Clickfunnels GoHighLevel Lawsuit Analysis: Features, Use Cases & Practical Guide

The Clickfunnels GoHighLevel Lawsuit Analysis centers on a patent dispute between Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels, and HighLevel, Inc. over technology related to website and sales-funnel creation. ClickFunnels filed its lawsuit in April 2024, alleging that HighLevel's software platform infringed claims in two ClickFunnels patents. The dispute later reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which on July 2, 2026 affirmed the dismissal of the case after agreeing that the challenged patent claims were invalid under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act.

That distinction is essential. The appellate court did not hold that HighLevel infringed valid ClickFunnels patents. Instead, the litigation was dismissed after the courts concluded that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit's July 2026 decision was designated nonprecedential.

For marketers and agencies, the case is also interesting because the underlying patents concerned concepts closely associated with modern funnel software: website types, templates, sequential pages, editing interfaces and triggered actions.

If your main interest is the product rather than the litigation, our practical GoHighLevel Funnel Builder guide explains how the current funnel system works for lead capture, booking and conversion workflows.

Start Your GoHighLevel 30-Day Free Trial →

The plaintiff was Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels, and the defendant was HighLevel, Inc.

ClickFunnels owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,357 and 11,361,047. Both concern a website-creation system involving what the patents describe as a series of directional webpages. ClickFunnels alleged that HighLevel's SaaS website platform infringed at least claim 1 of each patent.

According to the Federal Circuit's description of the case, the patented approach involved elements such as:

The litigation therefore touched on concepts commonly associated with funnel-building software.

However, a patent lawsuit involves the specific legal language of patent claims, not a general question of whether two products contain similar marketing features.

That distinction is important when interpreting the case.

The litigation unfolded across several stages.

ClickFunnels sued HighLevel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in April 2024.

The complaint alleged patent infringement involving the '357 and '047 patents.

HighLevel moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

Rather than requiring a full infringement trial first, HighLevel argued that the asserted patent claims were invalid because they covered patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.

Section 101 litigation involving software commonly requires courts to examine whether patent claims are directed toward an abstract idea and, if so, whether they contain an additional inventive concept sufficient to make them patent eligible.

The District of Delaware granted HighLevel's motion to dismiss on March 31, 2025.

The court concluded that both patents were directed to patent-ineligible material and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

ClickFunnels then appealed.

On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.

The appellate court found that the District Court had made an error when treating one claim as representative of all of the disputed claims. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that this error was harmless because it agreed that all of the challenged claims were invalid.

The final result therefore remained:

District Court Dismissal → ClickFunnels Appeal → Federal Circuit Affirmance

The Federal Circuit's decision requires careful wording.

The court agreed that the claims at issue failed the patent-eligibility analysis.

At the first stage of the legal analysis, the underlying District Court had characterized the claims as being directed toward the abstract idea of filtering information according to user preferences to reach a result. On appeal, ClickFunnels did not challenge that particular step-one conclusion.

The appellate arguments instead concentrated substantially on:

The Federal Circuit agreed that the District Court had been too broad in its representative-claim treatment, particularly because certain dependent claims included additional trigger limitations.

But the appellate court separately examined those limitations and concluded they still did not supply the required inventive concept.

As a result:

Procedural Error Identified → Error Deemed Harmless → Judgment Affirmed

No such conclusion appears in the Federal Circuit judgment.

The case was resolved on patent eligibility.

ClickFunnels had alleged infringement, but the courts determined that the asserted patent claims were invalid under Section 101 before a ruling establishing infringement of valid claims.

This distinction should be preserved in any accurate lawsuit analysis.

It would therefore be misleading to summarize the case as:

"The court found HighLevel copied ClickFunnels."

That is not what the July 2026 opinion says.

A more accurate description is:

ClickFunnels brought patent infringement claims against HighLevel, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the courts determined the asserted patent claims were patent-ineligible.

The case involved:

The patents share a specification and concern a website creation system for creating websites having at least one series of directional webpages.

One of the main patent claims described a process broadly involving:

Dashboard → Website Type → Template → Sequential Pages → Editor → Customized Website

The patents also contained dependent claims involving triggers.

According to the Federal Circuit opinion, one example described in the complaint involved a visitor selecting a product, leaving without taking further action and a triggered response such as an email or text reminding that person to complete the transaction.

