Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc.
1:24-cv-00502
D. Del.Mar 31, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Etison LLC (doing business as ClickFunnels) owns two patents (US Patent Nos. 10,846,357 and 11,361,047) relating to a system for creating websites using selectable website types and templates.
- The patents cover a method where users select from a plurality of website types and templates, then launch and optionally edit a website using a graphical interface.
- Etison sued HighLevel, Inc. for infringing "at least" claim 1 of both patents, but did not name additional claims with specificity.
- HighLevel moved to dismiss, contending the patents involve non-patentable abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- The central question is whether the claimed invention is patent-eligible or merely an abstract idea implemented on generic computer components.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the claims directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one? | Claim 1 includes specific steps and improves computer performance. | Claims only describe filtering/displaying info based on user selection. | Claims are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content using user preferences. |
| Is claim 1 of the ’357 patent representative of all asserted claims? | Other claims have more features (e.g., triggers/events), so claim 1 is not representative. | Any differences are conventional functions; claim 1 fairly represents group. | Claim 1 is representative of all asserted claims. |
| Is claim construction necessary? | Terms like "directional webpages" and "triggers" must be construed before ruling. | Plaintiff hasn't provided specific constructions or explained necessity. | Claim construction is not required. |
| Is there an inventive concept in the claims under Alice step two? | System as claimed improves efficiency and uses specific webpage structure. | Components/data types are generic and conventional; no inventive concept. | No inventive concept found; claims are patent-ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (establishes two-step test for patent eligibility under § 101: abstract idea inquiry and inventive concept)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (exclusion of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from patent eligibility)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (considering whether the claimed advance improves computer functionality or claims a result)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (abstract ideas include collecting, analyzing, and displaying data)
- Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims that merely manipulate or display data are abstract)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (patent-eligible claims must solve a problem rooted in computer technology)
- Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (arrangement of known components may be inventive if non-conventional)