HighLevel, Inc. v. Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

IPR2025-00234

HighLevel, Inc. challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying a new §101‑based rule retroactively. The petitioner seeks Director Review to pause the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s appeal.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00234
Decision Date
12 March 2024
Filing Date
12 March 2024

Detailed Summary

In a Director Review Request, HighLevel, Inc. contests the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its inter partes review of ClickFunnels’ patent 10,846,357. The Board relied on the newly announced “Hulu rule,” which categorically denies institution when a district court has found the claims invalid under §101. HighLevel argues this exceeds the statutory limits of IPRs, which are confined to §§102 and 103, and that the retroactive application violates due process and the petitioner’s reliance interests. The petitioner asks the Director to hold the denial in abeyance until the Federal Circuit resolves the pending §101 appeal, thereby preserving the right to challenge the patent’s validity before the Board.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in HighLevel, Inc. vs Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00256

Lam Research Corp.vsInpria Corporation

Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.

patentIPR2024-00356

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.vsSemiconductor Design Technologies, LLC

Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.

patentIPR2025-00383

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation

Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.

patentIPR2025-01080

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.

patentIPR2025-00345

Google LLCvsSoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call