Etison LLC, D/b/a Clickfunnels v. Highlevel, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ETISON LLC, D/B/A CLICKFUNNELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HIGHLEVEL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1711
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:24-cv-00502-JCB, Judge
Campbell J. Barker.
______________________
Decided: July 2, 2026
______________________
J OHN HINTZ, FBT Gibbons LLP, New York, NY, argued
for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by K EVIN J.
CULLIGAN.
ROBERT SHAFFER, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by J ONATHAN HACKER, K HANH N GUYEN L EON, BROOKE
WILNER; J EFFERY D. BAXTER , T IMOTHY S. D URST , Dallas,
TX.
______________________
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 1 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 2
Before L OURIE, C UNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
Etison LLC, d/b/a ClickFunnels (“ClickFunnels”), ap-
peals a judgment of the District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissing its patent infringement lawsuit for
failure to state a claim. The district court held that all
claims of ClickFunnels’ U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,357 (“’357
patent”) and 11,361,047 (“’047 patent”) were invalid under
Section 101 of the Patent Act. We conclude that the district
court erred by treating one claim as representative of all
challenged claims. Nevertheless, we agree with the district
court that all of the claims are invalid, rendering any error
harmless. Therefore, we affirm.
I
A
ClickFunnels owns the ’357 and ’047 patents (together,
the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit share a specifi-
cation and title, “Website Creation System for Creating
Websites Having At Least One Series of Directional
Webpages and Related Methods.” J.A. 58 (’357 pat. at 1:1-
4); J.A. 113 (’047 pat. at 1:1-4).1 The claimed invention gen-
erally “provide[s] a plurality [of] website templates” to fa-
cilitate website creation and enhance the experience of end
users of those websites. J.A. 23 (’357 pat. at Abstract).
More particularly, the specification explains that the pa-
tented technology enables business owners to use website
templates to create digital sales “funnels” that are “de-
signed to entice” potential customers and strategically “di-
rect” them to purchase the products or services offered by
the business. J.A. 58-59 (’357 pat. at 2:60-3:16). As further
1 We generally cite to the specification of the ’357 pa-
tent throughout this opinion.
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 2 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 3
detailed in ClickFunnels’ amended complaint (“Amended
Complaint”):
[T]he owner of the website can attract as many
potential customers as possible for the products
or services offered on that website (the broadest
part of the funnel) and then, by using ClickFun-
nels technology, the website can provide the po-
tential customers a series of directional
webpages through which the potential custom-
ers can learn more about the product that is of
interest to them (a narrower part of the funnel),
the potential customers can purchase the prod-
ucts or services they know they already want (a
still narrower part of the funnel), and the poten-
tial customers can be ‘funneled’ to different
webpages on the website to encourage them to
take other actions such as purchasing other
products offered on the website (an even nar-
rower part of the funnel).
J.A. 136-37 (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 27).
Claim 1 of the ’357 patent, which the district court
treated as representative, recites:
A method, comprising:
providing, to a user for display on a client
device, via a website creation system, a
user dashboard comprising a selectable op-
tion to create a website;
receiving a selection of the selectable op-
tion to create a website;
in response to receiving the selection of the
selectable option to create a website,
providing, to the user for display on the cli-
ent device, a plurality of website types for
selection;
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 3 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 4
receiving a selection of a website type of the
plurality of website types,
wherein each website type of the plurality
of website types comprises a series of direc-
tional webpages configured to cause an end
user interaction with a website,
wherein the series of directional webpages
of each website type of the plurality of web-
sites types comprises a unique plurality of
sequential webpages configured to be pro-
vided sequentially one after another;
in response to receiving the selection of a
website type of the plurality of website
types, providing, to the user for display on
the client device, a plurality of website tem-
plates for selection, the plurality of website
templates being particular to the selected
website type;
receiving a selection of a website template
of the plurality of website templates and
the series of directional webpages of the se-
lected website type;
in response to receiving the selection of a
website template, generating and launch-
ing a generic website based on the selected
website type and selected website template
and providing, to the user for display on the
client device, a website editor graphical
user interface, the website editor graphical
user interface comprising a plurality of
webpage tabs, each webpage tab of the plu-
rality of webpage tabs representing a
webpage of the series of directional
webpages;
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 4 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 5
receiving at least one indication of a user
interaction editing at least one webpage of
the series of directional webpages; and
in response to receiving the at least one in-
dication of a user interaction editing at
least one webpage of the series of direc-
tional webpages, editing the launched ge-
neric website to create a customized
website.