That sounds familiar to modern marketing automation.

But familiar functionality alone does not determine patent eligibility or infringement.

The legal analysis concerned the exact language and scope of the patent claims.

The central legal issue was whether the patented claims covered eligible subject matter.

U.S. patent law allows patents for certain new and useful inventions, but courts have developed limits around attempts to patent abstract ideas implemented using conventional computers.

Software patent cases commonly use the framework derived from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision.

At a simplified level:

Ask whether the patent claims are directed toward an abstract idea.

If they are, ask whether the remaining claim elements contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

In the ClickFunnels–HighLevel case, the courts ultimately determined that the asserted claims did not satisfy that standard.

This is a legal patent-eligibility determination.

It is not a product-quality comparison.

There was also a separate proceeding involving HighLevel's attempts to obtain inter partes review, or IPR, of the same patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

HighLevel filed two IPR petitions in December 2024.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute those reviews. HighLevel later sought a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit asking for reconsideration of those institution decisions.

On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied HighLevel's request for mandamus relief.

That result should not be confused with the main infringement lawsuit.

The litigation therefore had two different procedural tracks:

District Court §101 Litigation → HighLevel Prevails → ClickFunnels Appeals → Judgment Affirmed

and separately:

HighLevel IPR Petitions → PTAB Declines Institution → HighLevel Seeks Mandamus → Mandamus Denied

The outcomes addressed different legal questions.

The July 2, 2026 ruling is the most important current development for someone searching for the status of the ClickFunnels GoHighLevel lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The opinion is expressly marked nonprecedential, meaning it is not designated as binding precedent in the same way as a precedential Federal Circuit opinion.

For ordinary HighLevel users, the practical takeaway is much simpler:

The patent litigation described above did not result in the court ordering HighLevel to stop offering its funnel builder.

HighLevel continues to operate and develop its funnel and website products.

For most agencies, marketers and local businesses, the litigation does not change the basic workflow for using HighLevel's funnel tools.

HighLevel's current documentation still provides a dedicated funnel builder.

HighLevel describes funnels as a direct sequence of pages generally designed around a specific conversion objective, such as capturing a lead or booking an appointment.

A typical funnel might be:

Landing Page → Booking Page → Thank-You Page

HighLevel distinguishes funnels from conventional websites partly because funnel pages follow a more directed sequence and support split testing, while websites are generally designed for less linear navigation.

The product has continued evolving while the litigation proceeded.

HighLevel funnels organize pages into a specific progression.

For example:

Ad → Landing Page → Form → Booking → Confirmation

That structure makes funnels useful for campaigns with a specific objective.

Users can start with templates rather than building every page from zero.

HighLevel's current setup documentation offers three primary starting approaches:

Templates are useful when speed matters.

A blank funnel provides more control.

Funnel AI provides an AI-assisted starting point.

HighLevel has substantially expanded AI functionality around funnel creation.

Its current Funnel & Website AI system can create and edit pages from:

It can generate page structure, copy, visuals and layouts while leaving the standard builder available for manual editing.

A practical creation process can now look like:

Offer → AI Prompt → Generated Page → Manual Review → Publish

HighLevel's documentation still recommends reviewing AI-generated SEO and page content before publication.

That is important.

AI generation can reduce setup time, but the user remains responsible for:

A funnel can be generated quickly without necessarily being strategically strong.

The software still needs answers to fundamental questions:

The technical sequence might be:

Traffic → Landing Page → Form → Calendar

But the business logic underneath should be:

Intent → Relevant Offer → Low-Friction Action → Follow-Up

AI helps build the asset.

It does not automatically create product-market fit.

HighLevel continues improving manual page editing as well.

Its current builder supports enhanced drag-and-drop placement in which the editor automatically creates the appropriate section, row and column hierarchy as users position elements.

This reduces some of the structural work traditionally required in page builders.

A user can focus more directly on:

HighLevel also now allows pages to be created, organized and reordered directly inside the page builder.

Users can open the pages drawer, create pages, configure URL paths, reorder them and move between pages without repeatedly leaving the editor.

For larger funnels, that can reduce context switching.

A funnel can therefore be managed as:

Opt-In

↓

Sales Page

↓

Order Form

↓

Upsell

↓

Thank You

within a more unified editing environment.

