Biden Administration Should Recommend Clarifying Patent Eligibility Law in American Axle

“If the Biden administration is torn between opposed camps on these questions, let Occam’s Razor tip the balance: it would be better to clarify the rules for patent eligibility than leave them muddled.”

https://depositphotos.com/159215852/stock-photo-time-to-respond-clock.htmlNine months in, and we are still awaiting the Biden administration’s decision as to whether the law of patent eligibility should be clarified. This area of patent law has in recent years become increasingly unpredictable, and the consequences of that unpredictability have largely fallen on startups, whose primary assets are often inventions.

On May 3, 2021, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to recommend whether certiorari should be granted in American Axle v. Neapco Holdings, LLC—a case in which a method for manufacturing vehicle driveshafts was deemed ineligible under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a law of nature.

The Solicitor General typically responds to Supreme Court requests fairly quickly—most often, within four or five months. Looking back at the last 30 requests dating back to 2019, all had been answered within eight months. Now, it is all except for one.

Given the delayed response, one can only assume there are divided camps within the Biden administration—one supporting clarification of patent eligibility law and one opposed—and an executive team that has struggled to weigh the factors and form a decision.

Remarkably, the central question facing policymakers is not whether the law of patent eligibility is unclear—to the contrary, there is broad consensus on that point. Federal Circuit Judge Moore persuasively captured that consensus in her concurring opinion denying stay pending the Supreme Court’s review in American Axle:

As the nation’s lone patent court, we are at a loss as to how to uniformly apply § 101. All twelve active judges of this court urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Athena to provide us with guidance regarding whether diagnostic claims are eligible for patent protection. There is very little about which all twelve of us are unanimous, especially when it comes to § 101. We were unanimous in our unprecedented plea for guidance. Am. Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 977 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Instead, policymakers seem to be grappling with questions that are much more fundamental. Should the law of patent eligibility be clear? What would be the consequences if the law were made more predictable?

If the Biden administration is torn between opposed camps on these questions, let Occam’s Razor tip the balance: it would be better to clarify the rules for patent eligibility than leave them muddled.

Startups Benefit from Patents and Predictable Rules

Startups are the pawns of the patent policy wars. Large businesses calculate that they can get more mileage by projecting their interests on sympathetic small businesses.

Lobbyists for the tech giants warn of the dangers patent trolls pose to startups. Lobbyists for large R&D firms warn of the dangers the tech giants pose to startups, and how patents allow startups to hold their ground against consolidated market power.

The startups themselves lack lobbyists. To provide a sense of the power disparity: Apple’s revenue alone in 2020 more than doubled the total venture capital dollars invested in all U.S. startups over the same period.

Most startups are working around the clock to build a minimum viable product, develop a market for their technology, and secure financing to survive the next 18 months. In short, they have better things to do than track the patent policy debates.

But their fortunes are tethered to the outcome of those debates. As startup lawyers, patent prosecutors, and litigators who have defended patent troll cases, we are more familiar than most with how startups process patent risks and opportunities.

Of the hundreds of startups with whom we have spoken, every single one is concerned about protecting their technology against large companies and would-be copyists. Patents are part of the solution to that problem.

Just as important to startups is the signaling patents provide. A startup without patent applications—or with patent applications under an eligibility cloud—can struggle to explain to investors how it will maintain a competitive advantage. And without a good answer to that question, companies fold for lack of funding.

Entire sectors of startups are struggling to secure patents. Most notably, medical diagnostics have tremendous potential to improve health outcomes, but the current state of patent eligibility law provides startups in this field with no reliable way to protect their investments against larger copyists. Startups working on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and blockchain technologies face similar obstacles.

Some startups have talented lawyers who carefully translate innovations into language that examiners and courts will regard as patent-eligible, and many startups benefit or suffer from luck-of-the-draw in the examiner sweepstakes. But all would be better off if the lines were clear so that founders could accurately assess whether and how much capital to budget for patent development.

Clarifying Patent Eligibility Would Not Increase Risk to Startups

For an early-stage startup, the threat of patent troll litigation is a paper tiger. Patent trolls follow the money—they sue Apple, not pre-revenue companies.

