IBM vs. Chewy: Federal Circuit Splits Verdict in E-Commerce Advertising Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | International Business Machines Corp. v. Chewy, Inc. |
| Case Number | 22-1756 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from D.C. Circuit |
| Duration | May 2022 – Mar 2024 1 year 10 months |
| Outcome | Split Verdict — Affirmed in part, Reversed in part |
| Patents at Issue | Other IBM Patents in Suit |
| Accused Products | Chewy’s Online Advertising & Search Features |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Global technology enterprise with one of the largest patent portfolios, focused on software, data processing, and digital commerce.
🛡️ Defendant
Major U.S. online retailer specializing in pet food and pet-care products, relying on algorithmic advertising and personalized search-result delivery.
Patents at Issue
This litigation involved a broad portfolio of eight IBM patents. The Federal Circuit’s analysis focused primarily on the following two, which cover methods for presenting advertising in interactive services and associating ads with search results:
- • US 7,076,443 (the ‘849 patent) — Methods for presenting advertising in an interactive service
- • US 8,972,932 (the ‘443 patent) — Systems for associating related advertisements with search results
- • Other patents in suit included: US 7,047,209; 7,072,849; 7,496,831; 6,266,649; 6,704,034; and 9,569,414
Developing E-commerce Advertising Tech?
Check if your ad-serving methods might infringe patents like IBM’s before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a tripartite ruling: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1, 2, 14, and 18 of the ‘849 patent, but reversed on claim 12 of the ‘849 patent. It also affirmed that claims 13, 15, 16, and 17 of the ‘443 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case is now remanded for further proceedings on claim 12 of the ‘849 patent.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s decision highlights the granular nature of claim analysis. The reversal on claim 12 of the ‘849 patent suggests a factual or interpretive distinction in applying the accused product’s features that the district court may have resolved prematurely. Furthermore, the § 101 ineligibility ruling on the ‘443 patent claims follows the established Alice/Mayo framework, reinforcing that broadly drafted software and business-method claims remain vulnerable, even within robust portfolios like IBM’s.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in e-commerce and adtech. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the full portfolio of 8 asserted IBM patents
- See IBM’s extensive patenting in digital advertising
- Understand claim construction impacts for adtech
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your e-commerce platform’s ad-serving description
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents, including IBM’s
- Get actionable risk assessment report for your adtech
High Risk Area
Algorithmic ad placement, search-result personalization
8 Asserted Patents
In online advertising & e-commerce
§101 Defense Viable
For abstract adtech claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit affirmed noninfringement on claims 1, 2, 14, and 18 of the ‘849 patent but reversed on claim 12 — case remains live on remand.
Search related case law →§ 101 invalidity was upheld for claims 13, 15–17 of the ‘443 patent; Alice defenses remain effective against broadly drafted adtech claims.
Explore eligibility precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved eight IBM patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,076,443 and 8,972,932, covering online advertising methods and search-result advertisement association technologies.
The court affirmed noninfringement on most ‘849 patent claims, reversed on claim 12 and remanded, and affirmed § 101 ineligibility for four claims of the ‘443 patent.
The decision reinforces § 101 as a viable defense while confirming that legacy advertising-method patents can survive eligibility challenges at the claim level — a dual signal for both plaintiffs and defendants in this space.
Companies can protect themselves by conducting comprehensive freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses for their e-commerce ad-serving features, actively monitoring competitor patenting, and building strong § 101 defenses for software-implemented methods. PatSnap Eureka’s tools help IP and R&D teams identify potentially blocking adtech patents and assess eligibility risks.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case No. 22-1756
- PACER — Public Access to Court Electronic Records
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (via Google Patents)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Patent Eligibility)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for E-commerce
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.