Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp: Federal Circuit Affirms (Case 23-2437)
Recentive Analytics asserted four machine-learning patents covering automated network mapping and event schedule optimisation against Fox Corp, Fox Sports Productions, and Fox Broadcasting. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling after 567 days of litigation, closing the door on Recentive’s infringement campaign at the appellate level.
ML scheduling patents meet appellate finality at the Federal Circuit
Recentive Analytics, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 29 September 2023, targeting Fox Corp., Fox Sports Productions, LLC, and Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC. The dispute centred on four US patents — US11386367B1, US11537960B2, US10958957B1, and US10911811B1 — covering machine-learning-driven systems for automatically generating network maps and dynamically optimising event schedules, technologies directly relevant to large-scale broadcast planning operations.
The Federal Circuit issued a definitive order on 18 April 2025, affirming the lower court’s ruling in its entirety. An affirmance at this level means the appellate panel identified no reversible legal error in the district court’s prior disposition, leaving Fox Corp. and its co-defendants fully vindicated. For Recentive Analytics, the affirmance extinguishes the infringement claims as litigated and forecloses further appeal on the same grounds within the federal circuit court system.
At 567 days, the appeal ran longer than many Federal Circuit cases resolved on the papers, which may suggest substantive briefing on patent eligibility or claim construction rather than a quick procedural exit. The public record does not disclose whether the underlying dismissal was on eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101, invalidity, or non-infringement, nor whether a licensing resolution was separately negotiated — all of which would meaningfully shape the ongoing competitive exposure for broadcast technology players.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 567 days
567 days — above the median Federal Circuit appeal resolution window
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower court decision stands without modification
When the Federal Circuit issues an ‘AFFIRMED’ order, it signals the appellate panel found no reversible error — whether legal, factual, or procedural — in the court below. The lower court’s ruling retains full legal force. This is not a new merits determination; it is a confirmation that the prior decision was correct on the record presented. For patent cases, affirmance typically ends the federal appellate avenue for the losing party.
No reversible error foundRecentive’s four ML patents failed to survive appellate scrutiny
Recentive Analytics pursued an aggressive four-patent assertion campaign against a major broadcast group. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance means those infringement claims have now failed at both the trial and appellate levels. While the patents themselves remain formally issued, their enforceability against Fox entities is extinguished by this ruling. Recentive would need to pursue certiorari to the Supreme Court — an exceptionally high bar — or target different defendants in new proceedings.
Enforcement blocked at appellate levelFox Corp. secures full appellate vindication across all four patents
Fox Corp., Fox Sports Productions, and Fox Broadcasting emerge from 567 days of litigation with a Federal Circuit-level defence win intact. The affirmance raises the barrier for any future assertion of these specific patents against Fox entities, as the court of record has now confirmed the lower ruling twice over. This result strengthens Fox’s freedom to operate ML-driven broadcast scheduling and network mapping systems without Recentive’s patent claims hanging over those products.
Freedom to operate confirmedBroadcast ML patent risk recalibrated after Federal Circuit ruling
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance sends a signal to the broader broadcast and sports media technology sector. Competitors developing ML-based network mapping or event-scheduling platforms should monitor the reasoning closely: if the ruling rested on § 101 patent eligibility, it could limit the enforceability of analogous ML scheduling patents industry-wide. Conversely, a non-infringement ruling would leave the patent claims intact and actionable against others. The undisclosed basis of the lower decision warrants careful FTO analysis.
Sector-wide ML patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Recentive Analytics, Inc. | Company | ML-based broadcast scheduling technology company — holder of US11386367B1 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fox, Corp. | Company | Fox Corp. and subsidiaries Fox Sports Productions and Fox Broadcasting — major US broadcast and sports media groupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fox Sports Productions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexandra D. Valenti | Attorney | Counsel for Recentive Analytics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jesse Lempel | Attorney | Counsel for Recentive Analytics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Frederickson III | Attorney | Counsel for Recentive Analytics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Recentive Analytics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan Finkel | Attorney | Counsel for Fox, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Shigeyori Horikawa | Attorney | Counsel for Fox, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Zeliger | Attorney | Counsel for Fox, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ranjini Acharya | Attorney | Counsel for Fox, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fox, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is a plenary affirmance with no partial reversal or remand. At the appellate level, affirmance applies a deferential standard: legal questions (including claim construction and § 101 eligibility) are reviewed de novo, while factual findings attract clear-error review. The absence of any qualifying language or remand instruction suggests the panel found the lower court’s analysis sound across all contested grounds, offering Fox Corp. a clean, final result.
