In re Healy v. USPTO: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Exchange Market Price Discovery System
Pro se applicant Noah P. Healy sought patent protection for a system and method of price discovery for exchange markets (US20160358256A1), but the USPTO found the claims unpatentable. After 329 days on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling, leaving the application without patent protection.
Pro Se Inventor Loses Federal Circuit Appeal Over Exchange Market Patent
Noah P. Healy, appearing pro se, appealed a USPTO rejection of patent application US15/171621 (published as US20160358256A1) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The application claims a system and method of price discovery for exchange markets — technology directed at financial market structure and trading mechanisms. The appeal, docketed as Case No. 24-2311, was filed on September 12, 2024, in the District of Columbia circuit.
On August 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit entered a summary order affirming the USPTO’s determination of unpatentability. An affirmance at this level means the appellate court found no reversible error in the agency’s underlying rejection. The claims remain unpatentable, and Healy holds no enforceable patent rights in the subject matter. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ consistent with a sustained rejection on substantive patentability grounds.
The 329-day resolution is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s typical processing window for ex parte prosecution appeals. Because Healy represented himself and no defendant law firm is recorded, the case suggests a direct USPTO appeal without parallel district court proceedings. The precise grounds of unpatentability — whether § 101 subject matter eligibility, § 102 novelty, § 103 obviousness, or another basis — are not specified in the public docket data, limiting further analysis of the substantive legal theory.
Filing to Unpatentable in 329 days
329 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — typical for ex parte appeal dispositions
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the USPTO’s rejection stands without reversal
When the Federal Circuit affirms a USPTO decision, it concludes that the agency committed no reversible legal error in its rejection. The court applies a deferential standard to factual findings while reviewing legal conclusions de novo. Here, the affirmance validates the USPTO’s unpatentability determination, extinguishing Healy’s appellate route for this application. No remand for further prosecution was ordered.
No reversible error foundHealy’s price discovery claims cannot proceed to issuance
The affirmance forecloses patent protection for the exchange market price discovery system as claimed in US15/171621. Healy cannot obtain an enforceable patent on these claims through this appeal pathway. Continuation or continuation-in-part applications with meaningfully amended claims could theoretically pursue related subject matter, but the current claims as examined are unpatentable. Further appeal to the Supreme Court is theoretically available but rarely granted in ex parte prosecution matters.
Application cannot issue as filedAgency’s rejection validated at the Federal Circuit level
The USPTO, represented by Acting Under Secretary Derrick Brent, successfully defended its patentability determination. The affirmance reinforces the agency’s examination position and signals that the Federal Circuit found the rejection legally sound. This outcome is consistent with the high rate at which ex parte USPTO rejections are sustained on appeal to the Federal Circuit, particularly in technology areas susceptible to § 101 subject matter eligibility challenges.
USPTO rejection upheldExchange market price discovery technology remains in the public domain
With no patent issuing from this application, the specific price discovery system and method described in US20160358256A1 cannot be enforced against market participants, exchange operators, or fintech developers. Competitors and practitioners in financial market infrastructure face no patent exposure from this application. The outcome also suggests continued scrutiny of financial-method patents at both the USPTO and Federal Circuit, consistent with the post-Alice landscape for financial technology claims.
No patent enforcement risk from this applicationFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: NOAH P. HEALY | Individual | Pro se inventor and applicant — holder of patent application US20160358256A1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DERRICK BRENT, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | Acting Director of the USPTO, representing the agency’s patentability determination on appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Noah P. Healy | Attorney | Counsel for In re: NOAH P. HEALYSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s phrasing — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is the Federal Circuit’s standard summary disposition language, indicating the panel found no reversible error warranting written opinion. Under Federal Circuit Rule 36, such affirmances carry precedential weight only in narrow circumstances. For Healy, affirmance is final at this appellate level; for the USPTO, the ruling validates the rejection without creating binding claim-construction precedent for third parties.
