On July 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels v. HighLevel, Inc., affirming dismissal of ClickFunnels’ patent-infringement complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No. 2025-1711, Doc. 44, Fed. Cir. July 2, 2026 (non-precedential). The Court held that the district court erred by treating claim 1 of the ’357 patent as representative of all challenged claims without adequately addressing dependent claims reciting “one or more triggers.” But the error was harmless because the district court separately considered those limitations under Alice Step Two and correctly found no inventive concept.
The decision reinforces two recurring themes in § 101 jurisprudence. First, district courts should carefully analyze and resolve representativeness disputes before extending an eligibility ruling across all challenged claims. Second, patent owners cannot satisfy Alice Step Two with generalized assertions of improved computer performance. The claims, specification, and/or complaint must plausibly explain the technological mechanism that produces the alleged improvement.
The Dispute
ClickFunnels sued HighLevel, Inc. (“HighLevel”) in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of two patents directed to website-building technology for creating and managing online “sales funnels.” The district court granted HighLevel’s motion to dismiss. It concluded that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering information based on user preferences and lacked an inventive concept under Alice. In doing so, the district court treated one independent claim as representative of all challenged claims, including dependent claims reciting additional “trigger” limitations.
On appeal, ClickFunnels challenged both the representative-claim determination and the district court’s conclusion that the asserted claims failed Alice Step Two. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity judgment. It also clarified how courts should handle representative-claim disputes when dependent claims include limitations absent from the proposed representative claim.
Representative Claims Require More Than a Passing Analysis
District courts may analyze only representative claims when deciding § 101 motions. But that practice is proper only when the grouped claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same ineligible concept.” Once the movant makes a prima facie showing of representativeness, the patent owner must present a non-frivolous argument that other claim limitations have distinctive significance for eligibility.
Here, the district court treated claim 1 of the ’357 patent as representative of all challenged claims, despite two dependent claims reciting an additional “one or more triggers” limitation. The Federal Circuit held that this was error because the district court did not meaningfully address whether that limitation altered the eligibility analysis. The Court still affirmed. The error was harmless because the district court separately analyzed the trigger limitation under Alice Step Two and correctly found no inventive concept.
The opinion also notes that the parties devoted only four pages of briefing to the representative-claim dispute. It emphasizes that district courts may require more developed briefing before deciding representativeness.
Alleged Technical Benefits Must Be Supported by Technical Disclosures
The decision also reinforces a familiar principle in software patent eligibility cases. ClickFunnels argued that the claimed invention reduced computing power, memory usage, bandwidth, and other communication resources. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument because the patents and complaint asserted those benefits without explaining how the claimed technology achieved them.
Relying on prior Federal Circuit precedent, the court emphasized that describing a technological result is not enough. To satisfy Alice Step Two, the claims must recite a specific technological solution that improves computer functionality. Merely automating a conventional business process or claiming an improved outcome does not suffice.
The court reached the same conclusion for the dependent claims directed to automated “trigger” functionality. Those claims automated follow-up actions, such as sending reminder communications after a customer abandoned a purchase. But the patents did not explain how that automation improved computer functionality. The court therefore treated the trigger limitations as conventional event-triggered automation, not an inventive concept.
Practical Takeaways
Although the decision is nonprecedential, it offers useful practice points for patent litigators and prosecutors.
For patent owners, representative-claim disputes should not be treated as procedural afterthoughts. Identifying different claim language is not enough. The patent owner should explain why the limitation has distinctive significance under § 101. Accused infringers, by contrast, should explain why additional limitations do not alter the abstract idea or supply an inventive concept.
The decision also underscores a drafting point for software patents. Claimed improvements in computer performance should be tied to concrete technical implementation. Allegations of reduced computing resources, faster processing, or greater efficiency are unlikely to survive Alice Step Two if the claims, specification, and complaint do not explain how the improvement is achieved.
About the Authors
Thomas Cunningham is a shareholder in Brooks Kushman’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, representing clients in patent, trademark, copyright, and Trade Secrets disputes nationwide. He also advises clients on Licensing & Agreements, intellectual property enforcement, and strategies designed to maximize the value of business-critical innovations. Tom’s extensive experience spans industries including Automotive and Mobility Brands & Technology, Information Technology Services & Software, and Food & Beverage. He is known for developing practical, business-focused solutions that align intellectual property strategy with company objectives.
About Brooks Kushman P.C.
Founded in 1983, Brooks Kushman P.C. has built a national reputation as a premier intellectual property and technology law firm. We accomplish this with the understanding that the most effective IP solutions come from putting great minds together – our clients and our own. With offices across the country, we forge strong relationships with corporations, small to medium-sized businesses, and leading universities across the country.
Brooks Kushman counts a number of Fortune 100 Corporations across a variety of industries among its clients. Our attorneys have a deep understanding and broad range of experience in a variety of industries and technologies, including automotive, AI & data, automation, consumer electronics, manufacturing, medical device, computer technology, aerospace, chemicals, biotechnology, retail, food & beverage, green technology, fintech, and more. We are also recognized by leading legal publications and rankings, including, Best Lawyers, Law360, Intellectual Asset Management, Managing Intellectual Property, and World Trademark Review. For more information, please visit www.BrooksKushman.com.
