A team of IP and disputes lawyers from Norton Rose Fulbright secured a summary judgment for Match Group, invalidating US Patent No. 7,243,105 asserted by British Telecommunications PLC (BT), which sought US$113 million in damages.
The case, filed in March 2018, involved the ‘105 Patent, which is directed to “a method and apparatus for updating user profiles based upon personalized reasoning about user activity.” BT alleged that the Match.com online dating service infringed the ‘105 Patent, which recited a method using two sets of rules and “personalized rule weightings” to update user profiles based on event statistics.
On August 5, 2025, after nearly seven years of litigation, Judge William C. Bryson of the US District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that the ‘105 Patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found the ‘105 Patent’s claims were directed to abstract ideas, specifically noting that “assessing and updating data reflecting an individual’s interests and attributes is a well-known method of organizing human activity” commonly practiced in “merchandising, targeted advertising and matchmaking.” The court explained that the claimed process “could easily be performed in the human mind,” comparing it to a salesman observing customer behavior to update understanding of their preferences.
Judge Bryson concluded that the ‘105 Patent failed both steps of the Supreme Court’s Alice test, finding no inventive concept beyond implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer. This ruling ends the long running litigation in Match Group’s favor.
The case is British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp; Match Group, Inc.; Match Group, LLC; and Vimeo, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00366, filed in the District of Delaware.
The team included Dallas lawyers Robert Greeson, Jim Renard, Erik Janitens and Jackie Baker as well as Austin lawyers Peter Hillegas and Gabe Culver.