J.A. 75 (’357 pat. at 35:51-36:27).
B
In April 2024, ClickFunnels sued HighLevel, Inc.
(“HighLevel”) in the District of Delaware, alleging that
HighLevel’s software-as-a-service website platform in-
fringes at least claim 1 of each of the patents-in-suit. After
ClickFunnels filed its Amended Complaint, HighLevel
moved to dismiss on the grounds that both patents claim
ineligible subject matter under Section 101. In analyzing
ClickFunnels’ claims under the two-step test set out by the
Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 217-18 (2014), the district court accepted HighLevel’s
proposal to treat claim 1 of the ’357 patent as representa-
tive of all 20 claims of each of the patents-in-suit. After
oral argument, the district court determined at step one of
the Alice test that the claims are directed to the abstract
idea of “filtering information based on user preferences to
arrive at a final result,” and at step two that the claims add
no inventive concept. J.A. 11, 15.
ClickFunnels timely appealed. The district court had
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a),
and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 5 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 6
II
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure under the law of the applicable regional circuit.
See Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th
1342, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Third Circuit reviews
grants of a motion to dismiss de novo. See Klotz v. Celen-
tano Stadtmauer & Walentowicz LLP, 991 F.3d 458, 462
(3d Cir. 2021). “When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we
accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and
view those facts in the light most favorable to the non-mov-
ing party.” Id. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law
based on underlying facts, so we review a district court’s
ultimate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo.” Univer-
sal, 10 F.4th at 1346. “[P]atent eligibility can be deter-
mined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage . . . when there are no
factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving
the eligibility question as a matter of law.” Aatrix Soft-
ware, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121,
1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Under Section 101, we employ a two-step test for “dis-
tinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phe-
nomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217. At step one, we ask “whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If
so, we proceed to step two, where we “search for an in-
ventive concept – i.e., an element or combination of ele-
ments that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
the ineligible concept itself.” Id. at 217-18 (internal quota-
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 6 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 7
tion marks and alterations omitted). “[T]he mere recita-
tion of a generic computer [in the claims] cannot transform
a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible in-
vention.” Id. at 223.
III
ClickFunnels does not appeal the district court’s Alice
step one conclusion that the claims of the patents-in-suit
are directed to the abstract idea of “filtering information
based on user preferences to arrive at a final result.”
J.A. 11. Instead, it raises two other challenges.
First, ClickFunnels faults the district court’s treatment of
claim 1 of the ’357 patent as representative of all claims of
the patents-in-suit for the purposes of the Section 101 anal-
ysis. Second, ClickFunnels argues that the district court
should have concluded, at Alice step two, that the patents
contain an inventive concept and, therefore, are not inva-
lid. As we explain below, although the district court erred
in its representativeness evaluation, this error was harm-
less because the court’s conclusions at step two were cor-
rect.
A
In assessing a Section 101 motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, “[c]ourts may treat a claim as representa-
tive” of some or all of the challenged claims of the asserted
patents. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2018). In fact, “[d]istrict courts have discretion
to require parties litigating Section 101 motions to identify
representative claims and to articulate why (or why not)
claims are representative.” Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap
Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 701 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis
added). Designating claims as representative of others as-
sists district courts by enabling them to limit the analysis
of a Section 101 challenge to just the representative claims.
See Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280,
1290 (Fed. Cir. 2024); see also Content Extraction & Trans-
mission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 7 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 8
1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding it “unnecessary” for
“the district court to individually address every one of [the]
claims” under Section 101 “because all the claims are ‘sub-
stantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea’”).
The alternative – conducting a separate Alice analysis for
each challenged claim of every asserted patent – could
threaten to overwhelm a district court and bring the litiga-
tion to a halt at its very earliest stage.
The efficiencies made possible by representative claim
analysis, however, carry with them attendant risks. If the
district court improperly restricts the number of claims it
analyzes, and then extends its conclusions to other claims,
it might mistakenly invalidate claims not specifically con-
sidered; or, alternatively, it could wrongfully strip a patent
challenger of a claim-specific defense. Thus, as we have
previously observed and now reiterate, “it is important for
courts to resolve any disputes over representativeness and
clearly state which claims are, and are not, adequately rep-
resented by others.” Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th at 1291.
“Limiting the analysis of a § 101 challenge to repre-
sentative claims is proper when the claims at issue are sub-
stantially similar and linked to the same ineligible
concept.” Id. at 1290 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Once a patent challenger makes a prima facie showing that
these criteria are satisfied, “the burden shifts to the patent
owner to present non-frivolous arguments as to why the el-
igibility of the identified representative claim cannot fairly
be treated as decisive of the eligibility of all claims in the
group.” Id. (“[A] district court may treat a claim as repre-
sentative . . . if the patentee does not present any meaning-
ful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim
limitations not found in the representative claim. . . .”) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). If the patent owner suc-
ceeds in making such a showing, it follows that the claims
containing the distinctive limitation fall outside the repre-
sentative claim’s umbrella and must be separately evalu-
ated.
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 8 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 9
Here, it is undisputed that HighLevel made a prima fa-
cie showing that claim 1 of the ’357 patent is representative
of all the claims of both patents-in-suit; i.e., that all the
claims are substantially similar and are directed to the
same abstract idea (“filtering information based on user
preferences to arrive at a final result”). This showing
shifted the burden to ClickFunnels to present a non-frivo-
lous argument as to why claim 1 could not fairly be treated
as a proxy for the other claims.
In its effort to meet this burden, ClickFunnels drew the
district court’s attention to dependent claim 13 of the ’357
patent and dependent claim 16 of the ’047 patent, each of
which recites the use of “one or more triggers.”2 J.A. 76
(’357 pat. at 37:59-62) (“The system of claim 12, wherein
the website editor graphical user interface includes an au-
tomation tab for creating one or more triggers and at least
one event that results from the one or more triggers.”);
J.A. 131 (’047 pat. at 38:6-9) (“The website management
system of claim 15, wherein the website editor graphical
user interface comprises an automation tab for creating
one or more triggers and for defining at least one event that
results from the one or more triggers being triggered by an
end user.”). ClickFunnels pointed out that this “one or
more triggers” limitation is not present in the purportedly
representative claim 1 of the ’357 patent. See Etison LLC
v. HighLevel, Inc., C.A. No. 24-502 D.I. 24 at 10 (D. Del.).
Beyond making this observation, however, ClickFunnels
provided no real argument to the district court as to why
this limitation is of distinctive significance. See id. (“Claim
1 of the ’357 patent is not representative at least because it
2 ClickFunnels does not dispute that claim 1 of the
’357 patent is representative of all the claims of the pa-
tents-in-suit other than the two containing the “one or
more triggers” limitations.
