​​Patently Strategic - Patent Strategy for Startups

From Alice to Axle: IP Uncertainty for the Innovation Economy

Aurora Patent Consulting | Ashley Sloat, Ph.D. Season 2 Episode 7

Send us a text

In today’s episode, we’re discussing a recent court decision that judges have said could threaten "most every invention for which a patent has ever been granted", turning the patent system into a "litigation gamble."

Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting, leads a discussion into American Axle’s recent bid to have the Supreme Court overturn a lower court decision that invalidated the company’s patent in a closely followed legal battle with rival Neapco Holdings. This case offered a much anticipated opportunity to more broadly clarify patent eligibility in a time where many believe that court precedent has undermined the U.S. patent process and, in the words of retired U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Paul Michel, “confused and distorted the law of eligibility”, making it an “illogical, unpredictable, chaotic” mess. Critics of these rulings and the resulting present state of IP law claim that the confusion and inconsistency has led to courts canceling many patents that should be protected. The Solicitor General has stated that problems arising from the application of Section 101 have “made it difficult for inventors, businesses, and other patent stakeholders to reliably and predictably determine what subject matter is patent eligible”.

Despite cries for help and urges to provide clarification from multiple presidential administrations, the Solicitor General, members of Congress, the Federal Circuit Court, IP bar associations, and the Patent Office, the Supreme Court refused to hear this case, leaving many inventors and industries in limbo since as a USPTO spokesperson said after the ruling, innovation "cannot thrive in uncertainty."

David and our all star patent panel discuss the case law, its implications, how present statute is being conflated and taking section 101 well beyond its gatekeeping function, and in their analysis of the American Axle patent, provide some great tips that may have changed American Axle’s present fate – and can hopefully improve your odds of success if approached intentionally at the drafting stage. 

David is joined today by our always exceptional group of IP experts including:

⦿ Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy here at Aurora
⦿ Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategist at Aurora
⦿ David Cohen, Principal at Cohen Sciences
⦿ Arman Khosraviani, Patent Agent and Former U.S. Patent Examiner
⦿ Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate and
​⦿ Dr. Sophia Hsin-Jung Li, Patent Strategy Fellow

** Resources **

⦿ Show Notes
⦿ Slides

** Follow Aurora Consulting **

⦿ Home
⦿ Twitter
⦿ LinkedIn
⦿ Facebook
⦿ Instagram

And as always, thanks for listening! 

Correction Update: This recording refers to Chief Judge Moore as "he". This is not the correct pronoun for Justice Moore. Our host did look into this pre-recording, but unfortunately misspoke in real time. Apologies to Chief Judge Moore.

WEBVTT

00:05.290 --> 00:08.694
Good day, and welcome to the Patently Strategic Podcast, where we discuss all

00:08.732 --> 00:11.734
things at the intersection of business, technology, and patents.

00:11.842 --> 00:15.778
This podcast is a monthly discussion amongst experts in the field of patenting.

00:15.874 --> 00:19.078
It is for inventors, founders, founders, and IP professionals alike,

00:19.174 --> 00:22.582
established or aspiring. In today's episode, we're discussing

00:22.606 --> 00:26.230
a recent court decision that judges have said could threaten most every invention

00:26.290 --> 00:29.886
for which a patent has ever been granted, turning the patent system into a

00:29.888 --> 00:33.754
litigation gamble. In this month's episode, Dr. David Jackrel,

00:33.802 --> 00:37.558
president of Jacques Consulting, leads a discussion into American Axle's

00:37.594 --> 00:41.362
recent bid to have the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision

00:41.446 --> 00:45.130
that invalidated the company's patent in a closely followed legal battle

00:45.190 --> 00:49.186
with rival Nico Holdings. This case offered a much anticipated

00:49.258 --> 00:52.414
opportunity to more broadly clarify patent eligibility

00:52.522 --> 00:56.010
in a time where many believe that court precedent has undermined the US.

00:56.060 --> 00:59.998
Patent process and, in the words of retired US. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Paul

01:00.034 --> 01:03.618
Michel, confused and distorted the law of eligibility, making it

01:03.644 --> 01:06.642
an illogical, unpredictable, chaotic mess.

01:06.776 --> 01:10.206
Critics of these rulings in the resulting present state of IP law,

01:10.268 --> 01:13.326
claim that the confusion and inconsistency has led to course

01:13.388 --> 01:17.442
canceling many patents that should be protected. The Solicitor General has

01:17.456 --> 01:20.910
stated the problems arising from the application of Section 101 have

01:20.960 --> 01:24.558
made it difficult for inventors, businesses, and other patent stakeholders to

01:24.584 --> 01:28.270
reliably and predictably determine what subject matter is patent

01:28.330 --> 01:31.530
eligible. Despite cries for help and urges to provide

01:31.580 --> 01:35.158
clarification from multiple presidential administrations, the Solicitor

01:35.194 --> 01:38.458
General, members of Congress, the Federal Circuit Court,

01:38.554 --> 01:42.478
IP bar associations, and the Patent Office, the Supreme Court

01:42.514 --> 01:46.006
refused to hear this case, leaving many inventors and industries

01:46.078 --> 01:49.918
in limbo since, as the USPTO. Spokesperson said after the ruling,

01:50.014 --> 01:53.302
innovation cannot thrive in uncertainty. I want to pause

01:53.326 --> 01:56.970
for just a second and reflect on the fact that these people are using this

01:57.020 --> 02:00.514
language. You typically don't see these kinds of animated responses

02:00.562 --> 02:03.918
and blunt warnings from folks in and around this field. On this

02:03.944 --> 02:07.258
podcast, we err on the side of under sensationalizing, since there's

02:07.294 --> 02:10.842
plenty of the opposite available literally everywhere else you turn.

02:10.976 --> 02:14.458
This issue is a big deal. And these aren't just firmly twisted knickers.

02:14.554 --> 02:17.302
These are serious people using very strong language.

02:17.446 --> 02:21.214
Investing in innovation is a long game, and one that requires some basic

02:21.262 --> 02:25.090
level of predictability and stability around idea protection.

02:25.270 --> 02:28.390
All right, so beyond this being left unresolved by the Supreme Court,

02:28.450 --> 02:31.738
there's also the unfortunate precedent that may now very well seep

02:31.774 --> 02:35.926
into industries once believed to be immune from these subject matter limitations.

02:36.058 --> 02:39.646
Prior to this case, the subject matter eligibility problem was primarily

02:39.718 --> 02:43.246
confined to software and biotech. It was widely understood

02:43.318 --> 02:46.878
that physical products and their manufacturing were implicitly exempt from

02:46.904 --> 02:49.750
being ruled abstract ideas or laws of nature.

02:49.930 --> 02:53.710
What box was just left open? In today's episode.

02:53.770 --> 02:56.742
David and our all star patent panel discussed the case law.

02:56.816 --> 03:00.258
Its implications. How present statute is being conflated in

03:00.284 --> 03:03.798
taking section 101 well beyond its gatekeeping function and

03:03.824 --> 03:07.422
in their analysis of the American Axle patent. Provide some great tips that

03:07.436 --> 03:10.858
may have changed American Axel's present fate and can hopefully improve

03:10.894 --> 03:14.242
your odds of success if approached early enough and intentionally

03:14.326 --> 03:17.962
at the drafting stage. David is joined today by our always exceptional

03:17.986 --> 03:21.726
group of IP expert regulars you know and love, including Dr.

03:21.788 --> 03:25.318
Ashley Slowed, president and director of patent strategy here at Aurora,

03:25.414 --> 03:28.870
kristen Hansen, patent strategist at Aurora and David Cohen,

03:28.930 --> 03:32.238
principal at Cohen Sciences. We'd also like to introduce you

03:32.264 --> 03:35.602
to three new participants making their patently strategic debut

03:35.686 --> 03:39.502
armancobiani, patent agent and former US. Patent examiner

03:39.586 --> 03:43.258
and the two newest members of Team Aurora. Thai Davis, patent strategy

03:43.294 --> 03:46.714
associate, and Dr. Sophia Lee, patent strategy fellow.

03:46.822 --> 03:49.998
Now, before taking you into the thick of this conversation, one that is

03:50.024 --> 03:53.562
especially technical and legal, as we often do, we wanted to

03:53.576 --> 03:57.054
provide a quick primer on a few concepts that could use some extra color and

03:57.092 --> 04:00.502
context for those newer to patenting. This episode builds

04:00.526 --> 04:03.562
on many foundational patent law concepts we've been exploring

04:03.586 --> 04:07.162
in prior episodes, so this will just be a speedy review, but I'll

04:07.186 --> 04:10.422
provide pointers and links in the show notes to the related episodes should you want

04:10.436 --> 04:13.590
to go deeper. Since this episode is largely centered around

04:13.640 --> 04:17.374
the concept of subject matter eligibility, we're first going to talk about rejection

04:17.422 --> 04:21.078
and invalidation gates when patents are examined by the Patent Office

04:21.164 --> 04:24.594
or later litigated in a courtroom, several sections of US.

04:24.692 --> 04:28.054
Statute come into play in determining if the claims in the patent

04:28.102 --> 04:31.350
are eligible, useful, novel, non obvious,

04:31.460 --> 04:34.654
and enabled, or properly described patents

04:34.702 --> 04:37.998
can be rejected or invalidated if one or more of the

04:38.024 --> 04:41.238
claims are determined to be otherwise. Problems fall under

04:41.264 --> 04:45.274
the following sections of US. Code title 35 section

04:45.322 --> 04:49.770
101 patent ineligibility or lack of utility section 102

04:49.880 --> 04:53.242
lack of novelty section 103, the claimed

04:53.266 --> 04:56.898
invention is obvious and or section 112 lack of

04:56.924 --> 05:00.702
adequate description. Today's conversation focuses on sections 101 and

05:00.716 --> 05:03.870
one, one two. We dissect these and relevant case law,

05:03.920 --> 05:07.830
including the referenced Alice decision, in much greater detail in season two,

05:07.880 --> 05:11.406
episode one on software patents, in season two,

05:11.468 --> 05:15.150
episode five on Fortifying life science patents. For now,

05:15.200 --> 05:19.222
though, the important things to note are that section 112 centers around enablement.