US20160358256A1 — System and Method of Price Discovery for Exchange Markets
US20160358256A1 (application number US15/171621) claims a system and method of price discovery for exchange markets — technology addressing how prices are established and disseminated in financial trading environments. The application was filed in the period consistent with heightened USPTO scrutiny of financial-method innovations following the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Price discovery mechanisms in exchange markets involve auction logic, order-matching algorithms, and real-time data dissemination, all of which present § 101 eligibility challenges when claimed at an abstract level.
For financial market infrastructure providers, exchange operators, and fintech developers, this patent family is now resolved unfavorably for the applicant. However, the underlying technology area — automated price discovery, order book management, and market mechanism design — remains actively patented by major exchange operators and trading technology firms. The public disclosure in US20160358256A1 may nonetheless constitute prior art against related applications filed after its publication date, making it a relevant reference for FTO and invalidity analysis in adjacent exchange technology patents.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US20160358256A1?
Developers of exchange platforms, price discovery engines, order-matching systems, and electronic trading infrastructure should be aware that US20160358256A1 cannot issue from this application following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance. There is no current enforcement risk from this specific application. However, if Healy has filed continuation or divisional applications claiming related subject matter, those remain live risks. Exchange technology teams should verify the full family status before closing out monitoring.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family around US15/171621, identify any related continuation filings, and surface overlapping third-party applications in the price discovery and exchange market technology space. Eureka’s landscape analysis can also identify the § 101 claim patterns that have successfully issued in fintech — helping your prosecution team draft around the eligibility barriers that sank this application.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20160358256A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit Appeals in Financial Technology Patent Cases
Federal Circuit appeals affirming USPTO unpatentability rulings in financial method and exchange market technology — cases with comparable § 101 and prosecution posture.
What this case signals for the financial technology IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance reinforces patent office authority in financial-method rejections and narrows the viable claim space for exchange market innovations.
Financial method claims face elevated scrutiny at the Federal Circuit
Systems and methods directed at price discovery and market exchange mechanisms sit squarely in the § 101 danger zone established by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. The affirmance here, without remand, suggests the claims lacked sufficient inventive concept or technical specificity to survive appellate review. Applicants in this space should draft claims anchored to concrete technical implementations rather than abstract market outcomes.
Pro se Federal Circuit appeals face structural disadvantages
Healy’s self-representation is consistent with a pattern where individual inventors without patent counsel face compounding procedural and substantive challenges on appeal. The Federal Circuit’s rules, briefing standards, and oral argument norms are demanding. IP teams monitoring competitor filings should track pro se appeals in adjacent technology areas — outcomes are often swift affirmances that quietly clear the landscape.
HEALY v DERRICK — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s finding of unpatentability for patent application US15/171621 (US20160358256A1), which claims a system and method of price discovery for exchange markets. The court issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance on August 7, 2025, finding no reversible error in the agency’s rejection.
The patent at issue is US20160358256A1, filed under application number US15/171621. It covers a system and method of price discovery for exchange markets — technology directed at how prices are determined and communicated in financial trading environments, including auction mechanisms and order-matching logic.
The public docket records ‘Unpatentable’ as the basis of termination but does not specify the statutory ground. Given the technology’s focus on financial market methods and the post-Alice climate, a § 101 subject matter eligibility rejection is a plausible basis, though §102 or §103 rejections cannot be excluded based on available public data alone.
The affirmance forecloses this specific application. Healy could theoretically petition the Supreme Court for certiorari, though that avenue is rarely successful in ex parte prosecution matters. Filing continuation or continuation-in-part applications with substantially amended claims addressing the rejection grounds remains a potential prosecution strategy, subject to prior art and eligibility constraints.
No. Because the application was found unpatentable and no patent has issued, there is no enforceable patent from US20160358256A1 that could be asserted against exchange platform developers or financial technology firms. The application’s published disclosure may, however, constitute prior art for related filings in this technology space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.