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 9 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 10
does not include the limitations of Claim 13 of the ’357 pa-
tent and Claim 16 of the ’047 patent of ‘one or more triggers
and at least one event that results from the one or more
triggers.’”) (internal citations omitted).3
HighLevel’s reply was equally terse. It offered nothing
more than a simple denial that ClickFunnels’ “one or more
triggers” limitation was of distinctive significance. Etison
LLC v. HighLevel, Inc., C.A. No. 24-502 D.I. 28 at 6
(D. Del.). Rather than explain why ClickFunnels’ position
was frivolous, HighLevel pivoted to the Alice test, arguing
that “[t]o the extent that the Court finds that claims 13 and
16 are distinctive from claim 1 (they are not), HighLevel
has already shown that these claims are similarly un-
patentable, and that is unrebutted. At bottom, claims 13
and 16 do not change the focus of the abstract idea over
representative claim 1, and further add no articulated in-
ventive concept.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
The district court did not engage with the merits of the
dispute any more searchingly than the parties.4 Instead,
after observing that the two patents-in-suit share a speci-
fication, are directed to the same invention, and have iden-
tical claim structures (three independent and seventeen
dependent claims), the court stated, without explanation,
3 The district court briefs on the motion to dismiss
are not in the joint appendix but are available on the dis-
trict court’s docket. See Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc., C.A.
No. 24-502 D.I. 14, 24, 28 (D. Del.).
4 In this case, the parties provided the district court
a total of just four pages of briefing on the representative
claim dispute. This minimal attention understandably im-
pacted the court’s treatment of the issue. District courts
retain discretion to require more fulsome briefing. Alter-
natively, courts may choose to undertake Alice analyses for
only those claims that are adequately briefed.
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 10 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 11
that ClickFunnels “failed to provide any nonfrivolous argu-
ment as to why claim 1 of the ’357 patent is not representa-
tive.” J.A. 6-7.
This was error. ClickFunnels’ identification of the “one
or more triggers” limitation, present in claim 13 of the ’357
patent and claim 16 of the ’047 patent but not in the prof-
fered representative claim, was not shown by HighLevel to
be frivolous. And the district court’s remarks that the pa-
tents-in-suit are nearly identical was not responsive to
ClickFunnels’ invocation of the “one or more triggers” lim-
itation and did not address whether these claims were ad-
equately represented by claim 1, which lacks that
limitation.
The district court’s error, however, was harmless. This
is because the court proceeded to, in effect, evaluate the
“one or more triggers” limitation under step two of the Alice
test. J.A. 6 (considering whether the “one or more triggers”
limitations “only introduce conventional computer activi-
ties”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And its conclu-
sion at step two was (as we will explain) correct: the “one
or more triggers” limitation does not add an inventive con-
cept.
The value of representative claim analysis is that it al-
lows the court to reduce the number of claims it must scru-
tinize under the Alice test. Because, here, the district court
went on to apply the Alice test to claims 13 and 16 anyway
– even after erroneously deeming claim 1 of the ’357 patent
to be representative of all claims – and we agree with that
analysis, its error in finding ClickFunnels’ argument frivo-
lous resulted in no prejudice and is, therefore, harmless.
See Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th at 1292 (finding representa-
tiveness challenge “unavailing” where “district court also
expressly addressed the eligibility” of purportedly unrepre-
sented claims); see also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 n.1
(“Though the district court stated it was treating claim 1
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 11 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 11 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 12
as representative, it separately analyzed the dependent
claims.”).
B
That brings us to the district court’s step two analysis.
At step two, “[w]e look to see whether there are any ‘addi-
tional features’ in the claims that constitute an ‘inventive
concept,’ thereby rendering the claims eligible for patent-
ing even if they are directed to an abstract idea.” Intell.
Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). “Although
Alice step two involves a question of law, it may also in-
volve underlying factual determinations regarding
whether claim limitations were well-understood, routine,
and conventional.” Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs.
ULC, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 1596936, at *9 (Fed. Cir. June
4, 2026) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here, ClickFunnels does not identify any underlying fact
dispute that would make it inappropriate to resolve step
two on a motion to dismiss.5
5 The closest ClickFunnels came to identifying a fac-
tual dispute in front of the district court was a passing ref-
erence in its motion to dismiss opposition brief to the
“question of fact” of whether sequential and directional
webpages are conventional. Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc.,
C.A. No. 24-502 D.I. 24 at 21 (D. Del.). Neither in its brief
nor at oral argument on the motion, however, did Click-
Funnels argue that this question should defeat the motion.