05:19.306 --> 05:22.938
We're describing the invention in sufficient detail to allow

05:22.964 --> 05:27.450
it to be practiced by someone skilled in the art without undue experimentation.

05:27.830 --> 05:31.234
You're trading disclosure for exclusivity. That's fundamentally

05:31.282 --> 05:34.830
the deal, so you can't hold back on the details. Section 101

05:34.880 --> 05:38.358
covers eligible subject matter. The Patent Act says that an

05:38.384 --> 05:41.902
inventor can patent any new and useful process, machine,

05:41.986 --> 05:45.754
manufacturer, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement

05:45.802 --> 05:49.734
thereof. Historically, this was broadly interpreted. Patents were

05:49.772 --> 05:52.974
rarely rejected or invalidated based on it, while instead

05:53.072 --> 05:56.950
utilizing the other sections to weed out patents undeserving of protection.

05:57.070 --> 06:00.478
More recently, however, this has changed with the court's breathing

06:00.514 --> 06:04.294
judicial exceptions for eligible subject matter into being that don't

06:04.342 --> 06:07.698
exist in written law. These exceptions have become 101

06:07.724 --> 06:10.906
grounds to reject and invalidate claims centered around laws

06:10.918 --> 06:14.698
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. The sticky

06:14.734 --> 06:18.018
part is that despite the courts creating these exceptions, they've yet

06:18.044 --> 06:22.062
to provide clarity and objective guidelines or definitions around what these words

06:22.136 --> 06:25.410
actually mean, leaving it up to the lower courts and the Patent Office

06:25.460 --> 06:29.278
to sort through the ambiguity. This episode also focuses on distinctions

06:29.314 --> 06:33.334
between the spec or specification and the claims of the American Axel

06:33.382 --> 06:36.910
application. For a deeper understanding of all of the parts of the patent,

06:36.970 --> 06:40.594
check out season one, episode nine on Patent Anatomy. But in brief,

06:40.642 --> 06:44.026
the specification describes the invention and provides the context

06:44.098 --> 06:47.622
for interpreting the claims. The claims themselves are the heart of

06:47.636 --> 06:51.102
an application and point out the exact invention boundaries of what the

06:51.116 --> 06:54.730
applicant believes she's entitled to own, specifically what the patent

06:54.790 --> 06:58.182
covers, clearly defining the subject matter for which protection is

06:58.196 --> 07:01.398
sought. And one last acronym to unpack before I send

07:01.424 --> 07:04.714
you off the group often refers to the CAFC.

07:04.822 --> 07:08.622
This is the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This is

07:08.636 --> 07:12.274
the Federal court that hears appeals on business activities, including patent

07:12.322 --> 07:16.114
cases that make their way up from district courts. Much of the case law conversation

07:16.162 --> 07:19.594
will center around majority and dissenting opinions from this court.

07:19.702 --> 07:23.118
And with that, hopefully you're now ready for the deep end. Take it

07:23.144 --> 07:27.030
away, David. The overview of the talk will be

07:27.200 --> 07:31.218
that we'll actually look at the claims first. I wanted to

07:31.364 --> 07:34.940
take a little bit of it. Rather than diving right into the opinion and getting

07:35.870 --> 07:39.706
adulterated by the opinions,

07:39.838 --> 07:43.122
I figured let's look at the claims ourselves, see what we think, talk about that

07:43.136 --> 07:46.902
a little bit. And the question really in this case is,

07:47.096 --> 07:50.334
is this patent directed to a method for

07:50.372 --> 07:53.898
manufacturing a shaft assembly in a driveline system,

07:54.044 --> 07:57.270
or is it really just directed to a natural law, as the

07:57.320 --> 08:00.642
CAFC majority basically says?

08:00.836 --> 08:04.398
At least for one of the things. So we'll talk about the claims, we'll talk

08:04.424 --> 08:07.820
about the court decisions that will dig into the

08:08.690 --> 08:12.322
actual patent, the spec a little bit, some of the dependent claims,

08:12.346 --> 08:15.834
which is kind of interesting. And then we'll spend the rest of the time talking

08:15.872 --> 08:19.074
about the majority and the dissent opinion because there's some

08:19.112 --> 08:22.434
really interesting stuff in there. And the

08:22.472 --> 08:25.606
Supreme Court actually we'll talk about a little earlier, they declined

08:25.618 --> 08:28.470
to give the case. One of the reasons why we're talking about it now.

08:28.580 --> 08:32.770
This is a method for manufacturing a shaft assembly for a driveline

08:32.830 --> 08:36.918
system. It's a shaft of a

08:36.944 --> 08:40.254
propeller or a shaft of a car. You can see here.

08:40.292 --> 08:43.966
So it's a shaft, and there's vibrations in the shaft,

08:44.038 --> 08:47.562
and there's a first driveline component and a

08:47.576 --> 08:51.274
second driveline component, and the shaft transmits torque

08:51.382 --> 08:54.646
between them. So you have this hollow shaft

08:54.718 --> 08:58.510
member, you're providing it. And then the second clause

08:58.570 --> 09:01.954
here is tuning

09:02.122 --> 09:05.902
at least one liner to attenuate at least two types

09:05.986 --> 09:09.774
of vibration transmitted through the shaft member and then they

09:09.812 --> 09:13.234
talk about positioning this liner within the shaft

09:13.282 --> 09:16.974
member. And this is the big difference, I feel like, between claims one

09:17.012 --> 09:20.502
and the other independent claim, which we'll look at. This claim has a

09:20.516 --> 09:23.540
little bit more meat here under the positioning step

09:24.350 --> 09:28.258
it's positioned, but it's positioned such that it's

09:28.354 --> 09:32.326
configured to damp the shell mode vibrations

09:32.458 --> 09:36.510
by an amount greater than or equal to this number and

09:36.560 --> 09:40.650
also it's configured to damp bending mode vibrations

09:42.470 --> 09:45.718
within 20 plus -20% of a vending mode

09:45.754 --> 09:49.678
natural frequency. So when I first looked at this claim

09:49.774 --> 09:53.082
I thought to myself that word tuning is a

09:53.096 --> 09:56.538
bit weird. Someone, of course, one to one is on my

09:56.564 --> 09:59.718
mind as I'm reading it because I know that's a big crux of this

09:59.744 --> 10:03.622
case. So how problematic really is that word tuning?

10:03.766 --> 10:06.978
And when you look at the claim construction this

10:07.004 --> 10:10.230
is a quote from the CAFC opinion, but it's basically that the

10:10.340 --> 10:14.166
district claim used this construction is that

10:14.288 --> 10:18.286
tuning the at least one liner means controlling

10:18.358 --> 10:22.414
characteristics of the at least one liner to configure

10:22.582 --> 10:26.130
the line or to match a relevant frequency or frequency.

10:26.870 --> 10:30.706
So that came from analyzing the specification and neither

10:30.778 --> 10:34.890
party really disagreed with that claim construction.

10:35.390 --> 10:36.800
So keep that in mind,

10:39.210 --> 10:43.162
you might be a little bit vague. And so

10:43.356 --> 10:47.102
when you see tuned, it more or less means configured,

10:47.246 --> 10:50.100
configured to perform these things.

10:50.610 --> 10:54.300
Dave, not having read their spec,

10:55.950 --> 10:59.534
how much did they go into how those characteristics

10:59.582 --> 11:02.894
are defined, controlling characteristics of at least one liner,

11:02.942 --> 11:06.634
or defining what those characteristics are or how they

11:06.672 --> 11:10.798
teach somebody to figure out those characteristics or how to control them? Do they

11:10.824 --> 11:14.038
go into detail about that? Great question. Absolutely.

11:14.184 --> 11:18.480
I have a slide on that because I think it's like very important.

11:19.110 --> 11:22.378
And so, yeah, like slide six or seven or something like that will get back

11:22.404 --> 11:25.630
to us. Hold that thought for a minute. The short

11:25.680 --> 11:29.690
answer is it's a short spec they do describe

11:29.750 --> 11:33.670
it but a big difference

11:33.720 --> 11:37.178
of opinion between the majority and the dissent is how sufficiently

11:37.214 --> 11:40.582
it is described. So it's not an easy thing to answer. I think

11:40.596 --> 11:44.462
we should look at it. Yeah, great question. The second independent

11:44.486 --> 11:47.878
claim 22 has the exact same

11:48.024 --> 11:51.502
preamble providing a hollow staff member in this case,

11:51.636 --> 11:54.974
instead of tuning the liner to attenuate

11:55.022 --> 11:58.426
at least two types, blah blah, blah, it's just tuning a mass

11:58.488 --> 12:02.134
and stiffness of the liner. And then instead

12:02.172 --> 12:05.962
of positioning, it's inserting there's a little bit of a discussion about

12:06.036 --> 12:09.550
are those words really different? And then the wherein clause here

12:09.600 --> 12:12.878
really just says that it's tuned resistive

12:12.914 --> 12:16.402
absorber for attenuating shell mode vibrations. And also

12:16.476 --> 12:20.294
it's tuned reactive absorber for attenuating bending mode vibration.

