IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS—Patent owner asks Supreme Court to review web conferencing eligibility ruling, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The petition argues the appellate court turned its Section 101 analysis into a disclosure inquiry and improperly upheld dismissal at pleading stage.

US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision that held claims covering time-shifted web conferencing technology patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The petition contends that the Federal Circuit effectively collapsed the two-step Alice framework into a single inquiry focused on whether claims explain “how” a result is achieved and improperly resolved the case on a motion to dismiss. The petition also argues that the lower courts shifted the burden to the patent owner to plead facts negating an invalidity defense and wrongly denied leave to amend (US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 26-236 (U.S. Aug. 19, 2026)).

Background. The petition arises from the Federal Circuit’s January 2026 decision affirming dismissal of US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC’s infringement suit against Google LLC. The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637 concern web conferencing systems that permit participants to review previously presented content while a conference remains in progress and, in some claims, to vary playback speed while maintaining perceived audio quality. The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of allowing asynchronous review of presentations and lacked an inventive concept. According to the petition, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal (see Web conferencing patent claims rejected for ineligible subject matter, Jan. 23, 2026). Rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied in March 2026.

Questions presented. The petition presents two questions. First, it asks whether a court applying Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International may find claims ineligible at both steps of the eligibility analysis because they do not describe how a result is achieved, thereby converting Section 101 into a disclosure inquiry that belongs under Section 112. Second, it asks whether a patent infringement complaint may be dismissed because the patent owner failed to plead facts negating patent ineligibility, which the petition characterizes as an invalidity defense that an accused infringer must plead under Section 282.

Challenge to Federal Circuit’s eligibility analysis. The petition argues that the Federal Circuit relied on the same observation at both steps of the Alice framework. At step one, the appellate court stated that the claims were directed to an abstract idea because they did not “describe how” asynchronous review was achieved. At step two, the court found no inventive concept because the claims used result-oriented language without a specific implementation showing how to achieve the claimed results.

According to the petitioner, the opinion never resolved disputes over the proper formulation of the abstract idea and expressly indicated that the outcome would remain the same even if the district court’s characterization were narrowed. The petition contends that this approach rendered the identification of the abstract idea immaterial to the result.

Disclosure versus eligibility. A central theme of the petition is that questions regarding whether an invention teaches “how” to achieve a result belong under 35 U.S.C. § 112 rather than Section 101. The petitioner argues that Section 112 provides procedures and standards for evaluating disclosure, including consideration through the eyes of a skilled artisan, claim construction, evidence, and the challenger’s burden of proof. The petition asserts that those safeguards were absent because the case was decided on the pleadings.

The petition further argues that the patent specification contains detailed descriptions of the invention, including prose descriptions, pseudo-code, C++ algorithms, and a source-code appendix. It contends that the Federal Circuit opinion did not discuss those materials despite concluding that the patent failed to explain how the claimed functionality was achieved.

Means-plus-function claim issue. The petitioner highlights claim 2’s “storage means” limitation, arguing that it was drafted in means-plus-function form under Section 112. According to the petition, that claim format imports corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, but neither the district court nor the Federal Circuit construed the term before ruling on eligibility. The petition argues that claim 7 independently recites a server-and-client architecture in the claim text itself.

Pleading-stage arguments. On the procedural issue, the petition argues that issued patents are presumed valid under Section 282 and that invalidity defenses must be established by the challenger. The petitioner contends that Google introduced no evidence that the claimed combination was conventional and that factual issues concerning conventionality were resolved against the patent owner on a motion to dismiss.

The petition also challenges the denial of leave to amend. It states that the district court faulted the complaint for lacking concrete allegations that the claimed elements and combinations were not well-understood, routine, and conventional, while simultaneously denying leave to add such allegations as futile. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that no amendment could alter what the patent itself said regarding the conventionality of the claimed components.

Request for Supreme Court review. The petition asserts that the issues are recurring and have already influenced subsequent eligibility litigation. It asks the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and review whether the Alice framework must be applied as two distinct inquiries and whether the statutory presumption of validity can be overcome through dismissal at the pleading stage under the circumstances presented. Alternatively, it asks the Court to call for the views of the Solicitor General.

The Case is No. 26-236.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Kathryn Jean Miller (Attorney at Law) for US Patent No. 7, 679, 637 LLC.

Companies: US Patent No. 7, 679, 637 LLC; Google LLC

MainStory: TopStory FedCirNews Patent GCNNews