ClickFunnels Go High Level Lawsuit: What to Know | GHLCRM.US

The ClickFunnels GoHighLevel lawsuit was a U.S. patent dispute in which Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels, accused HighLevel of infringing two patents related to systems for creating websites with sequential or “directional” webpages. The lawsuit began in April 2024, was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in March 2025, and that result was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 2, 2026.

The most important point for users is that this was a patent case, not a court ruling that ClickFunnels owned the general concept of sales funnels or that businesses could no longer use HighLevel to build them.

In the appellate decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's ultimate conclusion that the challenged claims of the two ClickFunnels patents were invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The appellate court therefore affirmed the judgment in HighLevel's favor.

For marketers primarily interested in the software rather than the litigation, the GoHighLevel Funnel Builder continues to provide tools for building ordered funnel steps for lead capture, bookings, sales, and other conversion journeys.

Start Your GoHighLevel 30-Day Free Trial →

The dispute centered on two U.S. patents owned by Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels:

The Federal Circuit described them collectively as the “patents-in-suit.” Both concern website-creation technology involving a series of directional webpages.

ClickFunnels filed the lawsuit against HighLevel in the District of Delaware in April 2024.

According to the appellate opinion, ClickFunnels alleged that HighLevel's software-as-a-service website platform infringed at least claim 1 of each patent.

That distinction is important.

The case was not simply:

ClickFunnels vs. HighLevel because both companies offer funnels.

Instead, it involved specific patent claims and whether those claims were legally valid and enforceable against the accused HighLevel technology.

The plaintiff was Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels.

The defendant was HighLevel, Inc.

The original case was filed as:

Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00502

in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Court docket information records the filing date as April 22, 2024 and identifies the cause of action as patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271.

After the district court dismissed the case, ClickFunnels appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where the appeal became Case No. 25-1711.

According to the Federal Circuit's description of the litigation, ClickFunnels alleged that HighLevel's SaaS website platform infringed the patents-in-suit.

The patents describe technology involving website creation and a sequence of directional webpages. The representative language discussed by the court involved selecting a website type, displaying templates associated with that type, generating a generic website, presenting an editing interface, and allowing the resulting pages to be customized.

These allegations were claims made by ClickFunnels.

An allegation of patent infringement is not itself a judicial finding that infringement occurred.

That distinction became especially important because the litigation was ultimately resolved on patent eligibility.

HighLevel challenged the lawsuit rather than simply litigating infringement through a full trial.

Its argument focused on 35 U.S.C. §101, which governs patent-eligible subject matter.

The district court analyzed the patents using the two-step framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.

According to the Federal Circuit's later summary, the district court concluded at the first step that the challenged claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering information according to user preferences to reach a final result.

At the second step, the district court concluded that the claims did not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

This meant the case turned on the validity of the asserted patent claims before the court needed to resolve the broader infringement dispute through a trial.

On March 31, 2025, the District of Delaware granted HighLevel's motion to dismiss.

The court concluded that the claims of the ’357 and ’047 patents concerned patent-ineligible subject matter under §101.

The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

That was a major procedural victory for HighLevel.

However, it was not the end of the litigation because ClickFunnels appealed the decision.

The sequence became:

April 2024 Lawsuit → HighLevel Motion to Dismiss → March 2025 Dismissal → ClickFunnels Appeal → July 2026 Federal Circuit Decision

ClickFunnels challenged the district court's judgment before the Federal Circuit.

One important issue concerned how the district court had evaluated the claims.

The lower court had accepted HighLevel's proposal to treat claim 1 of the ’357 patent as representative of all 20 claims in each of the two patents.

ClickFunnels challenged that approach.

The appellate court ultimately agreed that there was a problem with treating one claim as representative of every challenged claim.

But that did not change the outcome.

On July 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

This is the most important current development for anyone searching for the ClickFunnels Go High Level lawsuit.

The appellate court concluded that the district court had erred by treating one claim as representative of all challenged claims.

