In re McFadden v. USPTO Director — Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability (Case 25-1834)
Brian McFadden, proceeding pro se, challenged the USPTO's rejection of US App. No. 15/891363 — a system and methods for operating an information exchange — before the Federal Circuit. In a 307-day appellate proceeding, the court affirmed the USPTO's unpatentability determination, leaving the application without a granted patent.
Federal Circuit closes McFadden's information exchange patent bid
Brian McFadden filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 4 June 2025, challenging the United States Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of US patent application No. 15/891363 (published as US20180225719A1), which claims a system and methods for operating an information exchange. The respondent is John A. Squires in his official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. The case was designated as an invalidity/cancellation action with patentability as the central verdict cause.
The Federal Circuit issued its order on 7 April 2026, affirming the USPTO's determination of unpatentability. The court's order states: 'THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.' The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable,' confirming that the application did not survive appellate review and remains without a granted patent. The specific reasoning underlying the affirmance is not disclosed in the available public record.
The 307-day duration suggests the case followed a standard Federal Circuit briefing schedule for ex parte patent appeals. McFadden appeared to represent himself, as no plaintiff law firm is recorded. The absence of a grant means the claimed information exchange system cannot be enforced as a patent right. What arguments were advanced or rejected in briefing is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Unpatentable in 307 days
307 days from filing to Federal Circuit affirmance — consistent with typical ex parte appeal timelines
US15/891363 — System and Methods for Operating an Information Exchange
Although US App. No. 15/891363 will not issue as a patent following this affirmance, product teams and legal counsel working on information exchange platforms should verify whether McFadden has filed continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications claiming related subject matter. Patent families can extend prosecution for years, and a granted claim in a related application could present an enforcement risk not captured by the status of this single application.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order — 'THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED' — is a merits affirmance of the USPTO's unpatentability determination on US App. No. 15/891363. It confirms that the court, applying applicable appellate review standards, found no reversible error in the agency's rejection of the claimed system and methods for operating an information exchange.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it has reviewed the USPTO's unpatentability determination — typically under a deferential standard for factual findings and de novo review for legal conclusions — and concluded that no reversible error was present. The USPTO's rejection of US App. No. 15/891363 therefore stands as the final word on patentability of the claimed information exchange system.
No reversible error foundApplication remains unpatented — no enforceable rights arise
For McFadden, the affirmance means that US App. No. 15/891363 will not proceed to grant in its current form. Without a granted patent, the claimed system and methods for operating an information exchange cannot be enforced against third parties. Further appellate options at this level are exhausted; a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court would be the only remaining avenue, which is rarely granted in ex parte prosecution appeals.
No patent grantUSPTO's rejection confirmed as legally and factually sound
For the USPTO, the affirmance validates the agency's rejection of the application. The Federal Circuit's ruling signals that the examiner's and PTAB's analysis of patentability — whether based on prior art, subject matter eligibility, or other grounds — was consistent with applicable legal standards. The specific grounds of rejection are not disclosed in the available public record.
Agency determination upheldInformation exchange system technology remains unencumbered by this claim
Companies operating or developing information exchange platforms face no enforcement risk from US App. No. 15/891363 following this affirmance. The claimed system and methods will not issue as an enforceable patent from this application. Practitioners in the information exchange and marketplace technology space should nonetheless monitor any continuation applications McFadden may file on related subject matter, as the public record does not confirm whether related filings exist.
No enforcement risk from this applicationFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | In re: BRIAN MCFADDEN | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian McFadden | Attorney | Counsel for In re: BRIAN MCFADDENSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kakoli Caprihan | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Theodore Matich IV | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Omar Farooq Amin | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert J. McManus | Attorney | Counsel for JOHN A. SQUIRES, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the information exchange patent space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from the McFadden v. USPTO dispute over information exchange system claims at the Federal Circuit.
McFadden's information exchange filing activity — family risk assessment
US App. No. 15/891363 is the anchor application in this dispute, but pro se inventors commonly file continuations or related applications to keep prosecution alive. Monitoring McFadden's USPTO filing history for related information exchange applications can surface live claims that may still proceed to grant and warrant FTO attention.
Continuation watchPatent filing trends in information exchange and marketplace platforms
The information exchange and digital marketplace sector continues to attract significant patent filings globally. Tracking filing velocity, key assignees, and claim structures in this space helps R&D teams identify where innovation is concentrating and where white space exists for differentiated, patentable approaches that can withstand USPTO and Federal Circuit scrutiny.
Filing trend analysisUSPTO rejection patterns for information exchange method claims
The USPTO's successful defence of its unpatentability ruling in this case is consistent with broader agency patterns on information exchange and software-implemented business method claims, particularly under § 101 and obviousness grounds. R&D teams filing in this space should audit claim language for abstract idea characterisation risk before examination begins.
§ 101 & obviousness riskAdjacent claim strategies that survive Federal Circuit scrutiny
Where broad information exchange system claims face rejection, narrower technical implementations — such as specific data structures, novel exchange matching algorithms, or hardware-integrated components — have historically fared better at the Federal Circuit. Teams designing next-generation exchange platforms should explore these adjacent claim architectures for stronger prosecution prospects.
Defensible claim white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit ex parte patentability appeals — information exchange systems
Browse Federal Circuit affirmances of USPTO unpatentability rulings in information exchange, marketplace system, and related software-implemented technology cases.
What this case signals for the information exchange IP landscape
A pro se Federal Circuit affirmance in an ex parte patent appeal reinforces the high bar for patenting information exchange systems.
USPTO rejections on information exchange systems are resilient on appeal
This outcome is consistent with the Federal Circuit's general deference to USPTO factual findings in ex parte appeals. Companies benchmarking their own information exchange patent applications should scrutinize prior art searches and claim drafting carefully before filing — a rejection upheld at this level signals the agency's standard was defensible.
Pro se appellants face structural disadvantages at the Federal Circuit
McFadden appears to have litigated without counsel, as no plaintiff law firm is recorded. Federal Circuit practice is highly technical, and pro se appellants rarely succeed in reversing USPTO determinations. In-house IP teams reviewing inventor-driven applications should assess whether professional prosecution support is warranted early in the process.
MCFADDEN v JOHN — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO's unpatentability determination on US App. No. 15/891363 (published US20180225719A1), a system and methods for operating an information exchange. The court's order dated 7 April 2026 states: 'ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.' The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable.'
The patent at issue is US application No. 15/891363, published as US20180225719A1, entitled a system and methods for operating an information exchange. The application was filed by Brian McFadden. The specific claims and prosecution history beyond what is disclosed in the court record are not available in the public litigation record.
Following the affirmance, US App. No. 15/891363 will not issue as a granted patent from this prosecution. Without a grant, there are no enforceable patent rights to assert against third parties in the information exchange space. Companies operating in this sector face no enforcement risk from this specific application. Related continuation applications, if any exist, are not confirmed in the available record.
The appellant is Brian McFadden, who appears to have proceeded pro se (no plaintiff law firm is recorded). The respondent is John A. Squires in his official capacity as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO was represented by Kakoli Caprihan, Nicholas Theodore Matich IV, Omar Farooq Amin, and Robert J. McManus.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, the only remaining appellate avenue is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepts a very small fraction of petitions and rarely intervenes in ex parte patent prosecution appeals. Whether McFadden intends to pursue further review is not disclosed in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.