HighLevel supports several forms of reusable page sections.

Current documentation distinguishes:

Reusable copies that do not remain synchronized.

Sections synchronized within the same funnel or site asset.

Account-level sections that can remain synchronized across supported assets.

This is particularly useful for agencies.

For example, an agency could standardize:

That reduces repetitive editing.

One significant distinction between HighLevel funnels and websites is split testing.

HighLevel's documentation says split testing is available for funnels rather than standard website pages.

A marketer might test:

Headline A vs Headline B

or:

Short Form vs Long Form

or:

Direct Booking vs Lead Capture First

This creates a process:

Traffic → Variation A / B → Compare Conversion → Keep Better Version

The objective should be measurable improvement rather than redesign for its own sake.

A simple local-business funnel could be:

Google Ad → Landing Page → Form → Thank You

After the form submission:

Contact Created → Opportunity Created → SMS/Email → Sales Follow-Up

This combination is where HighLevel becomes more than a standalone page builder.

The funnel feeds directly into CRM and automation.

For consultants, agencies or service businesses:

Traffic → Service Page → Calendar → Appointment Confirmation

Then:

Appointment → Reminder → Sales Pipeline → Follow-Up

The funnel handles acquisition.

The CRM handles the relationship afterward.

A webinar architecture might be:

Registration Page → Confirmation → Reminder Sequence → Webinar → Offer

The pages alone do not create the complete funnel.

Email, SMS, calendars and workflows support the rest of the journey.

A product-oriented funnel could be:

Sales Page → Order Form → Upsell → Thank You

The exact architecture depends on the offer.

Not every product needs an upsell or multi-step checkout.

More pages do not automatically produce more revenue.

Agencies often need to deploy similar funnel architecture repeatedly.

A standardized process might be:

Client Brief → Template → Branding → Offer Customization → Form/Calendar → Workflow → QA → Launch

Reusable architecture can reduce implementation time.

Client-specific details remain customized.

This is a stronger model than rebuilding the technical foundation from zero for every customer.

The court case should not be treated as a ClickFunnels vs GoHighLevel product review.

Patent litigation answers legal questions.

Product selection answers business questions.

They are different.

Someone choosing between funnel platforms should still evaluate practical factors such as:

The outcome of a patent case does not determine which platform fits every business.

Both platforms are strongly associated with funnels, but they developed around different broader product identities.

ClickFunnels historically built its brand primarily around sales funnels and online selling.

Go High Level combines funnel building with a broader CRM and agency operating environment that includes:

That broader architecture explains why funnel pages are often only the first stage of a GHL workflow.

For example:

Funnel → CRM → Conversation → Appointment → Pipeline → Sale

The page builder is one layer.

The practical lessons extend beyond patent law.

Two products can contain similar categories of functionality while patent disputes depend on very specific legal claim language.

Headlines may say "ClickFunnels sues GoHighLevel."

That describes the beginning of the dispute.

It does not describe the final result.

The current material fact is that the District Court dismissed the case and the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment in July 2026.

HighLevel's funnel product did not remain static during litigation.

Current 2026 documentation includes AI page creation, enhanced editing, multi-page management and reusable page components.

An agency should test whether the platform improves:

Lead → Response → Appointment → Sale

rather than choosing software because of legal headlines.

Explore GoHighLevel With a 30-Day Free Trial →

A simple implementation process can keep funnel construction focused.

Choose one primary action:

Do not make every possible action equally prominent.

For appointment generation:

Landing Page → Booking Page → Confirmation

For lead generation:

Landing Page → Form → Thank You

Start simple.

HighLevel currently supports all three approaches.

Use:

Blank → maximum control

Template → faster implementation

AI → faster first draft

The best option depends on the project.

Determine what happens after conversion.

For example:

Form Submission → Contact → Opportunity → Assigned User

Without this handoff, the funnel captures information but does not create a complete sales process.

A common workflow might be:

Lead Captured → Confirmation → Sales Notification → Follow-Up

Response speed often matters more than adding another decorative section to the landing page.

HighLevel allows users to connect root domains or subdomains for funnels and websites.

Its current documentation describes DNS configuration using supported A or CNAME records depending on the domain setup.

Test:

Do not assume the funnel works because the editor preview looks correct.

A funnel should support the objective.

