Attorney advertising. This article is general information, not legal advice.

Telehealth changed how many people see a doctor. But moving a familiar process onto a screen doesn’t make it patentable. A new Federal Circuit decision says so directly, and it’s a useful warning for health-tech founders deciding what to claim.

On October 16, 2026, in Linden v. ResMed, Inc., No. 2026-1517, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit because the asserted claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The unsigned (per curiam) opinion was issued by Judges Reyna, Bryson, and Hughes. It is nonprecedential, so it doesn’t bind future panels, but it follows a line of cases the court calls routine.

What the patent claimed

The patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,639,150, is titled “Powered Physical Displays on Mobile Devices.” Its only independent claim recites a method for treating a patient. In plain terms, the steps are:

• put an internet-capable mobile device with a “physical output display” and an input sensor at the patient’s location, and a second device with the provider;
• hold an audio-video conference in which the provider asks the patient questions;
• measure at least one vital sign and send it to the provider;
• form a diagnosis, decide on a treatment, and send a signal back that causes the patient’s device to physically interact with the patient.

The district court dismissed the case at the pleading stage, even after the patent owner amended his complaint to allege the features were unconventional.

A “remote version” of a doctor visit

Under the two-step Alice test, the court first asks whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court that the claim “simply describes ‘a remote version’ of an in-person doctor visit, a type of conventional organized human activity.” It noted it has repeatedly rejected claims to familiar human activities just because they happen at a distance.

The patent owner argued the claim required a “concrete technological architecture.” The court disagreed. The claim said only that the patient’s device must be internet-capable with a display and a sensor. It said nothing about the structure of the provider’s device. The specification even described adding communications to “known devices.” That is generic hardware, and the court found no explanation of any advance in the devices themselves.

No inventive concept, and conclusory allegations didn’t help

At step two, the court looks for something “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The patent owner pointed to the ordered combination of capturing data, sending it, receiving control signals, and acting on them. The court called that “a mere restatement of the abstract idea,” and the abstract idea can’t supply its own inventive concept.

The amended complaint didn’t save the claims either. Allegations that the combination was unconventional were conclusory, and the rest lacked “technical details on how to achieve the[] alleged improvements.” Arguments about “device-level control” failed because neither the claims nor the specification described it. Features that aren’t claimed don’t count.

Lessons for telehealth and health-tech founders

• Claim the technical improvement, not the workflow. “Patient here, doctor there, data in between” describes a care process. Eligible claims usually point to how a device, sensor, or data system works better.
• Put the details in the specification. The court stressed that the patent itself lacked implementation details. You can’t add them later in a complaint or a brief.
• Describe specific structure and data handling. If your advance is in sensor design, signal processing, security, latency, or device control, explain how it works, not just the result.
• Don’t rely on the hardware list. Naming a mobile device, a display, and a network connection won’t turn a remote service into an invention.
• Check before you enforce. An older patent drafted around a remote workflow may face the same challenge. It’s worth an eligibility review before you send a demand letter.

For the basics of the test, see our plain-English guide to Alice and Section 101 and the software patents page. For the enforcement side, our Epic Tech v. Pen-Tech post covers why patent owners should look at eligibility before suing.

Sources: the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Linden v. ResMed (nonprecedential) and commentary from IPWatchdog.

Talk with an Iowa patent attorney

Jason Sytsma helps Iowa software, medical-device, and health-tech companies decide what to protect and how to claim it. Learn more on the About Jason page and the firm bio.

Contact the office to request a consultation. Any engagement is subject to conflicts review, an engagement agreement, and applicable professional-responsibility rules. This article is attorney advertising and is intended for general educational purposes only; it is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results vary, and past experience does not guarantee a particular outcome.