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

patentIPR2024-01230

Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsChen, Chien-Hao et al.

Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.

patentIPR2025-00907

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.

patentIPR2025-00223

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.

patentIPR2025-00906

Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.

patentIPR2025-01253

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s U.S. Patent 12,193,790, asserting that claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski and Carlson references and should be barred by collateral estoppel.

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