Presented by John Goodhue
Software claims that describe what a system achieves, rather than how it achieves it, remain a hard sell under Section 101. In U.S. Pat. No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2024-1520 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2026), the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Moore, affirmed the dismissal of claims to 'time-shifted' web conferencing as directed to an abstract idea and lacking an inventive concept. The court explained that a claim need not explicitly recite its technological improvement — but the improvement must be discernible to a skilled artisan — and that result-oriented functional language, without disclosing how the results are achieved, is abstract and can be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google, decided January 22nd, 2026. A panel of the Federal Circuit, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Judge Moore, affirmed the dismissal of a software patent as ineligible for patenting. The court held that claims reciting the asynchronous — or time-shifted — review of a live web conference, drafted in result-oriented terms without disclosing how those results are achieved, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Here's the brief.
The plaintiff is a patent-holding entity named for the patent it owns: U.S. Patent 7,679,637 — the '637 patent. The patent describes web conferencing systems with what it calls time-shifting capabilities. Those capabilities let a participant observe a session in real time, on a delay while the session is still in progress, or after it has finished — and to do so at different playback rates while keeping the audio quality consistent.
In practical terms, the claims let the data streams of a live presentation — the screen video, chat, documents, and web pages — be reviewed asynchronously. A viewer can go back and review one part of a presentation while another part continues live.
The entity sued Google in the Western District of Washington, asserting several claims of the '637 patent. Google moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the asserted claims were patent-ineligible under Section 101. The district court agreed, dismissed the complaint, and denied leave to amend as futile. The patent owner appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Section 101 defines what may be patented, and the Supreme Court has long held that it does not reach abstract ideas.
Courts apply the two-step Alice test. First, ask whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea. If it is, ask second whether the claim adds an inventive concept that transforms it into something significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For software claims, the court explained, step one often turns on whether the claims focus on a specific improvement in computer capabilities or instead on an abstract process.
At step one, the court explained that, while the inquiry focuses on the claim language, the claim itself need not spell out the improvement.
But the improvement must be discernible. Looking to the claim language, the court found the claims recited results — client applications "arranged to allow," and a system "able to" achieve simultaneous recording and asynchronous review — without disclosing how those results are achieved.
The written description did not fill the gap. It described the client applications, data streams, and components as conventional and well-known, and did not present the two-application design as a technical solution to any problem facing the inventor. Instead, the court said, the specification showed the invention was nothing more than an abstract idea.
At step two, the court found no inventive concept. The two-application system merely repeated the step-one arguments, and the claimed components — including the audio time-scale modification component — were conventional, off-the-shelf technology performing their ordinary functions. Conventional components cannot supply an inventive concept. The court affirmed the dismissal, and held that leave to amend would be futile because no amendment could alter what the patent itself states.
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google applies the Federal Circuit's functional- claiming line to web-conferencing software. It restates that a claim need not recite its technological improvement in so many words, but the improvement must be discernible to a skilled artisan from the patent — and that claims cast in result- oriented functional language, describing what a system achieves rather than how, are directed to an abstract idea. Where the specification confirms the components are conventional, the claims supply no inventive concept, and eligibility can be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google, No. 2024-1520, decided January 22nd, 2026. I'm John Goodhue. Thanks for watching.
These videos are educational case briefs, not legal advice, and watching them does not create an attorney-client relationship with the presenter or the firm. Case law and its interpretation evolves, always check a decision's subsequent history. Do not rely on these case briefs, but read the case yourself or have your attorney read them. Videos are presented via an AI avatar and voice clone of John Goodhue, created with his participation and consent.
