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

Distributing Information Using Common Components Is a Patent-Ineligible, Abstract Idea

April 27, 2023

Authored and Edited by Alexander M. Boyer; Caitlin E. Fowler; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Sanderling Management LTD. v. Snap, Inc., No. 2021-2173 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Central District of California decision dismissing Sanderling’s patent infringement suit because the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Sanderling accused Snap of infringing three patents related to methods of loading digital image branding functions—used to transform digital images by an icon or filter—to user mobile devices using distribution rules when certain conditions are met. Snap filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Sanderling’s claims were directed to an abstract idea. The district court granted Snap’s motion and denied leave to amend.

On appeal, under Alice step one, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims were not directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, but instead, to the abstract idea of “identify[ing] when a condition is met and then to distribut[ing] information based on satisfaction of that condition.” Under Alice step two, the Court found that the claims lacked an inventive concept because they simply implemented the abstract idea using common computer components. The Court dismissed Sanderling’s arguments that claim construction and factual disputes precluded dismissal, and that leave to amend should have been granted. The Court found that Sanderling failed to provide proposed constructions or identify any specific facts in dispute. Finally, the Court found that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile—“[n]o amendment to a complaint can alter what a patent itself states.”

Tags

validity, 35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

Communications

Media

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Alexander M. Boyer
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2759
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2023 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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

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