The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Target Corporation, finding multiple patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a case brought by Innovaport LLC. The nonprecedential decision, issued February 6, 2026, represents another significant victory for defendants challenging patent validity on subject matter eligibility grounds.
Innovaport LLC appealed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin's grant of Target Corporation's motion for summary judgment of invalidity. The district court had ruled that the asserted claims of six patents owned by Innovaport were invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act, which governs patentable subject matter.
The patents at issue in the case include U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260, U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933, U.S. Patent No. 9,489,690, U.S. Patent No. 9,990,670, U.S. Patent No. 7,231,380, and U.S. Patent No. 7,819,315. The Federal Circuit's decision upholds the district court's finding that these patents fail to meet the requirements for patentable subject matter.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin under case number 3:22-cv-00425-wmc, with Judge William M. Conley presiding. The original lawsuit was filed in 2022, leading to several years of litigation before reaching the appeals court level.
A three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Reyna, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the appeal. Circuit Judge Cunningham authored the opinion for the court. The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals from federal district courts, making it the primary appellate venue for patent disputes nationwide.
Michael T. Griggs of Boyle Fredrickson, S.C. in Milwaukee argued for plaintiff-appellant Innovaport LLC. Griggs was assisted by attorneys Adam Brookman and Marriam Lin in representing the patent holder. On the defense side, Lance E. Wyatt Jr. of Fish & Richardson P.C. in Dallas argued for defendant-appellee Target Corporation, with support from attorneys Neil J. McNabnay and Michael Vincent.
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." However, the Supreme Court has established that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Courts apply a two-step test established in *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International* to determine whether patent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The Federal Circuit's ruling continues a trend of courts closely scrutinizing patent claims for subject matter eligibility under Section 101. Since the Supreme Court's decisions in *Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories* and *Alice Corp.*, many patents have been invalidated on Section 101 grounds, particularly those involving software, business methods, and diagnostic techniques.
For Target Corporation, this victory represents successful defense against patent infringement claims. The retail giant has faced numerous patent lawsuits over the years, as have many large corporations in the technology and retail sectors. Successfully challenging patent validity at the summary judgment stage allows defendants to avoid costly trial proceedings and potential damages awards.
The decision's designation as nonprecedential limits its broader legal impact, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, nonprecedential Federal Circuit decisions still provide insight into how the court analyzes patent eligibility issues and can influence litigation strategy in similar cases.
Innovaport LLC, as the losing party, would have the option to petition for rehearing en banc by the full Federal Circuit or seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. However, the Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in patent cases, and successful petitions typically involve issues of exceptional importance or conflicts between circuit courts.
The patent system continues to face challenges in defining the boundaries of patentable subject matter, particularly as technology advances into areas like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and software innovations. The Federal Circuit's role in interpreting Section 101 remains crucial for establishing consistent standards across the patent system.
This case adds to the body of Federal Circuit jurisprudence on patent eligibility and demonstrates the ongoing importance of Section 101 challenges in patent litigation. For patent holders, the decision underscores the need to carefully draft claims that clearly recite patent-eligible subject matter and include sufficient technological improvements beyond abstract concepts.
The ruling also highlights the effectiveness of summary judgment motions in patent cases, allowing courts to resolve validity disputes efficiently without proceeding to trial. As patent litigation costs continue to rise, early resolution through summary judgment provides benefits for both the judicial system and litigating parties.