12:20.402 --> 12:23.974
So they do have the two different vibrations in there. But again

12:24.012 --> 12:27.794
they use that word tuning. And again the district court construed

12:27.842 --> 12:31.318
that tuning essentially to mean controlling. The mass and

12:31.344 --> 12:35.246
stiffness of at least one liner can configure the liner

12:35.318 --> 12:39.790
to match these relevant frequency or frequencies of these vibrations

12:40.170 --> 12:43.030
as basically defined in the specs.

12:44.670 --> 12:48.430
So what happened in court and why are we talking about this?

12:48.600 --> 12:52.810
The district court said claims one and 22 were patent ineligible

12:53.130 --> 12:56.338
under 101 because they related to a

12:56.364 --> 12:59.602
natural law basically and nothing more.

12:59.676 --> 13:03.230
It failed step one of the Alice

13:03.410 --> 13:07.154
101 test and it also failed step two in their opinion.

13:07.322 --> 13:10.498
In October 2019, CAFC took up this case

13:10.524 --> 13:14.494
on appeal and they affirmed both of those decisions. Claim one

13:14.532 --> 13:18.382
and 22, both patented ineligible. Ten months later

13:18.516 --> 13:22.670
they followed it up in July of 2020 with a modified opinion

13:22.730 --> 13:26.702
which changed their mind on claim one. Claim one, they decided

13:26.786 --> 13:30.598
should be remanded to the district Court and

13:30.624 --> 13:34.018
we'll talk about this more, but because it wasn't as clear,

13:34.104 --> 13:37.910
it wasn't as clear as claim 22, there were more elements

13:37.970 --> 13:41.822
in claim One that the CAFC determined

13:41.846 --> 13:45.986
were not sufficiently litigated, sufficiently discussed

13:45.998 --> 13:50.198
and argued in the district court case. So it was remanded

13:50.294 --> 13:54.746
so that they actually take up those considerations

13:54.938 --> 13:59.102
more thoroughly. So what recently,

13:59.186 --> 14:02.918
the big news last month in June is that the Supreme Court declined

14:02.954 --> 14:06.922
to hear this case. So why? What happened there?

14:07.116 --> 14:10.678
President Joe Biden's administration in May urged the

14:10.704 --> 14:13.954
high court to take up this case, saying that American Act was invention was a

14:13.992 --> 14:17.820
classic example of patent eligible industrial process.

14:18.330 --> 14:21.694
So the Federal Circuit decided previously in a six

14:21.732 --> 14:25.138
six deadlock not to re hear the case with all of its judges. In an

14:25.164 --> 14:28.534
on back, the dissenting judges said the panel's decision could

14:28.572 --> 14:32.350
threaten most every invention for which a patent has ever been

14:32.400 --> 14:35.518
granted and that the court's eligibility rulings that turn

14:35.544 --> 14:39.058
the patent system into a litigation gamble. So a lot of strong

14:39.144 --> 14:44.014
language on both sides. You'll see the dissent is

14:44.172 --> 14:47.714
what did they say? Vigorously worded

14:47.762 --> 14:51.000
dissent and I have some good quotes that also share later.

14:52.110 --> 14:55.990
So the dispute left the Federal Circuit bitterly divided and at a loss

14:56.850 --> 15:00.182
and the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. Similarly,

15:00.266 --> 15:03.658
in 2012, all twelve

15:03.744 --> 15:06.994
of the Federal Circuit active judges at the time asked the Supreme Court to hear

15:07.032 --> 15:10.702
another similarly divisive case that was also in the

15:10.716 --> 15:15.014
101 realm. And the court rejected that despite

15:15.062 --> 15:18.922
a recommendation by former President Donald Trump's administration to

15:18.936 --> 15:22.318
back it up. So everyone and

15:22.344 --> 15:25.754
then the Patent and Trademark Office spokesperson

15:25.862 --> 15:30.230
said that the ruling said after the ruling that innovation

15:30.290 --> 15:34.174
cannot thrive in uncertainty and the Patent Office is committed to making

15:34.212 --> 15:37.438
every effort to ensure that the patent system is as clear and consistent as

15:37.464 --> 15:41.242
possible. So it seems like everyone president

15:41.376 --> 15:45.240
and the Federal Circuit and there's even certain

15:46.530 --> 15:50.182
Congress, people in Congress who are on the record as wanting the

15:50.196 --> 15:53.726
Supreme Court to weigh in on some of these things and the Supreme

15:53.738 --> 15:56.698
Court has so far denied and refused to do.

15:56.724 --> 16:00.154
So the only thing we have to go on now is

16:00.192 --> 16:03.586
this CAFC modified opinion from July 2020.

16:03.588 --> 16:07.286
And David, to add to that, as a practitioner

16:07.418 --> 16:10.522
who deals with one on one responses a lot yeah.

16:10.656 --> 16:14.750
You also have two claims that have technically

16:14.810 --> 16:18.622
they have the two things that you're supposed to have to overcome one

16:18.636 --> 16:22.740
on one rejection. They have a practical application or two

16:23.430 --> 16:27.386
dampening making sure something is tuned

16:27.458 --> 16:29.880
in order to carry out something else. Right.

16:30.210 --> 16:33.874
And they are an improvement to what's out there, which is

16:33.912 --> 16:36.480
shown in the specification, I believe. But also,

16:38.550 --> 16:42.046
if there's no art here, no one else has been able to do this

16:42.168 --> 16:45.734
for this field. Right. So you have an improvement to a technical

16:45.782 --> 16:49.118
field. But the thing that makes this little quirky

16:49.154 --> 16:51.634
is it's dealing with a natural law. Hook's, law,

16:51.672 --> 16:54.874
Springs, these are things that people say,

16:54.912 --> 16:57.910
well, that's obvious, but they forget.

16:58.470 --> 17:02.050
You can have a piece of obviousness in a one on one

17:02.220 --> 17:05.818
rejected claim as long as you can still show that

17:05.844 --> 17:09.710
there's practical application, some novelty

17:09.890 --> 17:13.162
and or I guess improvement to a

17:13.176 --> 17:16.726
technical field. So this is one of the first cases where

17:16.908 --> 17:21.182
the standard toolbox that we have of overcoming one on one rejections

17:21.326 --> 17:24.442
cannot be used. And it seems to already be

17:24.456 --> 17:27.874
in the claim, but they don't even want to hear it because

17:27.912 --> 17:30.060
they're like no natural law, natural law.

17:31.410 --> 17:35.350
Your points are almost exactly what the dissent

17:36.210 --> 17:40.140
argues and those are super valid points. And I think,

17:41.430 --> 17:44.842
I actually think that the majority has some valid points and

17:44.856 --> 17:46.560
the descent has some valid points.

17:51.970 --> 17:55.854
It's a tough one. It's like you said, there are additional elements

17:55.902 --> 17:59.246
in the claims. At the same time, if you just

17:59.308 --> 18:02.390
consider claims one and 22 we'll talk about in a minute.

18:02.710 --> 18:05.774
Maybe that's not the best idea. If you just consider those

18:05.812 --> 18:09.566
claims, it is a little vague about what they really need

18:09.688 --> 18:13.842
and almost as because tune goes back to configured,

18:13.926 --> 18:17.678
it's almost functional language. Now you have to go back to the spec and does

18:17.704 --> 18:20.702
the spec really teach someone how to do that?

18:20.836 --> 18:23.738
But then you got to say to yourself, wait a second, is that 112?

18:23.824 --> 18:26.946
Is that 101? Right. Very convoluted.

18:27.078 --> 18:30.938
And I guess I sort of agree that there

18:30.964 --> 18:34.242
are some issues, you know what I mean, with this patent and the claims

18:34.266 --> 18:38.138
and the description and the way that it all comes together. But should it

18:38.164 --> 18:41.534
really have been rejected at all? And should it have been rejected under

18:41.572 --> 18:44.954
101 or invalid? That's my question.

18:45.112 --> 18:46.960
Right. The 101 issue,

18:48.130 --> 18:51.678
if you take a spring and you say that anything to do with spring cannot

18:51.714 --> 18:54.220
be patented, that's slippery slope, right?

18:56.630 --> 19:00.462
I think that's the majority thought there is wait a

19:00.476 --> 19:03.978
minute, it's not just a spring, but what else do we know,

19:04.064 --> 19:07.434
right? And the specification on this case isn't teaching enough

19:07.592 --> 19:11.214
for everyone involved to be comfortable. It was

19:11.312 --> 19:14.802
112 101 issue, right? Or maybe it should have

19:14.816 --> 19:15.380
been.

19:18.450 --> 19:22.140
I see that as a totally valid point. And then I also go back to

19:23.490 --> 19:26.746
thinking about functional language in the claim and

19:26.808 --> 19:30.778
that what does it really mean to tune a liner if

19:30.924 --> 19:35.040
the specification doesn't teach someone really how to do that,

19:35.610 --> 19:38.758
right? Anyway, it's a great point Kristen, excellent points.

19:38.784 --> 19:42.478
And we'll talk more about it and see some quotes from them about a lot

19:42.504 --> 19:46.462
of those points as we get. I just wanted to add something really quick for

19:46.536 --> 19:50.318
examiners, so they're

19:50.354 --> 19:54.986
trained to ignore functional language when it comes to device claims.

19:55.118 --> 19:58.730
So for an examiner they might have not actually given that weight,

19:58.790 --> 20:00.970
that word tuning any weights,

20:01.650 --> 20:04.814
unless the applicant or the inventor provided

20:04.982 --> 20:08.398
support through a

20:08.424 --> 20:11.558
person of ordinary skill in the art, would consider tuning.