However, the Federal Circuit independently agreed that all of the claims were invalid.

Because the outcome remained the same, the lower court's representative-claim error was considered harmless.

The judgment was therefore:

AFFIRMED.

In practical terms:

ClickFunnels appealed → Federal Circuit reviewed the decision → Federal Circuit upheld the judgment for HighLevel

The Federal Circuit labeled its opinion nonprecedential, an important detail when describing the legal significance of the decision.

Yes, in the ordinary sense that the lawsuit was dismissed and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.

But the precise legal description is more useful than simply saying one company “won.”

The district court held that the claims of the two asserted patents were invalid under §101 and dismissed ClickFunnels' amended complaint with prejudice.

ClickFunnels appealed.

The Federal Circuit then affirmed the judgment on July 2, 2026 after agreeing that all of the challenged claims were invalid.

That is more precise than suggesting that a jury compared ClickFunnels and HighLevel and decided which platform had invented sales funnels.

That did not happen.

No court finding in the July 2026 Federal Circuit decision establishes that HighLevel copied ClickFunnels.

The case involved ClickFunnels' patent-infringement allegations, but the litigation was resolved because the asserted patent claims were found invalid under §101.

Readers should therefore avoid converting the existence of the lawsuit into a factual statement that copying or infringement was proven.

A useful distinction is:

Allegation ≠ Finding

ClickFunnels alleged patent infringement.

The courts ultimately resolved the litigation through patent eligibility and invalidity rather than a finding that HighLevel infringed valid patent claims.

The two patents concerned a website-creation system.

The Federal Circuit's opinion discusses a process involving multiple website types, directional webpages, template selection, generation of a generic website, and subsequent customization through an editing interface.

The district court characterized the claimed concept as essentially filtering information based on user preferences to reach a final result.

It then considered whether additional elements transformed that abstract concept into patent-eligible technology.

The court concluded they did not.

This distinction explains why the lawsuit should not be summarized as a broad legal battle over whether anyone besides ClickFunnels can offer funnels.

Patent litigation is claim-specific.

Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act addresses what types of inventions can qualify for patent protection.

Software-related patents can raise difficult eligibility questions when claims are directed toward abstract ideas implemented with conventional computer technology.

In this case, the courts applied the framework associated with the Supreme Court's Alice decision.

Conceptually, the analysis asks:

What is the claim directed to?

↓

If it is an abstract idea, is there something more that creates a patent-eligible inventive concept?

The district court concluded the asserted claims did not satisfy this test, and the Federal Circuit ultimately agreed that all challenged claims were invalid.

This article summarizes the court record for informational purposes and is not legal advice.

There was another proceeding connected to the same patents.

HighLevel filed petitions seeking inter partes review (IPR) of the patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The PTAB declined to institute those proceedings.

HighLevel later petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus seeking to have the Patent and Trademark Office reconsider those institution decisions.

On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied that request.

That proceeding should not be confused with ClickFunnels' separate appeal from the district court lawsuit.

They produced different procedural outcomes:

PTAB/IPR route → HighLevel's mandamus request denied

while:

District court lawsuit → ClickFunnels' complaint dismissed → dismissal affirmed on appeal

The July 2026 appeal decision is therefore the key result when evaluating what happened to ClickFunnels' infringement lawsuit.

For most HighLevel customers, the practical significance is considerably simpler than the patent doctrine.

HighLevel's funnel and website products continue to operate.

Current HighLevel documentation describes Funnels as ordered pages designed around a specific visitor journey, commonly including lead capture, bookings, and sales. Websites, by contrast, provide a more freely navigable multi-page structure.

For example:

Landing Page → Form → Booking → Thank You

or:

Sales Page → Order → Upsell → Confirmation

The legal dispute did not result in a July 2026 appellate order requiring HighLevel users to stop building funnels.

Instead, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment invalidating the patent claims at issue.

HighLevel's funnel-building product has continued evolving while the litigation proceeded.

