直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“Abstract Idea” Expands, Now Includes Back-and-Forth Browser Functionality

June 30, 2015

Authored and Edited by Sean D. Damon; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Lauren J. Dreyer

In Internet Patents v. Active Network, No. 14-1048 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed yet another invalidity ruling for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The asserted patent was filed in 2000 and used a conventional web browser’s Back-and-Forward navigational functionalities without data loss in an online application with dynamically generated web pages.

On appeal, the Court held that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea: retaining information in the navigation of online forms. The Court noted that while claim 1 was directed to “maintaining” the state of user input upon “activation” of another icon (or tab), the “mechanism for maintaining the state is not described, although this is stated to be the essential invention.”  The additional elements of the dependent claims did not add the necessary “inventive concept” because they represented “generic data collection steps or siting the ineligible concept in a particular technological environment.”

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 1, 2026

San Jose

Articles

California Brings First CCPA and Delete Act Enforcement Action Against Data Broker

September 4, 2026

European IP Blog

The Decision in G 1/25: A More Relaxed Approach to Description Amendments in Europe?

3 September 2026

Webinar

U.S. Discovery for Foreign Proceedings—28 USC § 1782 Requirements and Practice Tips

September 2, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June and July 2026

August 19, 2026

Articles

Court Upholds MillerKnoll Ownership of Iconic Bubble Lamp Design

August 13, 2026

Webinar

FRAND Rate Setting and Negotiation Conduct: U.S., UK, EU, and China

August 13, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP