About the Course
Introduction
This CLE webinar will guide patent attorneys on the lessons from the recent GoTV Streaming v. Netflix decision for navigating the abstract idea analysis. The panel will also discuss the split at the Federal Circuit as to whether conventionality is considered at step one. The panel will offer best practices for applying recent court and USPTO guidance in defending patents from Section 101 challenges and drafting applications to reduce the likelihood of a Section 101 challenge.
Description
In the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision, the Court left the contours of what exactly constitutes an "abstract idea" undefined, leaving lower courts and patent practitioners to struggle. Recently, the Federal Circuit has provided both clarity and confusion to the abstract-idea analysis. On the clarity side, in GoTV Streaming v. Netflix, the Federal Circuit elaborated on what makes a claim abstract, the role of functional claiming, and the difference between the two Alice steps. The court emphasized that the step-one inquiry often turns on identifying the claimed advance over the prior art. It identified three recurring categories of abstract ideas from prior cases: longstanding or fundamental human practices; data collection, manipulation, and display, particularly when claimed at a high level of generality; and claims using result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results. The court also explained the line between what is and what is not an abstract idea.
On the confusion side, the Federal Circuit is apparently split as to whether conventionality is considered at step one. In PowerBlock Holdings v. iFit, the court cautioned parties and tribunals "not to conflate the separate novelty and obviousness inquiries … with the step one inquiry… ." But, in Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Gen Digital, the court did consider conventionality at step one, stating "claims that recite something 'already routine and conventional' are not sufficient." Practitioners, therefore, need to be well prepared when arguing 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a forum that may end up at the Federal Circuit.
Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines the Federal Circuit's recent decisions addressing abstract ideas and what the implications are for practitioners. The panel will offer best practices for applying recent court and USPTO guidance to assist counsel in defending patents from Section 101 challenges as well as in drafting patent applications to minimize the risk of a 101 challenge.
Presented By
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.
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.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
- schedule
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
I. GoTV Streaming v. Netflix (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026)
II. Is conventionality considered during the abstract-idea analysis?
III. Best practices for handling an abstract-idea argument
The panel will review these and other important issues:
- What subject matter has the Federal Circuit found constitutes an abstract idea?
- What to do if your claim contains this subject matter
- What to do about the split at the Federal Circuit on whether conventionality is considered at step one
Related Courses
Patentable Subject Matter Masterclass: Navigating Federal Circuit Nuances, Inconsistencies, and USPTO Divergence
Thursday, August 6, 2026
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
Machine Learning and Patent Eligibility: Recent Court Guidance and Strategy
Available On-Demand
