On October 23, 2020, a Federal Circuit panel issued a unanimous decision in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings—a case we’ve discussed on this blog several times before—in which the panel denied American Axle’s motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. This decision on procedural matters was only somewhat notable in that it was the first time the Federal Circuit applied the three-prong standard established by the in-chambers opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz for stays in such situations. Nothing too significant about that.

Continue Reading Judge Moore Renews Her Plea to the Supreme Court in American Axle

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its second and third decisions in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings and Neapco Drivelines, the case we’ve previously discussed in which the following claim (claim 22) was held to be unpatentable because it “merely describes a desired result”:

22. A method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system, the driveline system further including a first driveline component and a second driveline component, the shaft assembly being adapted to transmit torque between the first driveline component and the second driveline component, the method comprising:

Providing a hollow shaft member;

Tuning a mass and a stiffness of at least one liner, and

Inserting the at least one liner into the shaft member;

Wherein the at least one liner is a tuned resistive absorber for attenuating shell mode vibrations and wherein the at least one liner is a tuned reactive absorber for attenuating bending mode vibrations.

The original split panel produced a majority opinion from Judge Dyk supported by Judge Taranto, and a dissent by Judge Moore, affirming the district court’s ineligibility ruling. On July 31, 2020, the 12 judges of the court evenly split on whether a rehearing en banc was appropriate, resulting in the petition for rehearing en banc being denied. In addition to two concurrences, there were four separate dissents on the en banc petition decision.


Continue Reading Federal Circuit Still Spinning Its Wheels on American Axle

Under the America Invents Act, the USPTO is to stop accepting petitions for review of covered business method patents after September 16, 2020. Given the various other priorities Congress will be dealing with between now and then, it appears virtually certain that Congress will not do anything to prevent the scheduled sunset of this transitional proceeding.

Two years ago, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held hearings on the upcoming sunset of the CBM program, and even back then the statistics did not bode well for its continuance. Now, the writing on the wall is even clearer. According the USPTO statistics, 589 CBM petitions have been filed since inception of the program in 2012, but in only three of the last twelve months have any CBM petitions been filed at all. In the 2018 hearings, both subcommittee members and witnesses espoused a wide range of views, but with relatively little vehemence. Other than a few blog post/law review commentaries, virtually nothing happened in the wake of the hearings.
Continue Reading Whither (more likely wither) CBMs

Sharply differing majority and dissenting opinions in the Federal Circuit’s recent American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings decision present yet another case where the Federal Circuit appears to be in need of further patent eligibility guidance from the Supreme Court. The American Axle case centers on the patent-eligibility of a method for dampening vibrations in vehicle driveshafts. In its recent decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment in that dispute, holding that under controlling precedent the asserted claims are ineligible under § 101 as preempting a natural law.

Continue Reading Rough Ride for Split Federal Circuit on Eligibility of Driveshaft Vibration Reduction Method

Back in March, I reported on the breadth of comments the USPTO received in response to its new Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Now, Congress has taken up the issue with a proposed draft of a new bipartisan, bicameral bill, and the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (under the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary) recently completed three days of hearings. Sen. Thom Tillis has already stated that based on the testimony, he realizes revisions will need to be crafted to address issues with the new definition of “utility,” to reconsider the proposed amendment to § 112(f), to consider an appropriate enhancement of exemptions for experimental use and research, and to clarify that the legislation is not intended to promote patenting of human genes.

The range of commentary from the hearing’s 45 witnesses largely matched that provided in response to the USPTO Guidance. In addition, however, the witnesses collectively provided a breadth and depth of thinking that should be extremely helpful as the subcommittee considers what to do next. Provided below is a summary of the written testimony that each witness brought to the hearings. Though the summary is somewhat lengthy, reviewing the various perspectives really helps one understand why the balancing of interests involved in this fundamental issue of patent law is so important. I also hope that the summary below may be a useful shortcut for stakeholders to find testimony relevant to issues they may want to focus on.


Continue Reading Still No Shortage of Viewpoints as Eligibility Debate Moves to the Hill

In January, the USPTO announced it would seek comments on the new Guidance it had published on patent subject matter eligibility. We have previously discussed this Guidance and won’t repeat ourselves here. Instead, this post will highlight the wide range of views expressed by the thousands of comments that the USPTO received. Although the comment period ended on March 8, the USPTO cautioned that its web page posting the comments might not be complete for a couple of weeks thereafter. By now, all the submitted comments likely have been posted so it’s time to take a look at them.

Continue Reading No Shortage of Viewpoints on New USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines

My last post focused on definitions for the terms “well-understood,” “routine,” and “conventional”—or W-URC—from the subject matter eligibility test set forth in Mayo and further described in Alice. Those terms relate to one part of the current test only. It seems fair to consider another important term in the test, one that’s considered before even reaching the W-URC issue: Whether the claim is “directed to” patent-ineligible subject matter, e.g., a law of nature.

I was particularly reminded of the need to address this when reading last week’s Federal Circuit opinions in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals. Not only did Judge Prost pen a stark dissent from Judge Lourie’s opinion for the court, but both the majority and dissenting opinions focused on this phrase over and over. The opinion of the court referenced “directed to” 17 times and the dissent used it 10 times. Further, the phrase was used either in italics or quotes five times, emphasizing the importance of the term. So it’s worthwhile to give a look to what “directed to” means.


Continue Reading Our Attention is Now Directed To: “Directed To”

The Federal Circuit has now had enough opportunity to address Mayo’s “well-understood, routine, conventional” test that we should have a good understanding of it. We don’t (or at least I don’t).

To begin with, the Federal Circuit cases don’t seem to differentiate among these terms. The cases also universally connect the three terms with “and” rather than “or,” but curiously most of the cases don’t seem to actually require all three to be explicitly met for a determination of ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, where the Federal Circuit noted only that the patent owner had conceded one function as being “routine.” Finally, there seems to be real disagreement about the extent to which these terms address facts as opposed to legal standards. In this post, I’m not going to comprehensively analyze all these issues, but instead will focus primarily on what these common terms mean.


Continue Reading How Well-Understood is the Meaning of “Well-Understood”?

With counterpoint by Gregory Hopewell

In reading post-Mayo/Alice decisions, some seem more comfortable than others. I’ve been having a tough time getting my head and heart around a recent decision from Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware.  The case is American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings and Neapco Drivelines.  From the party names alone, this does not appear to be a likely candidate for Section 101 invalidity.

The claims that the court found representative for Section 101 analysis confirm that we’re not talking about social media applications or financial methods here, but instead “a method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system.”  Classic auto industry innovation dispute between two Detroit area companies, with a bonus that the judge also hails from Detroit.  Spoiler Alert: To my surprise, the first sentence of the opinion’s discussion section said, “As explained below, the Court has determined that the Asserted Claims are not directed to patentable subject matter.”


Continue Reading Good Vibrations, Bad Vibrations: American Axle v. Neapco Ruling