Current documentation allows users to create a funnel from:

HighLevel funnels are built as ordered steps and can incorporate forms, calendars, sales pages, order experiences, and other conversion-oriented pages.

HighLevel also distinguishes Funnels from Websites primarily by visitor journey.

A Website generally supports broader navigation.

A Funnel is structured around ordered steps leading toward a specific outcome.

HighLevel currently makes split testing available for Funnel pages rather than standard Website pages.

HighLevel's 2026 Funnel & Website AI functionality can generate and edit pages using prompts, guided information, links, and image references.

The current builder includes AI-assisted creation paths and allows users to refine generated layouts, headlines, page sections, copy, imagery, and SEO-related fields before publishing.

That creates a workflow such as:

Offer → AI Generation → Funnel Structure → Human Editing → CRM Integration → Publish → Measure

AI does not remove the need for marketing strategy.

The business still needs to determine:

The builder accelerates implementation rather than deciding the business strategy automatically.

A major difference between simply publishing a landing page and building a sales system is what happens after conversion.

A practical HighLevel funnel might operate like this:

Visitor → Landing Page → Form Submitted → Contact Created → Opportunity → Follow-Up → Appointment → Sale

This connects front-end conversion with CRM activity.

Instead of measuring only page views, a business can evaluate transitions throughout the customer journey.

For example:

That broader architecture is often more valuable than evaluating a funnel builder purely on page design.

Claim Your GoHighLevel 30-Day Free Trial →

The lawsuit does not determine which platform a particular business should use.

That remains a product and business-model decision.

A company evaluating either platform should consider questions such as:

What are we actually trying to build?

Do we primarily need funnels, or a broader CRM and automation system?

How important are pipelines and contact management?

Do we need appointment scheduling?

What communication channels do we use?

Do we manage multiple client accounts?

Do we need agency-oriented capabilities?

What is the total cost of the complete stack?

The answer can differ substantially between an individual creator building a sales funnel and an agency managing many client businesses.

A patent decision cannot answer those questions.

Yes. HighLevel currently maintains official documentation specifically for migrating from ClickFunnels to HighLevel.

Its migration guide covers areas such as:

HighLevel advises users to document existing funnel pages, URLs, structure, content, tracking code, forms, payment gateways, styling, and related configuration during migration.

Migration should therefore be treated as a project rather than simply copying page designs.

A more complete migration process is:

Audit → Export/Document → Rebuild or Import → Reconnect Integrations → Test → Validate Tracking → Launch

Businesses should test forms, checkout behavior, automations, domains, tracking, email, payments, and customer journeys before directing production traffic to a migrated system.

Several conclusions should not be drawn from this case.

The litigation involved specific patent claims.

It was not a ruling that one company owns the generic marketing concept of a sales funnel.

ClickFunnels alleged infringement, but the lawsuit was resolved through invalidity of the asserted patent claims.

An allegation should not be presented as a proven fact.

ClickFunnels and HighLevel may overlap in funnel-building capabilities, but businesses should compare the complete products rather than treating the lawsuit as evidence that the platforms are interchangeable.

The outcome concerns the specific claims before the court.

It should not be generalized into a claim that software cannot receive patent protection.

For readers evaluating HighLevel after researching the lawsuit, the current core pricing is:

HighLevel currently lists Starter with three sub-accounts, unlimited contacts, unlimited users, support, and core features.

Unlimited adds unlimited sub-accounts, Basic API Access, and supported phone/email rebilling without markup.

Agency Pro adds capabilities including SaaS Mode, automated sub-account creation, supported rebilling with markup, User/Agent Reporting, and Advanced API Access.

HighLevel's public pricing page currently advertises a standard 14-day free trial.

The extended 30-day offer promoted by GHLCRM.US uses a separate promotional signup route.

For someone researching this lawsuit because they are deciding whether to build funnels in HighLevel, the implementation process is much more practical than the legal history.

Decide whether the funnel exists to:

Do not begin by adding pages without deciding what the visitor should ultimately do.