Its position was, rather, that the district court should de-
cide step two in its favor. See generally Sanderling, 65
F.4th at 705 (noting patentee “failed . . . to timely identify,
prior to the district court’s ruling on the motion, any spe-
cific fact disputes”).
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 12 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 12 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 13
The arguments ClickFunnels does make can be fairly
summarized as: (1) the Amended Complaint plausibly al-
leges, and the patents-in-suit demonstrate, that the claims
at issue recite an inventive concept; and (2) the district
court failed to accept as true ClickFunnels’ allegations and
construe all reasonable inferences in its favor. We address
these contentions in turn.
1
ClickFunnels contends its claims should survive be-
cause it “plausibly alleged in the Amended Complaint that
the claimed features are not conventional because they pro-
vide technical advantages over prior systems and methods,
and the claimed features are thus directed to inventive con-
cepts.” Open. Br. at 20. However, “conclusory allegations
that the prior art lacked elements of the asserted claims
are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept.”
Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, the Amended Complaint’s con-
clusory declaration that “[t]he patents-in-suit . . . contain
limitations that, individually and/or collectively, are di-
rected to inventive concepts that were unconventional and
not well known or routine,” J.A. 136 (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 23), is
not entitled to any weight in assessing the motion to dis-
miss. See Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“[G]eneralized assertions that fac-
tual considerations about the state of the art preclude a de-
cision at the pleadings stage do not prevent . . . a
dismissal.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omit-
ted).
ClickFunnels does somewhat better with its allega-
tions that “[t]he patents-in-suit describe the technical solu-
tions . . . for creating websites,” such as by “enabl[ing] a
user to create a website while working with a single system
instead of multiple developers and systems . . . [which] re-
duces required processing power, memory, and communi-
cation resources needed to facilitate creating websites.”
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 13 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 13 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 14
J.A. 134-35 (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 16). The Amended Complaint
goes on to allege that the “results” produced by this “tech-
nical solution” include “less data transfer and data band-
width usage,” “less required processing power and
communication bandwidth,” “static pages [that] save[]
computing power,” and potentially a “more appropriate
system for mobile devices.” J.A. 134-36, 138 (Am. Cmplt.
¶¶ 19, 21, 32). At bottom, ClickFunnels insists that the
“conditional logic” and “ordered rules” built into the inven-
tion’s templates – that is, the “funnel” system described in
the patents-in-suit – “allow both the user’s local computer
and the remote server hosting the website to use less com-
puting power.” J.A. 137-38, 140 (Am. Cmplt. ¶¶ 30, 38)
(emphasis added).
The claims at issue here, however, do no such thing.
“A statement that a feature ‘improves the functioning and
operations of the computer’ is, by itself, conclusory.” Simio,
LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2020). Here, the statements in ClickFunnels’
specifications and Amended Complaint (summarized
above) that seek to bring its claims within the “technical
solution to a technical problem” rubric are, at best, conclu-
sory. Additionally, nothing in the claims, specifications, or
the Amended Complaint provides necessary detail as to
how to achieve the alleged improvement in computer func-
tionality. See Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC,
60 F.4th 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding that “claims
failed Alice step two” where “the specification and claims
do not explain or show how the monitoring and storage is
improved, except by using already existing computer and
camera technology”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The claims here resemble others we have held to be in-
valid under Section 101 based on, at least in part, their con-
sisting of nothing more than “functional, result-focused
language.” GoTV, 166 F.4th at 1067 (“In conducting the
step-two inquiry, we have repeatedly emphasized that it is
not sufficient, in order to pass muster, for a claim to use
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 14 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 14 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 15
functional, result-focused language or to encompass ordi-
nary computers and networks to perform their ordinary
functions in carrying out an abstract idea, . . . without go-
ing further to require a specific implementation to improve
how those functions are carried out.”); US Pat.