US11386367B1 and three related patents — ML network mapping and event scheduling
The four asserted patents — US11386367B1, US11537960B2, US10958957B1, and US10911811B1 — cover machine-learning-driven systems for two core functions: automatically generating network maps for broadcast distribution and dynamically determining optimal event schedules. The application dates span filings from US16/598480 through US17/857597, suggesting a deliberate continuation strategy to build layered claim coverage around the same core ML-scheduling architecture across multiple patent families.
For a broadcast group of Fox’s scale — managing live sports rights, primetime scheduling, and multi-platform distribution — ML-optimised network mapping and scheduling represent genuine operational infrastructure. Recentive’s patent portfolio was strategically positioned to capture value from exactly this kind of enterprise deployment. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance may reflect either ineligibility of abstract ML claims or a narrow reading of the claim scope relative to Fox’s specific implementations — either reading has significant implications for competitors and technology vendors supplying AI-driven scheduling tools to the broadcast industry.
Should you run an FTO against US11386367B1 and the Recentive scheduling portfolio?
Any broadcast network, streaming platform, or sports rights holder deploying ML-based scheduling, programme grid optimisation, or network distribution mapping should treat these four patents as active FTO concerns — even post-affirmance. The Federal Circuit ruling protects Fox entities specifically; it does not invalidate the patents for all purposes. If the basis of the lower ruling was non-infringement rather than invalidity, the patents remain fully enforceable against other parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your specific product architecture against the claim language of US11386367B1, US11537960B2, US10958957B1, and US10911811B1, identifying overlap risk and flagging whether the Federal Circuit’s affirmance reasoning — once published in full — creates prior art or prosecution history estoppel arguments you can deploy defensively. Start with a claim-chart analysis across your ML scheduling pipeline before your next product release cycle.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11386367B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving ML and broadcast technology patents
Explore Federal Circuit decisions on machine-learning patent eligibility and broadcast technology infringement claims analogous to Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp.
What this case signals for the broadcast and ML scheduling IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance on ML network-mapping patents has implications well beyond Fox Corp. — every broadcaster and sports tech platform should take note.
ML scheduling patents face heightened appellate scrutiny at the Federal Circuit
This affirmance is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s historically sceptical treatment of machine-learning patents framed at a high level of abstraction. Companies building event-scheduling or network-optimisation products on ML foundations should audit claim language for concrete technical specificity before asserting or relying on such patents defensively.
Fox’s multi-subsidiary defence strategy consolidated risk effectively
By defending Fox Corp., Fox Sports Productions, and Fox Broadcasting jointly under Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, the Fox entities avoided fractured litigation risk across multiple dockets. Broadcast groups facing multi-patent assertions should consider unified defence coordination early to prevent claim bifurcation across subsidiaries.
Recentive v Fox — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a full affirmance on 18 April 2025, upholding the lower court’s ruling against Recentive Analytics. The order confirms no reversible error was found across the four asserted ML scheduling and network mapping patents. The public record does not specify whether the lower court ruled on eligibility, invalidity, or non-infringement grounds.
Recentive asserted four US patents: US11386367B1 and US11537960B2 (systems for automatically and dynamically generating network maps) and US10958957B1 and US10911811B1 (systems for determining event schedules). All four are continuation-family patents with application dates ranging from late 2019 through mid-2022.
Not necessarily. An affirmance confirms the lower court’s ruling was correct but does not automatically invalidate the patents against all potential defendants. If the lower decision rested on non-infringement rather than invalidity or § 101 ineligibility, the patents remain formally enforceable against other parties. A full review of the lower court opinion is needed to assess broader patent scope.
Companies outside the Fox corporate family cannot rely on this affirmance as a complete defence. The ruling directly protects Fox Corp., Fox Sports Productions, and Fox Broadcasting. Other broadcasters or sports tech vendors should conduct independent FTO analysis against the four Recentive patents, particularly if their ML-based scheduling or network distribution architecture resembles the claim language of the asserted patents.
Recentive’s appellate options against Fox are now extremely limited. It could petition for en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit or seek certiorari from the Supreme Court — both high-threshold remedies. However, Recentive retains the ability to assert the same patents against different defendants in new district court proceedings, making continued patent monitoring advisable for any at-risk broadcast technology operator.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.