For lead generation:

Landing Page → Form → Booking → Confirmation

For a direct sale:

Sales Page → Checkout → Upsell → Confirmation

For consultation:

Offer → Qualification → Calendar → Confirmation

Keep the sequence as simple as the offer allows.

HighLevel currently supports blank builds, templates, and AI-assisted funnel creation.

Choose the method based on how much control and speed you need.

Decide what should happen when a visitor converts.

For example:

Form Submitted → Contact → Opportunity → Pipeline Stage → Workflow

A lead who does not immediately buy may still be valuable.

Build appropriate email, messaging, reminder, or sales follow-up based on consent, business context, and applicable rules.

Test more than the design.

Verify:

Measure:

Traffic → Lead → Appointment → Show → Sale

Then identify the weakest transition and improve it.

The legal result does not determine which software architecture is best for a business.

Compare current products and requirements.

A funnel is only one layer of the customer journey.

Consider CRM, automation, communication, scheduling, reporting, payments, integrations, and client management when those functions matter to your business.

Subscription price is only part of switching platforms.

Migration can involve rebuilding pages, moving contacts, reconnecting integrations, recreating workflows, validating analytics, testing checkout flows, and training users.

Before migrating, determine which existing assets are actually worth keeping.

Moving obsolete funnels and workflows simply transfers old problems into a new platform.

A visually attractive funnel is not necessarily an effective funnel.

Measure actual customer movement.

Yes. Etison LLC, doing business as ClickFunnels, sued HighLevel in April 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of two patents relating to website-creation technology.

The lawsuit involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,357 and 11,361,047. The Federal Circuit described both as patents owned by ClickFunnels concerning website-creation technology.

The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the District of Delaware in March 2025 after the court concluded that the asserted patent claims were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. ClickFunnels appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment on July 2, 2026.

No. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in HighLevel's favor on July 2, 2026. Although the appellate court found an error in treating one patent claim as representative of all challenged claims, it independently agreed that all of the claims were invalid, making that error harmless.

No. The appellate decision did not establish that HighLevel copied ClickFunnels. ClickFunnels alleged patent infringement, but the litigation was resolved because the patent claims at issue were held invalid under §101.

No. The Federal Circuit identifies the July 2, 2026 opinion in Etison LLC v. HighLevel, Inc. as nonprecedential.

Yes. HighLevel continues to offer and document its Funnel Builder in 2026. Current documentation describes funnels as ordered page journeys commonly used for lead capture, appointments, and sales.

Yes. HighLevel's current documentation states that split testing is available for Funnel pages, while standard Website pages do not offer the same split-testing functionality.

Yes. HighLevel currently offers Funnel & Website AI for generating and editing funnel pages using prompts and guided inputs, with manual builder controls available for refinement.

Yes, although migration may require rebuilding and reconfiguring multiple components. HighLevel maintains an official ClickFunnels migration guide covering funnels, websites, products, forms, payments, contacts, email marketing, and other assets.

The ClickFunnels GoHighLevel lawsuit was a patent dispute, not a general legal contest over who owns the idea of online sales funnels.

ClickFunnels filed the lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that HighLevel infringed two patents relating to website-creation technology. HighLevel challenged the validity of those patent claims under §101.

The District of Delaware agreed with HighLevel and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice in March 2025.

ClickFunnels appealed.

On July 2, 2026, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court had made an error in treating one claim as representative of all challenged claims, but the appellate court nevertheless agreed that all of the patent claims were invalid.

The judgment was therefore affirmed.

For HighLevel users, the practical takeaway is straightforward: HighLevel continues to offer its funnel and website-building products, and current development has expanded into AI-assisted page creation, CRM-connected funnels, automation, and broader customer-journey management.

For businesses comparing platforms, the lawsuit should therefore be treated as legal history—not as the deciding factor in a software purchase.

The better question is:

Which platform and workflow best support your customer journey, automation requirements, team structure, and total operating cost?

Start Your GoHighLevel 30-Day Free Trial →