Federal Circuit IP

PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc.

By John Schmitz Published September 24, 2025

PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc.

CAFC Opinion No. 2024-1177, Decided August 11, 2025, (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi (District Judge)), (Precedential)

Overview: Claims eligible, offers guidance on the boundaries of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Facts/Procedural Posture:

  • PowerBlock filed suit in the District of Utah, alleging that iFit infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,578,771 (the ’771 patent) which was directed to automatic selectorized dumbbells
  • Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 101
  • District Court applied the two-step Alice framework and determined all but one claim of the ’771 patent were ineligible
  • The district court had characterized the claims as covering the general concept of automated weight stacking which was implemented with generic components.
  • PowerBlock appealed.

 Holdings and Analysis:

  • Federal Circuit reversed, holding that these claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent-eligible under § 101:
    • Federal Circuit emphasized that claim 1 is limited to a specific type of dumbbell with clearly defined components and that the motor physically moves the selector to adjust the weight, as chosen by the user..
    • Found that these limitations provided enough specificity and structure to satisfy § 101

Takeaways: 

  • Prosecutors: make sure claim language clearly defines physical components and their interactions
  • Litigators: even a claim that appears mechanical may be susceptible to 101

 

 

Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner

CAFC Opinion No. 2025-1022, Decided August 20, 2025, (Reyna, Prost, Stoll), (Precedential)

Overview: First review by Federal Circuit of a derivation proceeding under the AIA that was litigated before the PTAB.

Facts/Procedural Posture: 

  • Selner and Burnam (founder of Global Health Solutions (GHS)) worked together in 2013-2014 on the problem of suspending an aqueous biocide in a petrolatum medium without an emulsifier
  • Each filed separate patent applications which claimed the same solution to the problem
  • Derivation proceeding under the AIA was litigated before the PTAB and Board found that Selner had conceived of the invention earlier
  • GHS appealed

Holding and Analysis: 

  • Federal Circuit noted the Board committed a harmless error to the extent its decision turned on its determination that Selner was the “first” to conceive
  • The AIA’s conversion of the U.S. patent system into a “first-to-file” system meant that a second-to-conceive, first-to-file inventor could still retain patent rights so long as his conception was independent of (i.e. not derived from) the adverse claimant’s conception

Takeaways: 

  • Inventor records may not be as important as they used to be, however, if dispute appears probable, maintaining detailed records (e.g., emails, lab notebooks, timestamps) can still be helpful to establish independent conception.

 

 

In re: Erik Brunetti

CAFC Opinion No. 2023-1539, Decided August 26, 2025, (Lourie, Dyke, Reyna), (Precedential)

Overview: A failure to function rejection requires clear explanation.

Facts/Procedural Posture: 

  • Erik Brunetti is same as in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. 388 (2019). Supreme Court Holding: The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
  • Brunetti filed a intent-to-use tradmark registration application on the standard character mark FUCK
  • TTAB refused to register the mark FUCK ruled that the term failed to function as a trademark under the Lanham Act, because it did not indicate the source of goods or distinguish them from others 

Holdings Analysis:  

  • The court rejected many of Brunetti’s arguments, but, emphasized that the Board must clearly explain why a term fails to function as a trademark.
  • Each registration must be considered on its own merits, similar registered marks is not necessarily an indication of registrability
  • Majority emphasized that the Board must clearly explain why a term fails to function as a trademark
  • Judge Lourie in a dissent argued that there was substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the term FUCK could not serve as a source identifier for the goods in question. But, seemed to agree that there are some shortcomings in the TTAB’s analysis but would have affirmed and waited for better cases for more guidance

Takeaways: 

  • As a practical matter, if pushing boundaries understand that there might be a higher hurdle for proving that the mark functions as a trademark