Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc.: Both Patents Invalidated Under § 101 in 343 Days
Etison LLC asserted two software patents — US10846357B2 and US11361047B2 — against the HighLevel marketing platform in Delaware. Judge Barker granted HighLevel’s motion to dismiss, ruling both patents cover patent-ineligible abstract ideas. The case ended in 343 days without reaching discovery.
Two Software Patents Wiped Out Before Discovery Even Began
Etison LLC filed suit against HighLevel, Inc. in the District of Delaware on 22 April 2024, asserting infringement of US10846357B2 and US11361047B2 — two patents directed at software platform functionality — based on HighLevel’s all-in-one marketing and CRM platform. The case was assigned to Judge John Campbell Barker. Etison filed an amended complaint (Doc. 19), signalling an early attempt to shore up the infringement allegations before the court ruled.
HighLevel moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing both patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Judge Barker agreed, concluding that neither the ‘357 nor the ‘047 patent survives § 101 scrutiny. The court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on 31 March 2025, permanently barring Etison from reasserting these specific claims.
Resolution in 343 days on a motion to dismiss — without discovery or claim construction — suggests HighLevel’s § 101 defence was strong enough to dispose of the case at the pleading stage, a relatively efficient outcome for the defendant. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing negotiations preceded the filing, and whether Etison holds continuation applications that could generate follow-on assertions.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 343 days
343 days — resolved on a motion to dismiss, well before trial
Dismissed with prejudice under § 101: what the ruling means for both parties
§ 101 dismissal with prejudice: a full merits bar
A dismissal with prejudice following a § 101 ruling is one of the most decisive outcomes a defendant can obtain. The court concluded — before discovery — that both patents are directed to abstract ideas and fail the Alice two-step test. ‘With prejudice’ means Etison cannot refile the same claims; the ruling extinguishes those patent rights as asserted against HighLevel in this action.
Patent-ineligible subject matterEtison loses both patents in a single ruling
The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any re-assertion of the ‘357 and ‘047 patents against HighLevel in their current form. Etison cannot amend again in this action. Whether Etison holds related continuation patents or divisional applications that might survive § 101 is not disclosed in the public record, but that is the only realistic forward path for further enforcement activity against comparable platforms.
No further recourse on these claimsHighLevel defeats both patents without reaching discovery
HighLevel secured a complete defence win at the pleading stage — a cost-efficient result given the expense of software patent litigation. The with-prejudice ruling provides lasting certainty: the HighLevel platform faces no further liability from these two patents in this jurisdiction. The outcome also suggests HighLevel’s counsel built a compelling Alice analysis that withstood Etison’s amended complaint.
Full defence win — pre-discovery§ 101 remains a powerful early-exit tool for SaaS defendants
This outcome reinforces the continued vitality of Alice-based § 101 challenges against software platform patents at the pleading stage in Delaware. For SaaS and CRM vendors facing abstract-idea patent assertions, a well-pleaded motion to dismiss can resolve the case before any meaningful litigation cost accumulates. Patent holders asserting platform-functionality patents should expect early § 101 scrutiny in Delaware.
Alice risk for platform patentsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Etison LLC | Company | Software patent assertion entity — holder of US10846357B2 and US11361047B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | HighLevel, Inc. | Company | HighLevel, Inc. — provider of an all-in-one marketing and CRM SaaS platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Flynn. | Attorney | Counsel for Etison LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Etison LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra M. Joyce | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel M. Silver | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffery Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Khanh Leon | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patric M. Reinbold | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert F. Shaffer | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy S. Durst | Attorney | Counsel for HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McCarter & English LLP | Law Firm | Representing HighLevel, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Campbell Barker | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s ruling is unusually categorical: both patents were disposed of in a single order on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, without claim construction or expert testimony. The phrase ‘patent-ineligible material under case law interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 101’ signals a straightforward Alice analysis — likely step one (abstract idea) without needing to reach step two. The with-prejudice dismissal leaves no procedural avenue to replead, making this a final adjudication on patent eligibility for these two patents as against HighLevel.
