Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity in Li v. Apple Information Systems Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Chian Chiu Li v. Apple, Inc. |
| Case Number | 24-2148 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from Lower Tribunal |
| Duration | Jul 2024 – Jun 2025 10 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Patent Invalid |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Apple’s broad ecosystem of data services (e.g., Siri, Apple Search, platform functionalities) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Individual inventor who pursued this matter pro se at the appellate level, self-representing without the backing of a law firm.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the world’s most valuable technology companies with an extensive IP portfolio and a sophisticated litigation infrastructure.
Patents at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,016,564 B2, covering a “system and method for providing information,” placing it squarely within the software and data-delivery patent category.
- • US11016564B2 — System and method for providing information
Designing a similar product?
Check if your information system might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued an **AFFIRMED** verdict, confirming that **U.S. Patent No. 11,016,564 B2 is unpatentable**. No damages were at issue given the invalidity finding, and no injunctive relief was applicable.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s affirmance on patentability grounds signals that the patent failed to meet one or more statutory requirements under **35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112**. Given the patent’s subject matter — “system and method for providing information” — the most analytically significant possibility is a **Section 101 patent-eligibility challenge** under the *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International* framework. Alternatively, invalidity may have rested on **obviousness under § 103** or **anticipation under § 102**.
Drafting a software patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that meet patentability standards.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Patentability & FTO Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks for software and information system patents. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific reasons for this patent’s invalidity and its implications.
- View Federal Circuit’s opinion on patentability standards
- Analyze § 101, § 102, and § 103 precedents in software
- Understand claim drafting best practices for information systems
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Invalidity Risk
Broadly claimed information system/method patents
Key Patentability Issues
35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112
Strong Defense Strategies
Invalidity arguments against similar claims
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
The Federal Circuit reaffirms strict patentability standards for information system and method patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103.
Search related case law →Claims must demonstrate concrete technical improvements, avoiding abstract ideas or known methods without inventive application.
Explore claim drafting guidance →For R&D Teams
Conduct thorough FTO and patentability assessments early for software and information system innovations.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Document specific technical problems and innovative solutions to support patent claims.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.