In the latest episode of the closely watched case American Axle v. Neapco, the Federal Circuit denied American Axle’s motion to stay pending its petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The case started as an infringement action for U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911, covering a method of manufacturing driveline propeller shafts. In a panel decision, the Federal Circuit invalidated one independent claim under § 101 as directed to a natural law and remanded another independent claim to the district court to determine whether the claim was invalid as directed to an abstract idea (previously covered here). The Federal Circuit also denied rehearing en banc in a contentious 6-6 decision (previously covered here). The test for a stay pending a writ of certiorari requires (1) a “reasonable probability” that cert is granted, (2) a “fair prospect” of reversal by the Court, and (3) a likelihood of irreparable harm from…
Author: Bryan Hart
Case Dismissed Because Lack of Direct Infringement of Patent Claims Requiring a Mobile Device: Garrett v. TP-Link Research
A district court recently dismissed a complaint for failing to properly allege direct infringement with the mobile device recited in the patent claims. Garrett v. TP-Link Research America (N.D. Cal.). An app for installation on a mobile device does not count as a mobile device or as using a mobile device for showing direct infringement, and when pleading indirect infringement, direct infringement by an end user must be alleged. Garrett’s complaint against TP-Link failed on these scores, so the court granted TP-Link’s motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice. Garrett, an individual, sued TP-Link over its line of a security cameras for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,854,207 and 10,511,809. All the claims of the patents require a “mobile device” and a “camera,” and some of the claims further require a “server.” The court used claim 19 of the ’207 patent and claim 10 of the ’809 patent as representative:…
Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 2 of 2)
The Federal Circuit recently denied a rehearing en banc in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings, letting stand a panel decision invalidating a method of manufacturing driveline propeller shafts as ineligible subject matter under § 101. This post covers the multiple concurrences and dissents accompanying the rehearing denial, which reveal a splintered court. Part 1 covered the background and the modified panel decision, in which the court invalidated this claim as ineligible subject matter: 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…
Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 1 of 2)
The Federal Circuit has modified a panel decision and denied a rehearing en banc in a closely watched § 101 case, American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings. The original decision had found all the claims, which were directed to a method of manufacturing driveline propeller shafts, ineligible subject matter (previously covered in this post). The new panel decision maintained that result for two of the independent claims but remanded on a third independent claim. (Stay tuned for a follow-up post on the en banc denial, which revealed a fractured court with multiple concurrences and dissents and a 6-6 tie vote.) Much of the controversy centered on the subject matter of the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911—not software or medical diagnostics, as in most applications of § 101, but instead a purely mechanical invention. All three independent claims were for “a method for manufacturing a shaft assembly of…
District Court Corrects Patent by Inserting Missing Temperature Range, Finds Claims Indefinite for Insufficient Structure: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland v. SiTime
Indefiniteness was decided in a claim construction order from the Northern District of California in VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland v. SiTime. The court corrected a claim by inserting a missing element, but also invalidated all the claims for indefiniteness because the means-plus-function element “drive or sense means” lacked sufficient structure. VTT thus won a battle but lost the war. VTT is a Finnish state-owned nonprofit research company, including for microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). SiTime is a MEMS manufacturer. VTT is suing for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,558,643, covering a MEMS device used in semiconductors to reduce deformation as a result of temperature fluctuations. Independent claim 29 states: 29. A method for designing a micromechanical device comprising a semiconductor element capable of deflecting or resonating and comprising at least two regions having different material properties, drive or sense means functionally coupled to said semiconductor element, the method comprising choosing…