US10846357B2 & US11361047B2 — Software Platform Functionality Patents
US10846357B2 (application US15/880226) and US11361047B2 (application US17/247041) are US utility patents asserted by Etison LLC against HighLevel’s all-in-one marketing and CRM platform. Both patents appear to cover software platform functionality — the kind of claim architecture that courts have repeatedly examined under the Alice framework. The court’s swift § 101 disposal suggests both patents claimed functions at a level of abstraction that lacked a sufficiently inventive technical concept to pass muster.
In the SaaS and CRM sector, patents claiming platform-level workflow orchestration, data routing, or campaign automation are strategically valuable but acutely vulnerable to § 101 challenge. The invalidation of both patents in a single pre-discovery order signals that these specific claims lacked the concrete technical implementation detail that Delaware courts require to survive Alice. Competitors and platform vendors operating in the marketing automation space should monitor whether Etison holds related continuations that may reintroduce similar claim scope.
Should you run an FTO against US10846357B2 and US11361047B2?
Any SaaS vendor, CRM platform operator, or marketing automation provider whose product involves workflow automation, lead management, or campaign orchestration should assess exposure to Etison’s patent portfolio. Although the ‘357 and ‘047 patents were invalidated as asserted against HighLevel, Etison may hold continuation or divisional applications with narrower, technically specific claims that survive § 101. A targeted FTO analysis should cover the full Etison family before any product launch or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full Etison patent family, identify related continuation applications, and flag claim language that overlaps with your product’s platform architecture. Eureka’s Alice vulnerability scoring also helps prioritise which claims pose genuine infringement risk versus those susceptible to early § 101 challenge — giving your legal and product teams actionable intelligence before litigation exposure arises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10846357B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar § 101 Software Patent Dismissals in Delaware District Court
Explore comparable § 101 patent-ineligibility dismissals involving SaaS and CRM platform patents litigated in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the SaaS and CRM platform IP landscape
A pre-discovery § 101 kill of two software patents sends a clear signal to platform patent holders and their targets alike.
Delaware courts will test § 101 at the pleading stage — even post-amendment
Etison filed an amended complaint before HighLevel’s motion was decided, yet the court still found both patents ineligible. This confirms that amending alone — without adding concrete inventive-concept allegations — is unlikely to rescue abstract-idea claims. SaaS defendants should prioritise § 101 motions early and build detailed Alice analyses before responding to amended pleadings.
Two-patent § 101 wipeout in one ruling raises portfolio concentration risk
Asserting multiple software patents in a single action can backfire if both fall to a single § 101 motion. Plaintiffs who concentrate enforcement in a small patent family risk losing all leverage in one order. Conversely, defendants facing multi-patent assertions should evaluate whether a consolidated § 101 attack can neutralise the entire portfolio efficiently.
Etison v HighLevel — key questions answered
The Delaware District Court dismissed Etison’s amended complaint with prejudice, holding that both asserted patents — US10846357B2 and US11361047B2 — are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ruling was granted on HighLevel’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 21) before any discovery occurred.
The court concluded both patents are directed to abstract ideas under case law interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 101 — the Alice/Mayo framework. The public order does not detail the specific claim-by-claim analysis, but the pre-discovery disposal suggests the abstract-idea character was apparent from the face of the claims without requiring claim construction or factual development.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits. Etison cannot refile the same claims against HighLevel in any US court. The ruling permanently bars reassertion of the ‘357 and ‘047 patents in their current form against HighLevel, though Etison could potentially assert related continuation patents with different claim scope if any exist.
Yes. A with-prejudice dismissal from a district court is a final appealable order. Etison could appeal to the Federal Circuit, which reviews § 101 eligibility determinations de novo. However, Federal Circuit affirmance rates for Alice-based § 101 dismissals of software patents have historically been high, making a successful appeal challenging without materially new claim construction arguments.
The ruling reinforces that SaaS and CRM platform vendors facing assertions of abstract-idea software patents in Delaware should prioritise early § 101 motions to dismiss. A well-constructed Alice analysis can terminate a case before discovery costs accumulate. Platform operators in marketing automation and CRM should conduct FTO audits against the Etison patent family to assess whether continuation patents pose residual risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.