20:11.654 --> 20:15.374
Or maybe prior art would provide some teaching of what tuning

20:15.422 --> 20:19.270
would be or how they could construct tuning

20:19.590 --> 20:23.458
from the prior art. Right, I know,

20:23.484 --> 20:26.842
exactly. It's a great point. And yeah, you can

20:26.856 --> 20:31.630
see that the CASC found claim 22 ineligible

20:32.070 --> 20:35.638
in their modified opinion and they said it simply requires the

20:35.664 --> 20:38.702
application of hook's law to tune a prop

20:38.726 --> 20:42.418
shelf liner. So even when they're talking about this natural law,

20:42.504 --> 20:45.900
it goes back to that tuning. That tuning is really key.

20:46.290 --> 20:49.738
However, claim one is remanded and what they said about that as well.

20:49.764 --> 20:53.314
Claim one also requires positioning in addition to tuning. And they saw

20:53.352 --> 20:59.174
that as different than inserting. Positioning evoked

20:59.222 --> 21:02.834
a position, putting it in a particular place rather than just inserting

21:02.882 --> 21:06.026
anywhere, and also may reflect

21:06.098 --> 21:09.290
a broader definition of tuning. And if you go back to the claims,

21:09.350 --> 21:12.838
claim 22, which was found patent ineligible, says tuning a mass

21:12.924 --> 21:16.462
and a stiffness. And David, don't worry, the next slide is

21:16.476 --> 21:19.858
about hook's law. But tuning a mass and a

21:19.884 --> 21:23.674
stiffness, that just evokes hook's law

21:23.772 --> 21:27.610
to people very clearly. But claim one just says tuning,

21:28.110 --> 21:32.402
tuning at least one liner to attenuate at least these two different types of vibrations.

21:32.486 --> 21:35.854
So then you got to go back to specification and this is potentially a

21:35.892 --> 21:39.154
broader definition of tuning that involves not just

21:39.192 --> 21:42.874
the mass and the stiffness, but other things as well. So then it's not as

21:42.912 --> 21:46.666
clear that it's just hooked law, is there kind of thought

21:46.728 --> 21:49.260
process on claim one.

21:50.310 --> 21:54.014
So we get some quotes to give a little more explanation

21:54.062 --> 21:54.840
of that.

21:58.150 --> 22:01.502
There's like one or two paragraphs on step two of the one

22:01.516 --> 22:04.962
to one framework and this is a big problem that Judge Moore

22:04.986 --> 22:08.510
had in the descent. He didn't think enough weight was given to step two.

22:08.620 --> 22:12.738
But they did talk about step two and they said that there's no inventive concept

22:12.774 --> 22:16.418
because the invention was a trial and error application of

22:16.444 --> 22:19.850
hopes law. So some quotes, what is missing from this claim?

22:20.470 --> 22:24.126
This was about 22. The ineligible one is any physical

22:24.198 --> 22:27.734
structure or steps for achieving the claimed result.

22:27.892 --> 22:31.814
And that the real inventive work lies in figuring out how to

22:31.852 --> 22:35.094
design a liner to damp two vibration modes simultaneously.

22:35.142 --> 22:38.618
And no such inventive work is recited in claim 22.

22:38.764 --> 22:43.034
And to go even a step further about the means

22:43.072 --> 22:47.334
plus function stuff, they also clearly considered the specification.

22:47.442 --> 22:50.714
They say the specification describes tuning in terms of the

22:50.752 --> 22:54.158
result achieved, rather than the particular process by

22:54.184 --> 22:57.842
which the result is accomplished. And I'll show the

22:57.856 --> 23:01.718
paragraphs in the next slide or two so you can see

23:01.744 --> 23:05.858
for yourself what the specification actually says and why the

23:05.944 --> 23:09.798
majority opinion says this, whereas the minority

23:09.894 --> 23:13.550
descending opinion says something else. So Judge Morrison descent had three major

23:13.600 --> 23:16.806
issues. One, he said, no, these are not directed

23:16.878 --> 23:21.102
to a natural law. This is a method of manufacturing

23:21.246 --> 23:24.494
a liner for a drive shaft. He also argues that there were

23:24.532 --> 23:28.770
many articulated inventive concepts that should have precluded summary

23:28.830 --> 23:32.286
judgment and that step two was not given sufficient weight.

23:32.478 --> 23:36.546
And then the third one, he argued, was that they were conflating patent eligibility

23:36.618 --> 23:39.446
under 101 with the principles of enablement under 112.

23:39.448 --> 23:42.698
And in his great quote, I feel like, is that

23:42.724 --> 23:46.206
in Judge Moore's view? This is from an article in Judge Moore's

23:46.218 --> 23:50.214
view, the majority found the claims ineligible because the patent

23:50.262 --> 23:53.738
did not teach a skilled artisan how to

23:53.764 --> 23:57.134
tune a liner. So we'll dig

23:57.172 --> 24:00.518
more into each of these things as we go, and we already

24:00.544 --> 24:03.722
talked a little bit about the means plus function. So let me just get

24:03.736 --> 24:07.082
to what we've all been waiting for. What is hooked law?

24:07.276 --> 24:10.742
So everybody might remember if they took physics like in high school,

24:10.876 --> 24:14.958
that Hooke's law is the simple equation here. Force equals

24:15.054 --> 24:19.062
k times x, k is the spring constant and x is the displacement.

24:19.206 --> 24:22.562
So if you have a spring, it has a particular property,

24:22.636 --> 24:26.514
a spring constant. And if you apply a force to it, it will extend

24:26.562 --> 24:29.622
by an amount x. And if you double the force,

24:29.766 --> 24:33.714
for instance by hanging an extra weight on a spring, doubling that force,

24:33.822 --> 24:37.322
then the displacement will extend twice as far so that's a

24:37.336 --> 24:40.574
displacement is just proportional to the force, and that

24:40.612 --> 24:43.660
proportionality constant is the spring constant, k.

24:44.050 --> 24:48.006
In this case, we're talking about frequencies and dampening

24:48.078 --> 24:51.518
vibration frequencies. So this is a little bit of an extension of books law,

24:51.544 --> 24:54.818
if you will. It's an application of books law that if

24:54.844 --> 24:58.166
you have the situation where you have a mass on a spring and you pull

24:58.228 --> 25:01.322
the mass to extend the spring and then let it go, what's going to

25:01.336 --> 25:05.378
happen? It's going to oscillate. It's going to try

25:05.404 --> 25:08.750
to get back to its equilibrium position, but it has some momentum. So it goes

25:08.800 --> 25:11.918
past the equilibrium position and then it'll continue

25:12.004 --> 25:15.806
oscillating back and forth. And since this

25:15.868 --> 25:19.360
sort of an oscillator obeys hook's law,

25:19.690 --> 25:23.006
you can solve the equations for frequency. And you find

25:23.068 --> 25:27.486
that the frequency of such an oscillating system only depends

25:27.558 --> 25:30.734
on the mass and the spring constant. It does

25:30.772 --> 25:35.070
not depend, for instance, on the amplitude of the oscillation.

25:35.250 --> 25:40.406
So due to friction, due to other

25:40.468 --> 25:43.360
losses, air resistance, what have you,

25:45.250 --> 25:48.998
those oscillations will slowly dampen over time and it will stop so

25:49.024 --> 25:53.226
that the amplitude will go down over time, but the frequency

25:53.358 --> 25:57.714
as it's going down stays the same. Similar to the situation of a pendulum.

25:57.762 --> 26:01.540
Right? And so what's interesting about this is that this

26:02.530 --> 26:06.122
invention, this law of nature that

26:06.136 --> 26:10.338
was applied in this way was used to construct the first pocket

26:10.374 --> 26:14.106
boxes in order to get an oscillator

26:14.178 --> 26:17.714
that would be portable. And you could move around

26:17.812 --> 26:21.414
in all different orientations on like a pendulum

26:21.462 --> 26:25.602
or a grandfather clock or a lot of the more elaborate, complicated mechanisms

26:25.626 --> 26:28.866
of the time. Using a little mass on a spring allows

26:28.878 --> 26:32.498
you to make a mobile timepiece, which was like a

26:32.584 --> 26:35.738
huge advance in navigation in

26:35.884 --> 26:40.238
history. And Hook was one of the adventures of those

26:40.264 --> 26:43.514
watches, by the way. It wasn't a linear spring, it was

26:43.552 --> 26:47.742
a spring, a coiled spring. And there are other kinds of mechanisms

26:47.766 --> 26:50.262
in there. It was a little more complicated than just the mass on the spring,

26:50.346 --> 26:53.918
but it was this hook's law. And that's where you see

26:53.944 --> 26:57.834
this mass, you see the stiffness,

26:58.002 --> 27:01.574
the spring constant and the mass. And if you tune those two

27:01.612 --> 27:05.618
things, that's hooked law in

27:05.644 --> 27:08.906
some abstraction. So even though the claims never say

27:08.968 --> 27:12.278
hooked law, tuning a mass and a stiffness of

27:12.304 --> 27:15.554
a liner to tune the frequency of that

27:15.592 --> 27:19.082
liner, this is where District Court originally and

27:19.096 --> 27:23.186
the CASC agreed that it was directed to a natural law

27:23.368 --> 27:26.342
cooked law. Quick question,

27:26.476 --> 27:29.090
David. Absolute for a little bit of clarity.

27:31.330 --> 27:35.330
When you're tuning that liner, they're tuning for your

27:35.380 --> 27:39.150
torsional frequency and also the bending frequency.

27:39.330 --> 27:42.374
Am I interpreting that right? Yeah, that's right.

27:42.412 --> 27:45.820
They do talk about torsion. The claims talk about the

27:46.810 --> 27:49.986
bending mode and also this shell mode,

27:50.118 --> 27:53.582
where the actual this is like a cross section of the right. But the

27:53.596 --> 27:56.714
torsion mode, even though they describe it and everything, it's not one of those two

27:56.752 --> 27:59.894
modes that's claimed yes. So you're trying to find the

27:59.932 --> 28:03.386
optimal point kind of between the two. It's in the tuning. Correct.

