Target’s motion and denied Innovaport’s, concluding that the claims failed both steps of the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo framework. Innovaport appealed.

Patent eligibility framework. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and applied the two-step framework established in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one, the court assessed whether the claims were directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. At step two, it considered whether the claims contained an inventive concept that transformed the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.

Abstract idea. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, retrieving, and displaying information. The court relied heavily on representative claim 1 of the ’933 patent, which recited receiving a user inquiry, querying stored product information, providing product location information, and offering product suggestions based on customer preferences or past inquiries.

The court explained that these steps reflected routine human activity that could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, such as a store employee answering a customer’s question and recommending a related product. Citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court reiterated that claims focused on information collection and presentation fall within a familiar class of abstract ideas.

The court rejected Innovaport’s argument that the claims were directed to a specific technical improvement in computer functionality. Instead, the specification described generic computer components, including databases, user interfaces, wireless communication, and mobile devices, and framed the invention as a solution to a retail business problem rather than a technological one. Relying on Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court concluded that the claims merely invoked computers as tools to implement an abstract process.

Inventive concept. Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, the Federal Circuit held that none of the asserted claims contained an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent eligible. Innovaport argued that linking related products in a database, providing customer-specific suggestions, and using mobile or wireless devices constituted an inventive combination. The court disagreed.

Citing BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court emphasized that an abstract idea cannot supply its own inventive concept. The use of mobile devices and wireless communication, the court explained, amounted to implementation on generic hardware, which Alice held insufficient to confer patent eligibility. The court also rejected Innovaport’s reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), finding no unconventional ordered combination that improved computer performance.

The Federal Circuit further held that alleged factual disputes regarding whether certain techniques were conventional did not preclude summary judgment. Even assuming the claimed methods were novel or commercially valuable, the court noted that novelty alone does not establish patent eligibility, citing SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that all 55 asserted claims across the six patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The case is No. 24-1545.

Judge: Cunningham, T.

Attorneys: Michael T. Griggs (Boyle Fredrickson, S.C.) for Innovaport LLC. Lance E. Wyatt (Fish & Richardson PC) for Target Corp.

Companies: Innovaport LLC; Target Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Patent TechnologyInternet FedCirNews GCNNews