<i>American Axle v. Neapco Holdings</i>: Brief of Professors Jeffrey A. Lefstin And Peter S. Menell As Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Abstract

Notwithstanding the clarity of the U.S. Constitution’s grant of authority to Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to . . . Inventors the exclusive Right to their . . . Discoveries,” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, and Congress’s directive that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title,” 35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added), current § 101 jurisprudence conflates patent eligibility with the substantive requirements set forth in § 103 and § 112 and is getting more confusing by the day. There is no patent law doctrine more in need of clarification. The Federal Circuit’s 6-6 split resulting in the denial of rehearing en banc in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC et al., 966 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020), is just the latest example in a long series of cries for help in interpreting § 101. See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1374, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Lourie, J., with Newman, J. concurring in denial of rehearing en banc) (expressing that patent eligibility law “needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress, to work its way out of what so many in the innovation field consider are § 101 problems”). We add our voice to the chorus calling for the Supreme Court and/or Congress to clarify and/or reform patent eligibility jurisprudence. In setting forth a new test of patent eligibility, the panel decision mischaracterized fundamental patent principles and case law on which the modern patent system is built. The claims of the patent in suit present a conventional problem of compliance with the statutory patentability requirements of § 112, which sets forth the requirements of disclosure and claim definiteness. The panel opinion instead forces this case into the § 101 mold, which dispenses with the customary factual predicates for § 112. In so doing, the panel radically altered and expanded the already confused contours of § 101 jurisprudence. Moreover, the panel’s holdings were based on a serious misinterpretation of patent law’s foundational cases, and run counter to this Court’s long insistence that the statutory requirements of § 112 and its predecessor statutes provide the standards to assess whether claims are functional or overbroad. With this latest expansion, the atextual doctrine of patent eligibility threatens to supplant the traditional tests of patentability established by the 1952 Act. The Federal Circuit’s deep split in American Axle presents an excellent vehicle for clarifying the interplay of § 101 and § 112 of the Patent Act.