28:03.508 --> 28:07.002
You're trying to find the spot where you fix the torso

28:07.086 --> 28:10.814
and the bending. That's a great point. And this is one of the things that

28:10.912 --> 28:14.560
American Axle argued unsuccessfully, is that

28:15.070 --> 28:18.302
tuning to dampen two vibrational modes at

28:18.316 --> 28:22.058
the same time is not so simple and not just

28:22.084 --> 28:25.240
a simple application of folks law. It involves a lot more.

28:25.630 --> 28:29.306
And we'll get to that in a few slides. I know there's a

28:29.308 --> 28:31.850
lot in this case, like I said in the beginning,

28:32.410 --> 28:36.914
hopefully we'll have time to get to that. But that the

28:36.952 --> 28:40.540
District Court, essentially, and the CFC agreed that

28:41.170 --> 28:44.858
even though, sure, American axle may have invented a whole

28:44.884 --> 28:48.314
bunch of things to tune these liners in this way,

28:48.352 --> 28:51.450
using finite element modeling, et cetera, et cetera.

28:51.630 --> 28:55.202
That was not in the claim, and it's not even in

28:55.216 --> 28:58.046
the spec. And I think that's a huge problem.

28:58.108 --> 29:01.142
Actually, the word finite element modeling doesn't even show up in the

29:01.156 --> 29:05.642
spec. The spec is very short, and it does

29:05.836 --> 29:10.970
kind of good segue. It does describe this

29:11.020 --> 29:14.474
liner as a physical element. It has

29:14.512 --> 29:18.558
a lot like Kristen was saying, it's a lot of these practical applications

29:18.594 --> 29:22.274
and things that we look for to get around 101. So it's got

29:22.312 --> 29:24.386
the physical element, this liner 204,

29:24.388 --> 29:27.702
and it describes these bending modes,

29:27.786 --> 29:31.506
or vibration mode, bending mode, shell mode, torsion mode,

29:31.638 --> 29:35.190
right? And so it goes into that. It goes even further,

29:35.250 --> 29:39.038
and it says that the characteristics of this liner can

29:39.064 --> 29:43.154
be controlled to tune its stamping properties in these particular

29:43.252 --> 29:46.818
modes. For instance, they talk about mass, length,

29:46.914 --> 29:50.550
diameter of the liner, and they describe

29:50.610 --> 29:54.510
this liner structural features of this liner. They say it has a resilient

29:54.570 --> 29:58.470
member. The resilient member can have a helix angle and a pitch.

29:58.590 --> 30:02.080
There are other structural features to this

30:03.190 --> 30:06.806
liner. And then they give you a particular example,

30:06.988 --> 30:10.370
a particular quantitative example. Here's a drive line

30:10.420 --> 30:13.938
that has this diameter, wall thickness,

30:14.034 --> 30:17.186
length, etc. And here's a liner that works in this situation.

30:17.368 --> 30:19.370
So they do give examples.

30:20.890 --> 30:24.302
And then this, I think, is getting to

30:24.316 --> 30:27.494
the crux of the issue. What they say in the next

30:27.532 --> 30:31.034
paragraph is that it'll be appreciated in certain situations. It's not possible to

30:31.072 --> 30:34.434
exactly tune the liner to two or more relevant

30:34.482 --> 30:37.938
frequencies. And as such, it will be understood that liner

30:37.974 --> 30:42.050
204 will be considered to be tuned to a relevant frequency if

30:42.100 --> 30:46.550
it is effective in attenuating vibration at the relevant frequency.

30:46.870 --> 30:50.162
And this is exactly the sentence that the majority point to

30:50.236 --> 30:53.910
say. The specification only describes tuning

30:53.970 --> 30:58.098
in terms of a result to be achieved. It doesn't describe

30:58.194 --> 31:01.878
the steps that one must take to tune a liner.

31:01.974 --> 31:04.370
The descent disagrees.

31:05.530 --> 31:10.482
And you can see here that there are structural

31:10.566 --> 31:14.102
elements that are described about these liners. And I

31:14.116 --> 31:17.390
think this is a really interesting, I think, side note on this case,

31:17.440 --> 31:22.466
too. There are, what, ten or

31:22.468 --> 31:26.238
eight dependent claims off of both of the independent

31:26.274 --> 31:30.630
claims, one and 22, that do claim,

31:30.810 --> 31:34.758
specifically claim, these structural features. You've got a disresilient

31:34.794 --> 31:38.418
member, you've got the resilient member, extensive helically or longitudinally

31:38.454 --> 31:42.282
or circumferentially. You've got different materials

31:42.426 --> 31:46.550
involved, cardboard, plastic, carbon fiber,

31:46.990 --> 31:51.086
and even some defendant claims about

31:51.148 --> 31:54.570
positioning the liner symmetrically, about a bending

31:54.630 --> 31:58.420
antenna node and things that are actually like very

31:58.870 --> 32:02.586
more or less specific structural features

32:02.658 --> 32:06.362
of these liners. So what the majority says is

32:06.376 --> 32:09.722
that the district court and this is what happened,

32:09.916 --> 32:14.090
the majority and the district court treated independent claims one and 22

32:14.140 --> 32:17.438
as representative of all of these.

32:17.584 --> 32:21.342
Dependent claims, and the dissent disagrees

32:21.366 --> 32:24.702
with that entirely. The dissent says, I do not agree with the majority

32:24.726 --> 32:28.802
of conclusion that claims one and 22 are representative, or that American

32:28.876 --> 32:32.286
Axle waived its arguments as to the dependent claims.

32:32.418 --> 32:35.906
First Nepo, who was the other party in

32:35.908 --> 32:39.162
the case, never argued that claims one and 22 representatives,

32:39.186 --> 32:42.422
in fact, argued the dependent claims separately, and American

32:42.496 --> 32:45.834
Axle expressly argued that they are not representative.

32:46.002 --> 32:49.682
And I think it seems like

32:49.756 --> 32:53.118
a small thing in some ways, like, oh, claim one and 22 are representative.

32:53.154 --> 32:56.042
We're just going to go with that. We're not even considered dependent claims, but if

32:56.056 --> 32:59.618
they had, it might have been a lot harder for them to say no,

32:59.644 --> 33:04.202
there are no structural features here that teach one how to

33:04.276 --> 33:08.454
tune this thing. They may have came to the same conclusion due

33:08.502 --> 33:11.810
to, for instance, inadequacies of the specification,

33:12.550 --> 33:16.446
even though there's a resilient member.

33:16.638 --> 33:20.238
How do you tune that resilient

33:20.274 --> 33:23.750
member to dampen a bending mode at a particular

33:23.860 --> 33:27.434
frequency? That's what I see

33:27.472 --> 33:31.266
as missing, by the way, entirely. The crux of that invention

33:31.338 --> 33:34.782
is the tuning or the positioning. And nobody's

33:34.806 --> 33:39.174
saying position until position. Why position? Because there's

33:39.222 --> 33:43.218
just nothing in there. So I guess I fall somewhere

33:43.254 --> 33:47.114
in the middle. I think there's enough structure to get

33:47.152 --> 33:50.990
you out of 101, but I don't know that there's enough content

33:51.160 --> 33:53.920
and teaching to get you over 112.

33:54.550 --> 33:57.770
Right? Yes. And the

33:57.880 --> 34:01.730
dissent actually almost uses the exact same argument. They say they

34:01.780 --> 34:05.714
totally disagree that it should be ineligible under 101. This is absolutely

34:05.812 --> 34:08.990
eligible under. But they actually

34:09.160 --> 34:12.950
left the question open. They said there are many inventive concepts that

34:13.060 --> 34:16.178
go beyond natural law, but they leave it an open question.

34:16.264 --> 34:20.370
Is there sufficient enablement

34:20.550 --> 34:24.338
to satisfy 112? I feel like this is like a common thing with

34:24.364 --> 34:28.434
the courts, though. Like they buy their partial

34:28.482 --> 34:31.898
opinions almost that they give they leave more ambiguity than they do fix. It.

34:31.924 --> 34:35.418
Like the whole Google Oracle case, we're going to kind of rule

34:35.454 --> 34:39.386
on things, but we're never going to tell you if APIs are actually

34:39.508 --> 34:42.962
copyrightable. Right. We're going to kind of leave that. And the same

34:42.976 --> 34:46.060
with this case. Okay, yeah, we're good for

34:46.690 --> 34:50.678
certain of the judges believe that it's fine for 101,

34:50.704 --> 34:54.530
but we're not going to address 112 and they kind of leave it.

34:54.700 --> 34:58.458
And I know it's because there's a whole bunch of rules

34:58.494 --> 35:01.130
and how things proceed in court proceedings and things like that,

35:01.180 --> 35:04.346
but I feel like we're always like doing

35:04.408 --> 35:07.418
90% and then we never take it the last 10%,

35:07.504 --> 35:10.070
which would, I think, clear up some of the ambiguity.

35:10.450 --> 35:14.402
Yeah. Kristen and I totally agree.

35:14.536 --> 35:18.350
And I actually wonder I don't know, I haven't read anything

35:18.400 --> 35:22.058
about this. I'm not totally sure what the Supreme Court was thinking. But I do

35:22.084 --> 35:25.454
wonder if they declined to take the case because it is a little

35:25.492 --> 35:28.934
bit complicated and

35:29.032 --> 35:32.440
not an ideal. It's a little bit messy. It's not a really clean

35:32.770 --> 35:36.002
one on one discussion. There's like a lot of different things

35:36.016 --> 35:39.410
that go into it. So yeah, maybe I'm trying to get

35:39.460 --> 35:46.042
some highlights now we've

35:46.066 --> 35:49.714
talked about these things a bunch. The majority says that claim

35:49.762 --> 35:53.758
22 confers patent coverage if the attenuation

35:53.854 --> 35:57.718
goal is achieved by one skill in the art using any method

35:57.874 --> 36:01.050
including any method implemented by computer modeling and

36:01.100 --> 36:04.554
trial and error so that the claim on a face does not identify the

36:04.592 --> 36:08.370
particular tune, liner or improved method of doing that.