It does not need unnecessary steps simply to look sophisticated.

If converted leads disappear into email notifications without structured CRM tracking, much of the platform's value is lost.

The visitor submitting a form is not necessarily ready to buy immediately.

Plan what happens next.

Many visitors arrive on mobile devices.

Test the actual customer journey, not only the desktop editor.

If one page asks users to:

the primary conversion objective can become unclear.

HighLevel itself recommends reviewing AI-generated SEO and page content before publication.

Treat AI as a starting point.

A funnel should be measurable.

Monitor transitions such as:

Visitor → Lead → Appointment → Customer

That tells you where optimization is actually needed.

Suppose:

2,000 Visitors → 240 Leads → 75 Appointments → 30 Sales

Each step reveals something different.

Conversion:

12%

Potential improvement areas include:

Conversion:

31.25%

Potential issues include:

Conversion:

40%

Potential issues could involve:

The optimization sequence should therefore be:

Measure → Find Weakest Transition → Test → Measure Again

Do not redesign the entire funnel every time one metric underperforms.

Technology companies can become involved in additional patent, trademark, copyright, contract or other disputes over time.

The 2024–2026 case discussed here only resolves the claims and issues before the courts in that litigation.

It would be inappropriate to conclude that the decision prevents every possible future dispute between these companies.

For publication purposes, the safest statement is:

As of September 23, 2026, the key published appellate decision in Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc. is the Federal Circuit's July 2, 2026 judgment affirming dismissal of the patent infringement case discussed in this article.

Yes. Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels, sued HighLevel in April 2024 and alleged infringement of two patents concerning website-creation technology.

The lawsuit involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,357 and 11,361,047. Both relate to website-creation systems involving directional webpages.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuit in March 2025 after finding the asserted patent claims invalid under Section 101, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment on July 2, 2026.

No. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, although it identified an error in how the District Court initially treated one patent claim as representative. The appellate court concluded that the error did not change the outcome.

The published appellate decision did not establish infringement of valid patent claims. Instead, the litigation was dismissed because the courts concluded that the asserted patent claims were invalid under Section 101.

No. The Federal Circuit labels the July 2, 2026 opinion nonprecedential.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute HighLevel's inter partes review proceedings, and the Federal Circuit denied HighLevel's later petition for a writ of mandamus on December 9, 2025. That was a separate procedural track from the District Court lawsuit.

Yes. HighLevel currently maintains a funnel builder for sequential conversion-oriented pages and continues publishing updated documentation for it.

Yes. HighLevel currently allows users to begin with a blank funnel, an existing template or Funnel AI.

Yes. HighLevel's current Funnel & Website AI can generate and edit page layouts, copy and other page components using prompts and guided inputs. The feature is currently documented as available through Labs, subject to current account availability.

Yes. HighLevel's current documentation distinguishes funnels from websites partly because split testing is supported for funnels.

The legal dispute should be separated from the software decision. The courts resolved the asserted patent claims through patent-eligibility analysis, while businesses should evaluate funnel software based on their own conversion, CRM, automation and operating requirements.

The Clickfunnels GoHighLevel Lawsuit Analysis has a much clearer outcome in 2026 than it did when ClickFunnels originally filed suit.

The timeline is:

April 2024 → ClickFunnels Files Patent Lawsuit

↓

March 31, 2025 → District Court Dismisses Case

↓

ClickFunnels Appeals

↓

July 2, 2026 → Federal Circuit Affirms Judgment

The Federal Circuit agreed that the asserted claims of ClickFunnels' '357 and '047 patents were invalid under Section 101, although it found that the District Court had made a harmless error in part of its representative-claim analysis. The appellate decision is nonprecedential.

For agencies and marketers, the more practical story is what happened to the software during that period.

HighLevel continued expanding its funnel environment with sequential funnel pages, templates, split testing, improved page editing, reusable sections and AI-assisted funnel creation.

A modern funnel should therefore be evaluated as part of the complete customer journey:

Traffic → Funnel → Lead → CRM → Follow-Up → Appointment → Sale

The court case answers an intellectual-property question.

The software decision remains a business question.

Businesses should choose funnel technology according to their conversion process, CRM requirements, automation needs, implementation workflow and total operating cost—not according to lawsuit headlines alone.

Claim Your GoHighLevel 30-Day Free Trial →