• videocam Live Webinar with Live Q&A
  • calendar_month November 5, 2026 @ 1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Patent
  • schedule 90 minutes

Computer-Related and AI Inventions: Avoiding Patent Eligibility and Means-Plus-Function Traps

$347.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

CLE
ALL
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

About the Course

Introduction

This CLE webinar will guide patent counsel on how to avoid the Section 101 and 112 traps that await when patenting computer-related inventions and, specifically, AI. The panel will examine the Section 101 risks and how the unwitting invocation of Section 112's means-plus-function (M-P-F) can lead to invalidity.

Description

Computer-implemented inventions have faced an uphill climb. The Electric Power Group (EPG) line of cases poses a particular threat to AI patents. In fact, using EPG, the Federal Circuit has found unpatentable every machine learning patent that has come before it, including Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Amazon.com Inc. (nonprecedential), and Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology Inc. (nonprecedential).  

AI inventions can satisfy patent eligibility under Section 101, but particular attention needs to be paid to drafting both the specification and claims. The best chances for success are when the specification describes and the claims recite how the invention (1) improves the operation of the computer itself, (2) provides a technical improvement over the prior art, or (3) solves a technical problem with a technical solution.  

Also, Fintiv Inc. v. PayPal Holdings Inc. demonstrates the invalidity trap that awaits when Section 112(f)'s M-P-F is unintentionally invoked. A claim element can invoke M-P-F even when the word "means" is not used. If a claim element is interpreted as M-P-F and the patent specification is functionally drafted (failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts), the Federal Circuit will find the claim invalid.  

The solution to both satisfying Section 101 and avoiding invalidity per unintentional invocation of M-P-F is drafting a great specification and claim set. Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys describes exactly how to do that. 

Presented By

Robert W. Bahr
Partner
Maier & Maier, PLLC

Mr. Bahr specializes in all areas of patent practice. He previously served as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy at the USPTO. During Mr. Bahr's distinguished career at the USPTO, he was involved in nearly all patent-related rulemaking since 1995. His involvement in patent rulemaking includes the changes to implement the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Mr. Bahr provided administrative oversight and direction for the activities of the Office of Petitions, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of Patent Quality Assurance, Central Reexamination Unit, and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure staff during his tenure at the USPTO.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Michael L. Kiklis
Founder
Kiklis Law Firm, PLLC

For over 30 years, Mr. Kiklis has been called upon by industry-leading technology companies to handle some of their most important patent-dispute matters. He focuses his practice on trials at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Federal Circuit appeals, and patent litigation. Mr. Kiklis is often called upon to handle cases worth more than $100 million. He has handled 100 PTAB trials and over 20 appeals to the Federal Circuit. Mr. Kiklis has an extensive background in computer science based on his six years of experience as a software developer at some of the computer industry’s leading companies as well as his academic background, holding both a BS and MS in computer science. He is the author of The Supreme Court on Patent Law, an 800-page treatise devoted to the Supreme Court’s patent law jurisprudence and a co-author on PLI’s post grant treatise (1st edition). Mr. Kiklis is best known for his long history of writing and speaking on patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including numerous articles and speeches at bar associations and professional organizations. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, November 5, 2026

  • schedule

    1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT

I. AI inventions and the Electric Power Group (EPG) cases 

A. "Collect, analyze, present" as an abstract idea  

B. Federal Circuit's use of EPG to invalidate patents, including AI 

II. Lessons from the Federal Circuit's AI-related cases

III. Section 112(f) trap for functional claims 

A. "Means for" or "step for" language 

B. Fintiv lesson

C. Method claims and "step plus function" 

IV. Practical drafting strategies for both the specification and claims

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • How does the two-part Alice test apply to AI and machine learning inventions?
  • Why do the Electric Power Group cases pose a particular threat to AI patents?
  • What lessons does Recentive Analytics offer for describing and claiming machine learning?
  • How can patent drafters avoid having claims construed as M-P-F under Section 112(f) and found invalid?