Federal Circuit Reverses Eligibility of Software Claims Where Technical Improvements Were Not Reflected in Claims

In The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Gen Digital Inc., No. 2024-1243 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026), the Federal Circuit vacated an infringement judgment, reversed a district court’s determination that the claims of the asserted patents were not directed to an abstract idea, and remanded for further proceedings on patent eligibility.

Columbia sued Gen Digital, the maker of Norton software, for infringement of patents relating to computer security. Gen Digital moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court denied the motion because it determined that the claims were directed not to an abstract idea but to an improvement in computer-virus scanning using multiple computers in a divide-and-conquer approach that improved efficiency. The district court later struck the section 101 defense, and the case proceeded to a jury trial that resulted in a willful infringement verdict and damages award of over $185 million. Gen Digital appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s patent eligibility determination. The Court determined that the claims recited conventional components and that the divide-and-conquer approach and the efficiency gains allegedly associated with it are abstract ideas. Moreover, the Court determined that the technical improvements Columbia asserted were not reflected in the claim language. As a result, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and remanded for consideration under the second step of the patent-eligibility framework.