36:08.480 --> 36:12.070
And it's a really interesting quote. American Axel argued

36:12.130 --> 36:15.210
that one could infringe claim 22 by

36:15.260 --> 36:18.330
whatever means will achieve the result even

36:18.380 --> 36:22.040
if you didn't try to tune it and didn't know you did it.

36:22.910 --> 36:26.538
So that kind of I think maybe worked against them in

36:26.564 --> 36:30.618
some ways because it fed into this argument that it's not a

36:30.644 --> 36:33.310
clear, concise, explicit invention,

36:33.490 --> 36:36.810
it's vague and results oriented.

36:39.690 --> 36:43.680
The majority concedes or at least argues that

36:44.010 --> 36:47.882
these established processes and improved processes are not claimed.

36:48.026 --> 36:51.898
American actor may have discovered patentable refinements such

36:51.924 --> 36:55.850
as particular uses of a sophisticated finite element analysis

36:55.910 --> 37:00.010
model during its design process but neither the specifics

37:01.050 --> 37:04.380
of any novel computer modeling or of any

37:05.550 --> 37:09.182
experimental modal analysis are included as limitations

37:09.266 --> 37:12.442
in claim 22 and also the

37:12.456 --> 37:15.862
specification only describes tuning in results in

37:15.876 --> 37:19.114
terms of the result achieved rather than a particular process by

37:19.152 --> 37:22.714
which it's accomplished. So what

37:22.752 --> 37:26.698
the majority says is what's missing is any physical structure or

37:26.724 --> 37:30.646
steps for achieving the claim result. Now, to be fair, the dissent argues against

37:30.708 --> 37:33.994
that because the defend is looking at the defendant claims and says

37:34.152 --> 37:38.198
that's not true. There are physical structures and steps

37:38.234 --> 37:41.854
for achieving the claimed result, at least

37:41.892 --> 37:45.658
an attempt to put those structures and

37:45.684 --> 37:48.922
methods in there. But I think to Ashley's and Christmas point was

37:48.936 --> 37:52.438
it enough? Wasn't enough. I think that's a tough thing to

37:52.464 --> 37:55.402
answer and I did want to hit on these too because I think this is

37:55.416 --> 37:58.570
really interesting. This isn't in a vacuum.

37:58.890 --> 38:03.962
There is case law that Supreme Court ruled

38:03.986 --> 38:07.810
on and that the AFC relied on. So there's this really important case

38:07.860 --> 38:11.830
Parker v. Fluke which was a case about

38:11.880 --> 38:16.234
calculating and updating an alarm limit and they found that

38:16.332 --> 38:20.518
patent to be patent ineligible under 101 and the reason why

38:20.664 --> 38:24.278
is because as in Fluke, the claim method did not specify

38:24.374 --> 38:28.150
how variables were measured or how the alarm system functioned.

38:28.590 --> 38:32.398
Claim 22 here does not specify how target frequencies are determined or

38:32.424 --> 38:36.274
how using that information, the liners are tuned. So this is in

38:36.312 --> 38:40.034
contrast to a deer case Duamon versus Deer

38:40.142 --> 38:43.414
which was an eligible under

38:43.452 --> 38:47.426
101 and it recited a calculation

38:47.618 --> 38:50.830
for a mold in a process to cure rubber,

38:51.450 --> 38:54.950
a mold temperature calculation in a process to cure

38:55.010 --> 38:58.874
rubber and in deer, unlike in this case, these other steps

38:58.922 --> 39:03.134
apparently added to the formula something that in terms of patent laws objectives

39:03.182 --> 39:07.090
had significance. In other words, they transform the process into

39:07.140 --> 39:10.390
an inventive application. Of the formula

39:11.430 --> 39:14.834
in here, there was enough described.

39:14.942 --> 39:18.338
They talk about, yes, it relied on this equation,

39:18.434 --> 39:21.694
but they also described how to use and

39:21.732 --> 39:25.618
implement that equation and therefore transform the

39:25.644 --> 39:28.200
process into an inventive application.

39:29.610 --> 39:32.734
So what this is saying is basically

39:32.832 --> 39:36.346
the application lacked an embodiment where those

39:36.408 --> 39:40.838
elements, those structural elements that contribute to controlling

39:40.874 --> 39:46.154
those frequencies, there wasn't some kind of enabling embodiment

39:46.202 --> 39:49.574
that disclosed how they should be adjusted.

39:49.622 --> 39:53.402
Right. How they should be fixed

39:53.426 --> 39:57.134
or changed so that they accomplished the claim

39:57.182 --> 40:00.838
dimension. Right. That's a good way to put it. Exactly. They were trying

40:00.864 --> 40:04.870
to claim a result without structural

40:05.730 --> 40:10.190
components or method steps that unambiguously

40:10.250 --> 40:13.560
clearly taught someone how to achieve that result.

40:14.730 --> 40:18.106
Then you can argue back and forth again, is that a 101 issue or is

40:18.108 --> 40:21.478
it a 112 issue? But I think we kind of all agree that there

40:21.504 --> 40:24.610
is an issue with that.

40:24.660 --> 40:28.450
You can't right. So it's

40:30.870 --> 40:34.970
a lot more we can say about that. But interestingly,

40:35.030 --> 40:39.046
I didn't know this Luke was actually also used

40:39.108 --> 40:43.642
by the Supreme Court to support Alice and

40:43.776 --> 40:47.098
they say in the Alice case that Fluke is to the same effect

40:47.244 --> 40:50.942
and that Fluke stands for the proposition that prohibiting

40:51.026 --> 40:55.058
against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting

40:55.094 --> 40:59.090
to limit the use of the idea to a particular technological environment.

40:59.210 --> 41:02.290
And it's interesting, that was a quote from Bilski.

41:02.790 --> 41:06.180
So this Bluke is all over the place and

41:08.070 --> 41:10.560
it's kind of like what Kristen was saying.

41:12.090 --> 41:16.262
It's clearly a particular technological

41:16.346 --> 41:20.330
problem that they're trying to solve. And what Fluke apparently

41:20.390 --> 41:23.160
is used for by the courts is to say that's not enough.

41:23.610 --> 41:27.554
Just saying you're going to apply a natural law to a particular technological

41:27.602 --> 41:32.390
problem without sufficiently explaining structural

41:32.450 --> 41:36.526
and or method steps that explain how to apply

41:36.648 --> 41:40.502
that natural law, just putting it in a technological environment

41:40.526 --> 41:44.158
is not enough. So I thought that was pretty interesting. That's something that is

41:44.184 --> 41:47.818
like now I think in some ways I feel

41:47.844 --> 41:51.566
like this

41:51.628 --> 41:55.278
American Axel case, people are up in arms

41:55.314 --> 41:58.490
about it for sure and a lot of people are talking about how

41:58.540 --> 42:01.742
different it is from the case law history and

42:01.756 --> 42:06.002
how they've totally just taken a left turn. And I think in

42:06.016 --> 42:09.580
their mind, in the majority's mind, luke is what helped them

42:10.510 --> 42:14.418
actually bring it all make their decision

42:14.574 --> 42:18.542
in light of the prior decisions, not completely

42:18.616 --> 42:20.080
a left turn from those.

42:21.550 --> 42:25.660
So claim one is a little bit different. Right? And we talked about that.

42:27.910 --> 42:32.020
The CAFC said that claim one could be an abstract idea,

42:32.890 --> 42:36.378
but that this abstract idea was not adequately presented

42:36.414 --> 42:39.978
and litigated in the district court. So that's why they remanded

42:40.014 --> 42:43.958
it. They didn't really put

42:43.984 --> 42:47.054
any hint about whether they thought it should be eligible or not. They just said

42:47.092 --> 42:51.650
that there's more in there that was not adequately

42:52.330 --> 42:56.322
argued and therefore it's not proper for the CISP

42:56.346 --> 42:59.634
to make a summary judgment on these facts

42:59.682 --> 43:03.654
or other these aspects because they weren't sufficiently handled

43:03.702 --> 43:06.590
at the district court level. So now it's been remanded.

43:07.210 --> 43:09.760
Okay, so the dissent, this is fun.

43:11.410 --> 43:16.060
The dissent actually says that this

43:16.570 --> 43:20.222
majority is holding that these claims are ineligible to send shockwaves through the

43:20.236 --> 43:23.774
patent community. So there are some great quotes in here. The first one is

43:23.812 --> 43:27.174
from Representative Doug Collins. It's unthinkable.

43:27.282 --> 43:31.000
The courts found this invention of manufacturing process for making a key

43:31.450 --> 43:34.970
automotive part as patent ineligible. The next one,

43:35.020 --> 43:38.882
which was a Bloomberg article, said american action is a poster child

43:39.016 --> 43:42.242
for how the current test for patent eligibility is being applied to reach rather

43:42.316 --> 43:46.480
absurd results. And that

43:47.350 --> 43:50.918
if industrial processes, physically based patents like

43:50.944 --> 43:55.218
these are ineligible under Mayo Alice, then seemingly every patent

43:55.314 --> 43:58.718
is in ineligibility jeopardy. You just go on and

43:58.744 --> 43:59.560
on, right?

