The Claims as a Whole, Including ‘Conventional’ Physical Components, Must Be Considered at Step One of the Alice Test for Determining Patent Eligibility Under Section 101

September 18, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Matthew George Hartman, Rachel J. Elsby, Ange Christiani (Law Clerk)

On remand from the Federal Circuit following an appeal and petition for cert to the Supreme Court, the District of Delaware considered whether the claims remaining in dispute in American Axle v. Neapco were invalid for failing to claim patent eligible subject matter. In this latest iteration, the district court found, as a matter of law, that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and granted summary judgment in American Axle’s favor.

Prior to deciding the Section 101 issue, the district court addressed two preliminary issues. First, the district court considered Neapco’s argument that the claims should be found ineligible based on the law of the case doctrine. Specifically, Neapco argued that claim 1 of the ’911 patent was not meaningfully different from claim 22 of the same patent, which the Federal Circuit already held to be ineligible. And as a result, the law of the case doctrine dictates that claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to ineligible subject matter. The district court rejected this argument. According to the district court, the issue presented here—whether claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea—is distinct from the issue previously decided by the Federal Circuit—whether claim 22 was directed to a patent ineligible natural law. The district court further reasoned that the law of the case doctrine could not apply in view of the Federal Circuit’s directive on remand to the district court that it address the eligibility of claim 1 and its dependent claims in the first instance.

Next, the district court considered American Axle’s argument that Neapco waived its right to assert that claim 1 and its dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea by not raising the argument earlier in the case. Here again, the district court pointed to the Federal Circuit’s remand order, which instructed the district court “to address this alternative eligibility theory in the first instance,” and held that, because the argument fell squarely within the Federal Circuit’s remand order, it was not waived.

Turning to the question of patent eligibility, Neapco argued the claims recite the broad concepts of tuning and positioning, and defines those concepts only in terms of the results they are intended to achieve. But the claims lack any particular means or method of achieving the desired results, and thus fail to transform the abstract ideas of tuning and positioning into patent eligible subject matter. American Axle countered that the claims recite a new industrial process for manufacturing an improved driveshaft that includes specific steps for manufacturing the shaft assembly.

The district court agreed with American Axle, finding “[f]ar from an abstract idea, the claims are directed to a tangible system, or a method of using such a system, with an observable real-world impact.” By focusing on just the “tuning” and “positioning” limitations, Neapco failed to evaluate the character of the claims as a whole. And by characterizing the tangible components in the claim as old technology that should be ignored, Neapco improperly conflated step one with step two of the Alice test. The district court explained that Alice step two evaluates whether the addition of routine or conventional steps transforms an otherwise unpatentable method into a patentable one, “which is different from arguing that the physical components are conventional.” The latter argument being “more directed to novelty instead of eligibility.” Accordingly, the district court concluded that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one and therefore are patent eligible.

Practice Tip: The district court’s analysis in this case emphasizes two important points. First, step one of the Alice test looks at the claim as a whole read in light of the disclosures in the specification. Second, the presence of tangible components or methods of using them, even if conventional, may be sufficient to defeat a Section 101 challenge at step one. But specificity matters. Thus, the question of whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea may turn on the ability of a party to show that the claim covers a concrete application of an idea that is specifically tethered to tangible equipment having a real world impact.

Case: American Axle & Mfg Inc. v. Neapco Holding LLC, C.A. No. 15-1168-GBW (D. Del. July 19, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of
products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal
of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims
were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an
attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of
the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug
product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
the related statutory context.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition
challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged
claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to
invalidate claims in district court.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s
later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s
patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory
forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.
...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.