The appeal

The case is Linden v. ResMed, Inc., No. 2026-1517 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2026) (nonprecedential), on appeal from No. 3:24-cv-01291-JES-DEB (S.D. Cal.), Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. Mr. Linden owns U.S. Patent 9,639,150, titled "Powered Physical Displays on Mobile Devices," which issued May 2, 2017, and sued ResMed, Inc., ResMed Corp., and ResMed Holdings Pty Ltd. for infringement. The district court granted ResMed's first motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) with leave to amend, then dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, holding the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Mr. Linden represented himself on appeal.

What claim 1 recites

Claim 1, the only independent claim, is a method for treating a patient. As set out in the opinion (slip op. at 2-3), it provides an internet- and networking-capable multimedia mobile electronic device with at least one physical output display and an input transducer at the patient's location, and a separate second device at a remote location; establishes an audio-video and data connection between them; conducts an audio-video conference in which a treatment provider elicits patient information by verbally interacting with the patient; transmits that information; uses the input transducer to measure a patient parameter that includes at least one vital sign and sends the resulting signal to the second device; forms a diagnosis; uses the signal, the diagnosis, and the patient information to determine a treatment and sends a second signal to the first device to administer it; and uses the second signal to cause a physical interaction between the physical output display and the patient.

The holding

The court first held that Mr. Linden waived any argument that claim 1 is not representative, because his counsel told the district court, "Claim 1, we agree, is representative." At step one of Alice, the court agreed that claim 1 is directed to a remote version of an in-person doctor visit, which it described as conventional organized human activity, citing University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019). It found that the claim recites generic hardware, that the second device is not described as having any particular structure, and that the specification describes the invention as adding communications or remote control capabilities to known devices. At step two, the court held that the claim elements, alone or as an ordered combination, restate the abstract idea, noting that "the abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept," quoting Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2024). It gave no weight to amended-complaint allegations that the claimed features were not routine, calling them conclusory, and held that the "device-level control" and "therapeutic execution" Mr. Linden described on appeal are not recited in the claims.

Practice pointers

A concession in the district court that one claim is representative carries through the appeal. Allegations in an amended complaint that claim elements are unconventional need specific factual content tied to the claim language to raise a fact issue at the pleading stage, and arguments about features the claims do not recite do not help at step two.

What to watch next

Watch for any petition for rehearing. Absent one, the affirmance ends the case against ResMed on the '150 patent.