44:02.810 --> 44:06.102
There are some fun quotes in there, but clearly there's a lot of

44:06.116 --> 44:09.490
controversy about this case. What does the descent say? The descent

44:09.550 --> 44:12.970
has some vigorous language

44:13.090 --> 44:16.182
and basically talks about

44:16.256 --> 44:19.858
sort of two different things. The first thing is about how natural laws

44:19.894 --> 44:23.518
in this case and step two of the Alice

44:23.554 --> 44:26.994
Mayo 101 analysis, which is there

44:27.152 --> 44:31.570
something that's significantly more than just this abstract

44:31.690 --> 44:35.278
concept or natural law. So, as the defense

44:35.314 --> 44:38.862
says, a disturbing amount of confusion will surely be caused by

44:38.876 --> 44:42.522
this opinion, which stands for the proposition that claims can be ineligible as

44:42.536 --> 44:46.870
directed to a natural law, even though no actual natural law is articulated

44:46.990 --> 44:50.358
in the claim or even the specification. So that

44:50.384 --> 44:54.450
is a really interesting statement because that apparently is pretty different from

44:54.500 --> 44:58.822
most, if not all of the previous cases in this area. Previous cases

44:58.966 --> 45:02.358
all talk about natural laws or even claimed natural laws in some

45:02.384 --> 45:06.102
way, whereas this case didn't. And that goes on

45:06.116 --> 45:09.994
to say holding these claims ineligible under a purported natural law analysis leaves patentees

45:10.042 --> 45:13.098
awash in a sea of uncertainty. How can

45:13.124 --> 45:16.434
one determine if a claim is directed to a natural law without a natural law

45:16.472 --> 45:20.730
being apparent either on the face of the claim or under a proper claim construction?

45:21.050 --> 45:25.006
He goes on to say goodness sakes. The dependent

45:25.078 --> 45:29.686
claims held ineligible by the majority specify the material

45:29.878 --> 45:33.162
the liner must be made of, the actual physical form it

45:33.176 --> 45:37.078
must take with fingers circumferentially wrapped or over molded

45:37.174 --> 45:40.842
and placed, and the place the liners must be positioned. And he

45:40.856 --> 45:44.478
says it is remarkable that the majority thinks that claims with all

45:44.504 --> 45:48.166
of these very physical, very concrete, very structural limitations

45:48.298 --> 45:52.678
are missing any physical structure or steps. A fiberglass

45:52.714 --> 45:56.770
liner with a helically shaped resilient member extending circumferentially

45:56.890 --> 46:00.342
around the liner or over molded to the structural portion of the

46:00.356 --> 46:03.942
liner certainly feels like the physical structure that the

46:03.956 --> 46:06.466
majority says is missing from the claim.

46:06.658 --> 46:10.542
And the district court and Cafe were

46:10.556 --> 46:13.978
very clear that they were not looking at depending claims. They were saying that claim

46:14.014 --> 46:17.358
one and 22 were representative. And I think what

46:17.504 --> 46:20.790
the dissent is saying here, Judge Moore is saying is that

46:20.900 --> 46:24.800
that was a mistake. So David, one of the things here that is

46:25.250 --> 46:28.686
a little bit hidden when you say structure or

46:28.748 --> 46:32.134
steps, I think the way the court uses

46:32.182 --> 46:36.054
that language really is you're missing structure or

46:36.092 --> 46:39.282
you're missing steps. So in this case it would maybe be

46:39.296 --> 46:42.690
missing steps even though there's loads of structure.

46:44.630 --> 46:46.160
I know what you mean. Yeah,

46:47.510 --> 46:50.674
right. And missing steps.

46:50.722 --> 46:54.258
Exactly. Missing steps. Maybe teaching someone how to

46:54.284 --> 46:58.242
tune and then how do you teach someone how to tune? You've got

46:58.256 --> 47:01.834
to talk about some maybe it's a finite element

47:01.882 --> 47:05.082
model. It could be a process. They could describe some kind

47:05.096 --> 47:08.310
of process they go through, or they could describe some

47:08.360 --> 47:12.178
kind of a process of changing

47:12.214 --> 47:15.260
a dimension of a structural feature or whatever. Right.

47:16.010 --> 47:19.110
I know we kind of gloss over structure steps.

47:20.270 --> 47:24.138
It could be as simple as like within diamond v. Deer, where they do something

47:24.224 --> 47:27.630
until something occurs and that is how the problem

47:27.680 --> 47:30.740
is solved. So another step

47:31.130 --> 47:34.458
maybe would have helped them. I don't think they had it in their

47:34.484 --> 47:38.202
specification, but if they could have, just adding that to

47:38.216 --> 47:40.700
the claim might have helped them. Right.

47:41.930 --> 47:45.582
I was also just wondering too if the broader claim would

47:45.596 --> 47:50.026
have been okay had they had a few examples in their spec that said here's

47:50.158 --> 47:53.058
one way to do it, here's another way to do it. And obviously they had

47:53.084 --> 47:56.322
the structure there, so they would have just kind of packaged those into a

47:56.336 --> 48:00.322
few examples of again, we deserve this broad

48:00.406 --> 48:04.242
claim because here's four different ways to

48:04.316 --> 48:08.274
achieve this breath. Right? Yes. Again, a 112

48:08.432 --> 48:15.354
issue more so probably. Right. I know if

48:15.392 --> 48:18.606
this was invalidated due to 112, I think it

48:18.608 --> 48:22.254
would have been a lot less controversial. Would that have been correct?

48:22.352 --> 48:25.686
I don't know. But I feel like that invoking 101, in this case,

48:25.748 --> 48:29.542
really, things made matters worse.

48:29.626 --> 48:33.438
It didn't have clarity, it sort of made things more confusing. So I

48:33.464 --> 48:36.954
get why there's so much controversy about it. I think

48:36.992 --> 48:40.894
that's the bigger issue in general panel right now. I think they're kind of mushing

48:40.942 --> 48:44.998
together all of the things. Right. You have these practical application inventive

48:45.034 --> 48:48.680
stuff. In 101, you have some 112 issues

48:49.190 --> 48:52.410
and one on one and 112 being conflated.

48:54.050 --> 48:57.140
I feel like you're trying to make a one size fits all

48:57.650 --> 49:01.086
test, but then saying it's only under 101, you know what I

49:01.088 --> 49:04.160
mean? But yet it encapsulates all the difference.

49:06.050 --> 49:09.534
I don't know if I put that in, but almost exactly that. The Descent actually

49:09.572 --> 49:13.640
just said that in a paragraph that there's 101,

49:14.630 --> 49:18.562
it's carrying too much here. We just talked about natural

49:18.586 --> 49:21.882
laws in step two. Again, the defense like actually was

49:21.896 --> 49:25.700
just bringing up didn't agree that

49:26.270 --> 49:29.358
with the majority and that thought the majority was conflating 101 and 112.

49:29.384 --> 49:34.922
And Judge

49:34.946 --> 49:38.362
Moore says that the majority's concern is not preemption of a

49:38.376 --> 49:42.010
natural law, which should be the focus, but rather that

49:42.120 --> 49:45.550
the claims do not teach a skilled artisan how to do an aligner without

49:45.600 --> 49:48.658
trial and error. And it's clear from

49:48.684 --> 49:52.730
the claims themselves that the functional result is to drive shaft with reduced vibrations.

49:52.790 --> 49:56.350
It is undisputed that there exist many ways to attenuate these

49:56.400 --> 50:00.420
things, including these physical structures. And that

50:01.230 --> 50:04.454
the only remaining question is what a skilled artisan

50:04.502 --> 50:08.062
know how to adjust the mass, stiffness and positioning of the

50:08.076 --> 50:12.302
liner in order to damp vibration without undo experimentation.

50:12.446 --> 50:15.554
And then they said yes, this is a question of enablement,

50:15.602 --> 50:19.282
not eligibility. And this is

50:19.296 --> 50:24.502
what actually this is, this is the code I was looking for. That the

50:24.516 --> 50:27.970
majority to concern is with these claims is not the directed hook's law, but rather

50:28.020 --> 50:31.670
that they haven't claimed precisely how to tune the liner.

50:31.790 --> 50:35.950
And that he goes on to say the majority

50:36.270 --> 50:39.758
concludes that the event of concepts makes no difference and section

50:39.794 --> 50:43.502
101 should not be this sweeping and this manipulatable,

50:43.586 --> 50:46.874
should not be used to invalidate claims under standards identical

50:46.982 --> 50:51.074
to those clearly articulated in other statutory sections,

50:51.182 --> 50:54.422
should not subsume 112, should not convert traditional

50:54.506 --> 50:57.922
questions of fact like undo experimentation into legal ones.

50:58.056 --> 51:01.658
And the majority of validity Gulash is troubling and inconsistent

51:01.694 --> 51:04.238
with the patent statute and precedent.

51:04.394 --> 51:08.210
And the majority worries about result oriented

51:08.270 --> 51:11.974
claiming they are worried about result

51:12.072 --> 51:15.262
oriented judicial action, the last

51:15.336 --> 51:17.650
sentence in their dissent.

51:19.230 --> 51:23.014
So I think there's an open question if

51:23.052 --> 51:27.600
Judge Moore is correct, then would these claims be invalid under 112?

51:28.830 --> 51:32.242
I think there's a reasonable question there, but I

51:32.316 --> 51:36.430
definitely wanted to get to this because the majority actually responded to that since

51:36.480 --> 51:41.294
there was a modified opinion. This quote

51:41.342 --> 51:44.858
I just put up with from the 2019 and original opinion

51:44.894 --> 51:48.422
in 2020. The court says three the dissent criticizes

51:48.446 --> 51:51.842
our analysis as improperly merging enablement and eligibility.

51:51.986 --> 51:55.774
But we think the criticism rests on a failure to distinguish two different

51:55.872 --> 51:59.198
how requirements in patent law. The first requirement

51:59.234 --> 52:03.094
out of eligibility is of the claim itself, whether by

52:03.132 --> 52:07.382
its own words or by statutory incorporation of specification

52:07.466 --> 52:10.834
details under 112 F. 112 F is means

52:10.872 --> 52:14.246
plus function, right? So it is the claim.