No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, 164 F.4th 1373, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2026) (“[T]he claims use result-oriented language
with no specific implementation illustrating how to achieve
the claimed results.”).
Like the district court, then, we conclude that “the
claims here are distinguishable from cases where an in-
ventive concept has been found.” J.A. 14. The district
court’s decision to analogize the patents-in-suit to similar
claims we have evaluated, in what now amounts to a rich
and elaborate corpus of Section 101 precedent, was entirely
proper. More than a decade ago, we announced that “the
decisional mechanism courts now apply [to Section 101
cases] is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or par-
allel descriptive nature can be seen,” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd.
v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
2016), and we have consistently adhered to this “classic
common law methodology” in our Section 101 jurispru-
dence in the years since, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2022).
Hence, the district court appropriately and persua-
sively analogized the present case to our decision in Intel-
lectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1341-42 (“[T]he claim
language here provides only a result-oriented solution,
with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it.
Our law demands more.”). In that case, we found that “a
series of generic computer components that merely restate
their individual functions” – such as “organizing, mapping,
identifying, defining, detecting, and modifying” – only “de-
scribe[d] the functions of the abstract idea itself, without
particularity” and, thus, was “simply not enough under
step two” to plausibly allege an inventive concept. Id. (in-
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 15 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 15 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 16
ternal quotation marks omitted). Claim 1 of the ’357 pa-
tent similarly recites “display[ing]” images, “configur[ing]”
webpages, “receiving” user input, “generating and launch-
ing a generic website,” and “editing” the webpage. J.A. 75
(’357 pat. at 35:50-36:28).
ClickFunnels’ remaining arguments do not alter our
conclusion. The Amended Complaint alleges that Click-
Funnels’ website-building platform operates “within a sin-
gle system,” J.A. 134 (Am. Cmplt. ¶¶ 14, 16) (quoting ’357
pat. at 3:19; ’047 pat. at 3:27), but ClickFunnels has made
clear that this “everything under one roof” idea is “not the
inventive concept,” Oral Arg. at 29:24-406; see also Reply
Br. at 17 (“The phrase ‘within a single system’ is not the
focus of the disclosure; the focus is on the advantages pro-
vided by ‘at least one series of directional webpages.’”).
ClickFunnels also alleged that “the claimed inventions pro-
vide an additional, distinct benefit in comparison to con-
ventional systems because the claimed inventions may be
a more appropriate system for mobile devices.” J.A. 136
(Am. Cmplt. ¶ 21) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, “a claim is not rendered patent eligible merely
because the abstract idea is applied on a handheld device
or using a mobile application.” Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th
at 1367.
Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the
Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege that claim 1
of the ’357 patent (and the claims it represents) recites an
inventive concept sufficient to satisfy Alice step two.
2
We reach the same conclusion in connection with the
step two analysis of claim 13 of the ’357 patent and claim
6 Available at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-ar-
guments/25-171106032026.mp3.
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 16 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 16 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 17
16 of the ’047 patent, which include the “one or more trig-
gers” limitation. We agree with the district court that
“these limitations only introduce conventional computer
activities, namely, the triggering of an event in response to
an action by a user.” J.A. 6 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Both of the “one or more triggers” claims recite that
each “trigger” is achieved by “an automation tab.” J.A. 76
(’357 pat. at 37:60); J.A. 131 (’047 pat. at 38:7-8). The
Amended Complaint identifies these “trigger” limitations
as part of what it describes as “[t]he second general aspect
of the patents-in-suit,” that is, “a user’s experience with
websites that are created using the technologies claimed in
the patents-in-suit.” J.A. 139 (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 35). Our prec-
edent establishes that improving a user’s experience, for
instance by allowing a user to accomplish conventional
tasks more quickly, is generally not inventive. See Simio,
983 F.3d at 1365 (“[T]he improved ‘efficiency’ and ‘pro-
cessing speed’ [often] means the user’s speed, not the com-
puter’s.”) (emphasis added).
