- within Intellectual Property, Transport, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Bprotocol v. Uniswap1 decision finds blockchain patents cover patent-ineligible subject matter
Blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi) technologies continue to evolve and are being used in an increasing number of applications. Despite the growing importance of these technologies, there has been limited guidance from courts on the threshold issue of which aspects of these technologies are entitled to patent protection and which instead cover patent-ineligible subject matter. Until recently, one of the more prominent decisions addressing blockchain patentability was Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, LLC,2 in which the Southern District of New York (SDNY) determined that the claims were not patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit upheld the decision, marking the first-time it addressed the issue of patent eligibility for a blockchain technology.
Bprotocol v. Uniswap decision
A recent decision from the SDNY follows the logic and conclusions in Rady. In the Bprotocol case, Judge John G. Koeltl ruled that the patents asserted by Bprotocol against Uniswap were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the two-step Alice framework. The patents generally relate to calculating currency exchange rates and updating a ledger of those rates.
At step one, the court found that all asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea because currency exchange is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” The implementation of currency exchange on a blockchain did not alter this conclusion. Rather than solving a technical problem relating to blockchain technology, the court interpreted the claims as simply using existing “blockchain technology in predictable ways to address [an] economic problem.” In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Rady. As in Rady, the court found that the claims relied on “existing technological tools to gather and record data but disclosed no purported improvement to the tools themselves.”
At step two, the court found that the claims lacked an inventive concept sufficient to render them patentable. In analyzing the claims, the court determined that the plaintiff's arguments focused on unclaimed features and that the claims did not recite any unconventional technological improvement. The court noted that alleged innovations cited by the patent owner — such as liquidity pools and smart tokens — were described in the specification and the amended complaint but were not claimed and therefore could not supply the requisite inventive concept.
Implications for blockchain/DeFi patents
There are several key takeaways from the Bprotocol decision.
- Courts continue to scrutinize claims that focus on algorithms, particularly those that are economic in nature. Courts are looking for a direct tie to technological improvement.
- Courts are also reiterating that the inclusion of blockchain technology alone does not render claims directed to economic problems patentable. Claims that use blockchain technology in predictable ways to address economic problems remain vulnerable under Section 101.
- Courts may give little weight to unclaimed features described in the specification. Because the Alice analysis focuses on claim language, a technological improvement that is not included in the claim may be given little weight in patent-eligibility analysis.
Conclusion
Bprotocol signals that courts continue to scrutinize blockchain and DeFi patents under Alice, particularly where the purported innovation lies in economic algorithms rather than specific technical improvements. As a practical matter, it remains best practice to draft patents with a technology-first focus and to ensure that any technological improvements are expressly claimed in order to withstand Section 101 challenges.
Footnotes
1. BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION, INC., ET AL., No. 25-CV-4214 (JGK), 2026 WL 369394, (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026)
2. We previously provided an analysis of the Rady decision and its import (https://www.hsfkramer.com/kl-pdfs/7/6/76354.pdf ).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
