Overview
The courts have issued several decisions about patent eligibility under §101 of the Patent Act, invalidating certain patent claims. Critics are concerned that these decisions have made it harder for pending applications to be approved and will make more patents subject to §101 challenges in the future. Recent §101 decisions include American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, and David A. Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc.
1. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Neapco Drivelines LLC, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cert. denied)
The American Axle case involved a patent for manufacturing a shaft assembly of a driveline system. The Federal Circuit found two of the method claims were not eligible for patenting under §101 because they were just an application of a natural law and “nothing more,” because the claims failed to recite specific steps involved in applying the natural law to achieve the claimed result. The dissent argued that the decision expanded the requirements for patent eligibility too far by: (1) liberally characterizing claims as being directed to a natural law, and (2) importing elements of the enablement requirement under §112 by requiring the patentee to specify how the result of a step is accomplished in the claims.
2. Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, 501 F.Supp.3d 162 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (Federal Circuit affirmed; petition for cert pending)
The Interactive Wearables case is a dispute over a patent for improved devices for playing audio and visual media content. The district court found the claims were invalid because they only claimed an abstract idea of providing information in conjunction with media content. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed. Interactive Wearables petitioned the Supreme Court to clarify the standard under §101. Like American Axle, Interactive Wearables raises the question of whether it is improper for the court to consider whether the claimed invention is properly enabled in connection with its inquiry under §101.
3. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 527 F.Supp.3d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (Federal Circuit affirmed; petition for cert pending)
The Tropp case involves a patent for improving airline luggage inspection. The district court ruled (and the Federal Circuit affirmed) that the claims were not eligible because they did not have enough of an inventive concept. Tropp is asking the Supreme Court to clarify the proper application of Section 101 and to make the patent-eligibility rules match the language of Section 101.
