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

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

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