Introduction
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has profound implications for AI-driven health technology companies concerning patentability [3]. The ruling in the case of AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc [3]. underscores the challenges of securing patents for AI applications in healthtech, particularly when claims are deemed obvious.
Description
A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has significant implications for AI-driven healthtech companies regarding patentability [3]. In the case of AliveCor [3], Inc. v. Apple Inc. [3], the court upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to invalidate AliveCor’s three patents related to monitoring technologies in smartwatches [1], which were claimed to be infringed by Apple’s Apple Watch [3]. The court found the patents unpatentable due to obviousness, emphasizing that the application of machine learning algorithms to assess ECG data for arrhythmia detection [1] [3], utilizing photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors [1], did not constitute a novel invention [3].
The ruling highlighted that prior art [3], including references such as Hu 1997 and Li 2012, demonstrated methods for ECG analysis using machine learning techniques [1]. The PTAB determined that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings with Shmueli 2012 [1], which discussed integrating PPG and ECG data for arrhythmia confirmation [1]. The court supported the Board’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to use machine learning algorithms to confirm arrhythmia detection based on various data inputs [1], including PPG and motion sensor data [1].
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s determination that the machine learning claims were general and did not require a specific algorithm [1], meeting the legal standard for obviousness under 35 US Code § 103 [1]. The court also found that AliveCor’s argument regarding Apple’s failure to meet discovery obligations was forfeited due to procedural failures, as the issue had not been raised during the PTAB process.
The ruling underscores the importance of presenting secondary considerations, such as long-felt needs and failures by others [2], during the patent application process. Companies should proactively incorporate these considerations from the outset to enhance the persuasiveness of their claims to examiners and judges. Evidence of commercial success or industry recognition [2], arising post-filing [2], must also be carefully documented and integrated into continuation applications when feasible [2].
The court’s message is clear: merely combining AI with healthtech does not guarantee patentability [3]. Non-obviousness is crucial; broad claims that simply incorporate AI or machine learning without demonstrating a significant technological advancement are at risk of being dismissed as obvious [3]. For patents in the AI domain to be upheld [3], they must present a substantial and non-obvious technological leap rather than just an expected application of AI [3]. Companies must clearly articulate both the technical problems and their solutions in patent specifications [2], focusing on the technical “how” from a computational perspective rather than relying on broad functional statements [2]. This clarity is essential for overcoming eligibility challenges at the USPTO and in judicial settings [2].
The AliveCor case illustrates the complexities of patent protection in the current technology landscape [2]. By prioritizing quality over quantity [2], employing strategic dependent claiming [2], conducting comprehensive prior art searches [2], and remaining vigilant to legislative changes [2], companies can develop patent portfolios that effectively safeguard their innovations against significant competitors [2].
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit’s ruling in the AliveCor case serves as a critical reminder for AI-driven healthtech companies about the stringent requirements for patentability. It highlights the necessity of demonstrating non-obviousness and substantial technological advancement in patent claims. Companies must meticulously document and present evidence of innovation and commercial success to strengthen their patent applications. This case exemplifies the importance of strategic patent portfolio management to protect technological innovations in a competitive landscape.
References
[1] https://novotechip.com/2025/03/26/federal-circuit-backs-ptab-in-alivecor-v-apple/
[2] https://novotechip.com/2025/03/26/building-an-unbreakable-tech-patent-portfolio-after-alivecor/
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/healthtech-patents-what-alivecor-v-6912873/
