PatentNext Summary: In two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that merely applying artificial intelligence or digital techniques to a specific “field of use” does not satisfy patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., claims directed to AI-assisted television scheduling were deemed abstract for lacking inventive implementation. Similarly, in Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC, claims involving digital image correction were invalidated because they recited only functional, results-oriented language without explaining how the technical improvement was achieved. These rulings emphasize that to be patent-eligible, claims must include specific, technical details that demonstrate an actual improvement over prior art—not just a novel application of generic technology.
****
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found patent claims ineligible that claimed machine learning but otherwise applied generically to a “Field-of-Use,” i.e., to automatically scheduling regional television broadcasts. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). In that case, the Federal Circuit rejected the idea that applying AI to a novel domain—such as television scheduling— could rescue the claims. According to the Federal Circuit, a so-called “field-of-use” limitation is insufficient to render an abstract idea patent eligible. Merely moving generic AI into a different industry does not convert it into an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent eligibility). For additional discussion of Recentive, see PatentNext: Federal Circuit finds Generic AI Claims to be Abstract.
In a more recent decision, the Federal Circuit once again found generic “field-of-use” claims invalid under Section 101. See Longitude Licensing Ltd. v Google LLC, U.S.P.Q.2d 690 (Apr. 30, 2025). In the Longitude Licensing case, the Federal Circuit found invalid claims directed to performing digital image correction techniques via a computer. The patent specifications described identifying the subject, or “main object,” of an image and adjusting the main object image data by using “correction conditions,” which include any kind of “statistical values and color values” that correspond to the “properties” of the main object.
Claim 32 of one of the patents is representative and is reproduced below:
32. An image processing method comprising:
determining the main object image data corresponding to the main object characterizing the image;
acquiring the properties of the determined main object image data;
acquiring correction conditions corresponding to the properties that have been acquired; and
adjusting the picture quality of the main object image data using the acquired correction conditions;
wherein each of the operations of the image processing method is executed by an integrated circuit.
The district court had found that claim 32 was abstract under Section 101 because claim 32 was generic, functional, and “ends-oriented.”
The Federal Circuit affirmed. In particular, the Federal Circuit cited its analysis in Recentive, finding claim 32 abstract because it generically recited the use of new data (e.g., the correspondence between the main object data and correction conditions as recited in claim 32) in the field of image processing but failed to disclose how to implement the concept. Like the claims in the Recentive decision, claim 32 in Longitude Licensing was a generic “field of use” claim where neither the claims nor the specifications describe how any improvement was accomplished. Claim 32 was abstract because it was “framed entirely in functional, results-oriented terms.”
The Federal Circuit refused to save claim 32 by importing technical disclosure from the specification into the claim so that it provided the same degree of technical specificity as found in other Federal Circuit decisions demonstrating proper claim specificity. See McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games of America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (as cited by the Federal Circuit).
Conclusion
The Longitude Licensing decision provides a further lesson for patent practitioners for drafting a patent application in a manner that adheres to the Federal Circuit’s three-part framework for demonstrating a technical “improvement,” which, if implemented correctly, should include (1) a description of the improvement in the patent specification; (2) a description of how the improvement differs from, and overcomes the prior art; and (3) inclusion of at least some aspect of the improvement in the claims. Claim 32 failed at least the third part of this test, and it was fatal for the plaintiff’s case. For more details on claiming an improvement, see PatentNext: How to Patent Software Inventions: Show an “Improvement.”
****
Subscribe to get updates to this post or to receive future posts from PatentNext. Start a discussion or reach out to the author, Ryan Phelan, at rphelan@marshallip.com or 312-474-6607. Connect with or follow Ryan on LinkedIn.