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

Federal Circuit Voids Check Processing Patent’s Eligibility

August 22, 2019

Authored and Edited by Amanda E. Stephenson; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,  Nos. 2019-1345, -1460 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s patent-eligibility finding and held Solutran’s U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945 not patent eligible under § 101.

The ’945 patent relates to processing paper checks by receiving electronic data captured by a merchant and crediting the merchant’s account. The district court denied defendant U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding persuasive a prior PTAB decision denying CBM review based on a determination that the ’945 patent was not directed towards an abstract idea. Alternatively, the district court concluded that the claims recited an inventive concept and passed the machine-or-transformation test. U.S. Bank and Elavon appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with U.S. Bank that the ’945 patent’s claims are not patent eligible under § 101. In Alice step one, the court concluded that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check.” The court compared the claims to similarly ineligible claims in Content Extraction, finding that the use of physical checks does not preclude a finding of abstractness. In step two, the court found that the claimed steps were conventional and did not pass the machine-or-transformation test, as alleged by Solutran. Therefore, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under §101.

Tags

patentability, patentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2019 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

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

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

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