The Amended Complaint then describes an example of
“triggering”:
[I]f a user visits a website, clicks on a certain
product, but then takes no further action or exits
the website, the ClickFunnels platform that uses
the claimed inventions provides an automatic
way to treat that as a ‘trigger’ which results in
the website sending an email, text, or other type
of communication to the user to remind the user
to complete the purchase.
J.A. 140 (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 37). These triggered “response ac-
tions,” according to the Amended Complaint, “enable auto-
mation of tasks resulting in the technical advantage of
reduced computing time and use of computer resources.”
Id. (Am. Cmplt. ¶ 38).
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 17 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 17 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 18
As we have already explained, however, the patents-in-
suit do not sufficiently articulate how to accomplish this
purported improvement of reduced use of computer re-
sources. Nor does ClickFunnels point us to any disclosure
as to how this might be achieved using “one or more trig-
gers.” Thus, for the same reasons we have set out with re-
spect to the step two analysis of claim 1 of the ’357 patent,
we again agree with the district court that claim 13 of the
’357 patent and claim 16 of the ’047 patent also lack an in-
ventive concept and are, therefore, invalid.
3
Finally, ClickFunnels charges that “the district court
impermissibly engaged in fact finding about the state of the
art and relied on matters other than those contained in the
Amended Complaint and the patents-in-suit.” Open. Br. at
39. ClickFunnels specifically criticizes the following state-
ments in the district court’s opinion:
• “Directional and sequential webpages as
well as website types and templates are all
generic computer functions or data types.”
• “Claim 1’s reference to a website editor
graphical user interface is also not in-
ventive.”
• “[A]ny improvement in computer function
flows not from how directional and sequen-
tial webpages are combined. Rather, the im-
provement comes from the filtering of
already-existing data structures upon the
selection of a user.”
J.A. 14; see also Open. Br. at 30-31.7
7 ClickFunnels additionally faults the district court
for observing that “[a]s plaintiff itself admits, it ‘does not
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 18 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 18 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 19
As ClickFunnels correctly observes, none of the forego-
ing statements are explicitly supported in the district
court’s opinion by a citation to the Amended Complaint or
the patents-in-suit. These statements could, as a result, be
misinterpreted as findings of fact that additionally fail to
accept the Amended Complaint’s allegations as true. That
would, however, be a misreading of the district court’s opin-
ion.
We see no basis to credit ClickFunnels’ speculation
that the district court improperly based its decision on ma-
terial outside the complaint and the patents-in-suit, includ-
ing, allegedly, “the Court’s own view of the state of the art.”
Open. Br. at 11. Instead, as we have observed, the district
court was relying on our precedent, and particularly our
holdings as to what may or may not constitute an inventive
concept as a matter of law. While the district court could
have been clearer about what it was doing – and more care-
fully shown that it credited the well-pleaded factual allega-
tions of the Amended Complaint and read the patents in
the light most favorable to ClickFunnels – ClickFunnels
has failed to identify any reversible error.
IV
We have considered ClickFunnels’ remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, for the
claim to have invented webpages.’” J.A. 14. This is not a
finding of fact or reliance on material outside of the plead-
ings. Rather, it is an identification of what is – and is not
– disputed between the parties. Contrary to ClickFunnels’
suggestion, therefore, the district court did not run afoul of
the Third Circuit’s admonition that “admissions by counsel
at oral argument may not support dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6).” Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs.
II PC, 935 F.3d 187, 197 (3d Cir. 2019).
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 19 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 19 of 20 --

ETISON LLC v. HIGHLEVEL, INC. 20
foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1711 Document: 44 Page: 20 Filed: 07/02/2026

-- 20 of 20 --