52:14.438 --> 52:17.974
But when you have needs plus function claim, the claim has

52:18.012 --> 52:22.090
to be evaluated in reference to the specification.

52:23.430 --> 52:25.920
That gets really confusing really fast.

52:26.310 --> 52:29.962
And then they say it must identify how the functional result is

52:29.976 --> 52:33.970
achieved by limiting the claim scope to structures, et cetera.

52:34.290 --> 52:39.774
But the second distinct how requirement

52:39.822 --> 52:43.298
applies to the specification, not the claim. Where then the

52:43.444 --> 52:47.142
specification needs to teach someone how to make and use the claim structures.

52:47.286 --> 52:51.306
So their point was that this first how possibly

52:51.438 --> 52:54.830
under this means plus function umbrella,

52:55.450 --> 52:59.320
that there has to be enough.

53:00.250 --> 53:03.878
You can't just claim a result, there has to be enough in the

53:03.904 --> 53:07.946
claim itself to claim something that

53:08.008 --> 53:11.574
is concrete or else it's

53:11.622 --> 53:15.218
abstract or it's a natural law and therefore it is

53:15.244 --> 53:19.206
ineligible under 101. I think this is the sort of the best explanation

53:19.278 --> 53:23.202
I've seen that they've given for why they chose

53:23.286 --> 53:27.546
101 and not 112 for their analysis.

53:27.678 --> 53:31.742
So who has some sort of parting thoughts? I guess I

53:31.756 --> 53:35.282
just have one simple thing in my thought process.

53:35.416 --> 53:39.290
I never think about how when I look at 101

53:39.340 --> 53:42.618
eligibility, ever. This to me screams

53:42.654 --> 53:45.520
112 when you start asking how,

53:45.850 --> 53:48.880
but just an opinion. Go ahead, Ty.

53:49.930 --> 53:53.322
Interesting. I was just going to ask you David, what are your thoughts

53:53.346 --> 53:56.414
were in kind of like boiling this down? Do you feel

53:56.452 --> 54:00.270
that this is American Axel's failure

54:00.330 --> 54:04.300
to recognize the actual invention? Because to me it almost sounds like

54:04.750 --> 54:08.282
the actual invention they feel is just a tool on the

54:08.296 --> 54:12.062
way to the invention and maybe that's why they under disclose the

54:12.076 --> 54:15.160
specification. Interesting question.

54:15.730 --> 54:19.022
Did they not realize that the invention was

54:19.036 --> 54:22.758
the tuning or was it a business decision, for instance,

54:22.854 --> 54:26.502
to not provide a lot of details on the finite element modeling,

54:26.526 --> 54:28.854
et cetera, because they were trying to keep that trade secret?

54:28.962 --> 54:32.738
Yeah, it could have been in this like

54:32.764 --> 54:35.718
first to file world. I don't know. I guess when this is filed, maybe it's

54:35.754 --> 54:39.002
pre that, I don't know. But you always end up with a chicken or the

54:39.016 --> 54:42.482
egg problem, right? You have inventors who

54:42.676 --> 54:46.118
start to play around with something, right, and then you're like,

54:46.144 --> 54:49.398
oh wow, this is going to be huge, we got to get this on file.

54:49.554 --> 54:52.646
And then the one year date comes along and they're like,

54:52.708 --> 54:56.200
yeah, this is still totally going to work,

54:57.070 --> 55:00.254
we got this. But you know exactly how it's going to work.

55:00.292 --> 55:04.060
We're not sure quite yet, but hey,

55:04.870 --> 55:08.774
let's go ahead and file this broader patent because that's like,

55:08.812 --> 55:12.506
it's solid, we know it's going to be a thing and then we'll do another

55:12.568 --> 55:15.398
application later that's more species specific, right?

55:15.424 --> 55:18.938
That we're going to talk about this finite element analysis way

55:18.964 --> 55:22.730
of doing it and then we're going to talk about this other helical

55:23.170 --> 55:27.002
material properties way of doing it and whatever you

55:27.016 --> 55:30.122
have to wonder if I think that the first to

55:30.136 --> 55:33.700
file thing and provisional stuff are fantastic. But there is a little bit of this

55:34.030 --> 55:37.710
game that you have to play of when do we disclose.

55:37.770 --> 55:41.258
When do we convert? Is the one year the

55:41.284 --> 55:44.618
appropriate time to convert? Is there a way, should we refile the

55:44.644 --> 55:48.434
provisional and restart the clock? And I also wonder if there wasn't some

55:48.592 --> 55:49.780
of that happening.

55:51.670 --> 55:55.454
Interesting thought. Definitely there was one

55:55.492 --> 55:59.582
other argument that American Axle used which I

55:59.656 --> 56:03.858
didn't have time to get to, but in their prior

56:03.894 --> 56:07.386
art search and in their knowledge tuning,

56:07.518 --> 56:11.382
or rather attenuating bending mode vibrations

56:11.406 --> 56:14.402
in a drive shaft was never done before,

56:14.596 --> 56:18.686
ever using any liner of any kind. And so

56:18.808 --> 56:22.526
I actually wonder, like you were saying, Ty, they may not

56:22.588 --> 56:25.758
have thought that the invention so heavily relied

56:25.794 --> 56:29.270
on this tuning. I think they may have thought that, well,

56:29.380 --> 56:32.502
let's talk about what we did in these independent

56:32.526 --> 56:35.858
claims in a really broad way. Shoot for the moon. And then in our

56:35.884 --> 56:39.438
dependent claims, we're going to have all the detailed structural

56:39.474 --> 56:43.038
features that we use to achieve this result. And they may have been pleasantly

56:43.074 --> 56:47.440
surprised that claims 222 were allowed by the patent office.

56:48.430 --> 56:51.880
And I think that now they're just beside themselves.

56:52.270 --> 56:56.502
That like, wait, we have this structural,

56:56.646 --> 57:00.470
unique invention that no one ever did before. It's clearly a thing.

57:00.580 --> 57:03.914
It's not hook's law. And the

57:03.952 --> 57:07.538
way that the claims were drafted and the way that they chose one

57:07.564 --> 57:11.150
and 22 to be representative, and now the way that it's

57:12.430 --> 57:16.758
so broad with the tuning

57:16.794 --> 57:21.134
language and functional language, yes, it might have just been

57:21.172 --> 57:24.422
surprising. This whole thing might be surprising to them.

57:24.556 --> 57:27.878
In hindsight, maybe it makes sense, but not something that

57:27.904 --> 57:31.230
they thought about upfront. They thought they had this in the bag.

57:31.290 --> 57:34.826
They thought they had this great solid mechanical invention that no

57:34.828 --> 57:35.800
one ever did.

57:39.590 --> 57:45.166
They might have, but nobody knew the

57:45.168 --> 57:48.814
bathwater. Yeah. Well, one thing

57:48.852 --> 57:51.826
we hadn't considered here, and we'll never know, is,

57:51.948 --> 57:56.362
was this a case where you had one practitioner writing the claims and another,

57:56.556 --> 57:59.986
maybe more junior writing the specification and

58:00.108 --> 58:03.360
not having some of those tuning details? Just said,

58:03.810 --> 58:07.330
we just tuned it. These are the components used to tune it.

58:07.500 --> 58:11.162
This is some detail that I have and then filed

58:11.186 --> 58:15.194
it. I don't know. Yeah, they made the specs

58:15.242 --> 58:17.830
abstract and broad as well as the claims.

58:22.510 --> 58:25.646
Yeah. It would be interesting to

58:25.648 --> 58:28.466
be a fly on the wall for the history of this one.

58:28.528 --> 58:31.994
Right. How do we get to where we are?

58:32.152 --> 58:35.378
I feel like that's because American Axle, you don't normally know what it means.

58:35.464 --> 58:39.386
Right. It has a subscure name, but it sounds almost kind of dark. So I

58:39.388 --> 58:42.962
feel like you can do a documentary. American Axel History in the

58:42.976 --> 58:46.370
Making the controversial world

58:46.420 --> 58:48.170
of drive liners.

58:50.350 --> 58:53.450
Actually, get Josh on that interviewing.

58:55.570 --> 58:59.054
You do the investigative history, you find all the practitioners and the

58:59.092 --> 59:02.462
engineers and the business people at

59:02.476 --> 59:06.102
the company at the time. Why did you make the decisions

59:06.126 --> 59:09.806
you made? Right. People would probably actually

59:09.868 --> 59:13.238
watch it, given how much at least I would probably if I

59:13.264 --> 59:14.750
saw that on Netflix.

59:17.930 --> 59:21.646
Nice. Well, thanks everybody. It was a great discussion. Thanks for all your input.

59:21.838 --> 59:25.030
Thank you, David. Yeah,

59:25.080 --> 59:27.682
absolutely. Discussion. Bye. Thank you,

59:27.696 --> 59:31.246
guys. Bye. All right, that's all for today,

59:31.308 --> 59:34.894
folks. Thanks for listening. And remember to check us out@aurorapatins.com

59:34.932 --> 59:38.414
for more great podcasts, blogs, and videos covering all things patent

59:38.462 --> 59:41.446
strategy. And if you're an agent or attorney and would like to be part of

59:41.448 --> 59:45.274
the discussion, or an inventor with a topic you'd like to hear discussed, email us

59:45.312 --> 59:48.658
at podcast@aurorapatins.com do remember that this

59:48.684 --> 59:52.198
podcast does not constitute legal. You advice. And until next time, keep calm and

59:52.224 --> 59:52.720
patent on.

People on this episode