Summary:
Dans l’affaire Recentive Analytics, Inc. contre Fox Corp., la Cour d’appel fédérale a souligné que l’application de modèles d’IA génériques dans de nouveaux contextes ne suffit pas pour obtenir une protection par brevet. Les revendications doivent démontrer des améliorations techniques concrètes à la technologie d’IA pour être admissibles. Il est crucial pour les demandeurs de se concentrer sur des améliorations spécifiques et des aspects uniques des modèles d’IA afin de répondre aux exigences de brevetabilité.
Original Link:
Original Article:
In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), the Federal Circuit delivered a clear warning: simply applying generic AI-based models to new environments is not enough to secure patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court reaffirmed that without concrete technical improvements to the AI technology itself, claims will be dismissed as abstract and patent-ineligible. “Do it with AI” is no longer a viable strategy. Applicants are advised to focus on describing and claiming specific technical improvements in order to survive eligibility challenges.
In the same case, Recentive Analytics, Inc. appealed a decision which held that four patents owned by Recentive Analytics are ineligible for patent protection. The patents relate to using AI-based models for television broadcasts and live events scheduling. The CAFC categorized the involved patents into “Machine Learning Training” patents and “Network Map” patents depending on their specifications and objectives.
The CAFC framed the issue as whether claims that apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are patent eligible. The CAFC affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that patents claiming generic machine learning applications without disclosing improvements to the underlying models are patent ineligible under § 101.
For those seeking to protect AI-related innovations, the CAFC’s decision is a cautionary reminder that simply claiming AI applications may not suffice for patent eligibility. Key recommendations include disclosing specific technical improvements achieved by the invention, detailing unique aspects of the AI models, and ensuring descriptions comply with patent requirements.
Ultimately, the court’s ruling emphasizes that innovations must provide technological advancements beyond merely leveraging existing AI methods to address new applications.