The GoHighLevel lawsuit is a patent-infringement case that ClickFunnels’ parent company, Etison LLC, filed against HighLevel, Inc. in April 2024, accusing GoHighLevel’s website and funnel-building tools of copying two patented ClickFunnels systems. A federal judge in Delaware dismissed the case with prejudice on March 31, 2025, ruling that both patents claimed abstract ideas that cannot be patented. ClickFunnels has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and that appeal is still pending.
Who Sued Whom, and Over What
Etison LLC does business as ClickFunnels, the Boise-based sales funnel platform used by entrepreneurs to build sequences of web pages aimed at converting visitors into buyers. HighLevel, Inc., based in Dallas, sells GoHighLevel, a white-label marketing platform used mostly by agencies that resell CRM, messaging, pipeline, and funnel-building tools to their own clients.1GoHighLevel. About Us The two products compete directly in the marketing software market.2Softr. ClickFunnels vs GoHighLevel
ClickFunnels sued over two related patents. U.S. Patent No. 10,846,357, issued November 24, 2020, covers a “Website Creation System for Creating Websites Having at Least One Series of Directional Webpages and Related Methods.”3Google Patents. US Patent 10,846,357 U.S. Patent No. 11,361,047 is a sister patent sharing the same specification but written as a method claim. Between them, the patents describe the core workflow of a funnel builder: a user picks a website type, chooses a template, and the system generates a website made of sequential pages designed to drive a specific user action, with an editor interface that has tabs for each page in the sequence.4U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Etison LLC v. HighLevel Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00502
What the Complaint Alleged
Etison filed the case on April 22, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, docketed as No. 1:24-cv-00502.5PACER Monitor. Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc. The complaint accused GoHighLevel of infringing at least claim 1 of both patents. The accused features were GoHighLevel’s website and funnel builder: displaying website types made of “directional webpages” meant to prompt user action, offering templates tied to the chosen type, and generating a website with an editor for customization.4U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Etison LLC v. HighLevel Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00502
The case landed with Judge John Campbell Barker.6U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc. GoHighLevel co-founder Robin Alex told customers in the company’s Facebook community there was “nothing to worry about” and that outside counsel would “defend our position accordingly.”7GHL Central. ClickFunnels GoHighLevel Lawsuit Analysis
Why the Court Threw the Case Out
HighLevel moved to dismiss, arguing that neither patent could stand because they claimed abstract ideas, which are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. ยง 101 and the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank framework. On March 31, 2025, Judge Barker agreed and dismissed ClickFunnels’ amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the same claims cannot be brought again against HighLevel. The ruling came at the pleading stage, before any discovery, claim construction, or expert testimony.4U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Etison LLC v. HighLevel Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00502
The court applied the two-step Alice test. At step one, it found both patents directed to the abstract idea of “filtering information based on user preferences to arrive at a final result.” Picking a website type, then a template, then getting a generated site was, in the court’s view, an ordinary process of narrowing choices to produce an output. At step two, the court asked whether the claims added anything inventive beyond that abstract idea and found they did not. The claims relied on “generic computer components” running “routine steps of data collection and organization.” ClickFunnels argued its system improved computer performance by cutting processing and memory demands, but the court held that any efficiency came from the filtering itself rather than from any inventive technical arrangement. Claim 1 of the ‘357 patent was treated as representative of every claim in both patents.4U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Etison LLC v. HighLevel Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00502
What Has Happened Since the Dismissal
Two separate tracks of proceedings followed.
HighLevel’s Attempts to Invalidate the Patents at the USPTO
In December 2024, while the district court case was still pending, HighLevel filed two inter partes review petitions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office asking the agency to invalidate both patents based on prior art. The petitions were docketed as IPR2025-00234 and IPR2025-00235.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In Re HighLevel Inc., No. 25-148
On June 2, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied both petitions, reasoning that because the district court had already found the patents ineligible under Section 101, a second invalidity proceeding would not serve the efficiency and integrity of the patent system.9USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. IPR Institution Denial Decisions The PTO denied Director review on August 13, 2025. HighLevel then asked the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus ordering the PTAB to reconsider, arguing the denial process violated administrative rulemaking rules. On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the petition, finding HighLevel had not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, though the court noted the company could still bring a separate Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit over the procedural issue.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In Re HighLevel Inc., No. 25-148
ClickFunnels’ Appeal of the Dismissal
ClickFunnels appealed the dismissal to the Federal Circuit, where the case is docketed as No. 25-1711. The appeal was placed on the court’s calendar on April 29, 2025, with initial briefing set for the end of that June.10PACER Monitor. Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc., Federal Circuit The appeal challenges the district court’s conclusion that the patents cover abstract, ineligible subject matter.
If the Federal Circuit reverses, the case goes back to the district court for further proceedings. If the appeals court affirms, ClickFunnels’ patent claims against GoHighLevel are done for good.11ACT Online. Petition of HighLevel, Inc. As of late 2025, that appeal remains pending, and the district court’s ruling that the patents describe nothing more than an abstract process of filtering choices to generate a website still stands.