We are sometimes asked by early-stage founders how to conceptualize the risk of troll litigation. Our answer is that trolls are unlikely to target you, and if they do, you will likely have made a lot of money and have the option to escape the lawsuit for a modest sum. In other words, the scenario in which you are targeted by a troll is a probably good outcome, all things considered.

This perspective is supported by the data. Of the 3,400 patent cases categorized by Unified Patents as being brought by patent assertion entities since the beginning of 2020, only about 380 (11%) were filed against parties considered by Unified Patents to be “small and medium size enterprises.” Of that 11%, we expect that almost all were filed against entities with significant revenues.

To put these numbers in perspective, approximately 5.4 million new business applications were filed in 2021. Even if we focus only on a narrow subset—the 40,000+ technology startups registered with Crunchbase—the odds that any given startup will be targeted by a troll lawsuit before the company can comfortably defend are miniscule.

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that clarifying the law of patent eligibility will increase this risk. Patent trolls will still follow the money; they will still target the Apples and Googles of the world instead of the guys and gals in the garage.

Of course, if we want to make patent policy more friendly to startups, there are steps that can be taken. A bona fide proposal to help startups avoid troll litigation might, for example, include eliminating inter partes review (IPR) filing fees for companies that are accused of patent infringement and have fewer than 100 employees. Giving startups the option to credibly threaten a free IPR would make approaching early-stage startups even more unprofitable for patent trolls.

By contrast, the proposition apparently being considered by the Biden administration—continuing a regime of uncertain patent eligibility law—almost certainly hurts startups more than it helps.

The Bottom Line

Startups depend on patents to secure capital, strike equitable deals with strategic partners, and protect their investments against copyists. Policymakers should be lauded for considering the interests of startups and small businesses in patent policy decisions, but there should be no confusion about where the balance of those interests lie.

To startups and small businesses, the threat of copying by a large company with vast market power is a high-frequency risk with potentially company-destroying consequences. The threat of a patent troll lawsuit is a low-frequency risk that generally ends with a nuisance value settlement. In short, if we want to promote innovation, we should clarify the law of patent eligibility and ensure that our patent system is predictable and accessible to startups in all fields of endeavor.

The Biden administration should stand up for innovation and urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in American Axle.

 

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: iqoncept
Image ID: 159215852 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Join the Discussion

11 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    February 22, 2022 09:27 am

    Would the Supreme Court ever step in and “remind” the Executive Branch that the Court has asked for something on this case?

  • [Avatar for Patent Guy]
    Patent Guy
    February 18, 2022 06:57 pm

    Joe Biden himself can’t even string two sentences together without confusion, let alone remember what a patent is. Maybe someone that one of his people appointed can do something.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    February 17, 2022 11:50 pm

    What Model 101 said.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    Curious
    February 17, 2022 09:32 pm

    Not sure if this would be a great case to clarify patent eligibility with. The claims are a bit messy and hard to understand.

    but beggars cannot be choosy …

  • [Avatar for MaxDrei]
    MaxDrei
    February 17, 2022 12:51 pm

    What a nice surprise (for somebody in Europe who started in patents in the 1970’s) to see a post here from a name (Nancy Linck) from long ago that I recognise and value and, in consequence, her NJLinckConsulting website. I hope that Nancy is right, that the Administration wants input from Director Vidal.

  • [Avatar for Model 101]
    Model 101
    February 17, 2022 11:45 am

    The bow ties should go back into the closet.

    Crooks…all of them.

    More crooked than the back leg of a dog.

    The exceptions to 101 change the meaning of the law.

    Eligibility is not in 282.

    The constitution has been used to wipe…and thrown in the toilet.

    All the big chiefs are lawyers…they know this and it continues ad nauseam.

    The solutions are simple…and have been ignored for over a decade.

    C’mon…. what do you think… inventors are stupid?

    Patents just tell the big tech morons how to do it.

  • [Avatar for Nancy J Linck]
    Nancy J Linck
    February 17, 2022 11:39 am

    Perhaps the administration is waiting for Director Vidal to be on board. That would make sense to me.

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 17, 2022 08:35 am

    @ MaxDrei “Given the doctrine of Binding Precedent, the inability of the Justices to grasp the nuances of eligibility, and the egregious Law of Horrible Unforeseen Consequences, might it not be better for everybody if SCOTUS declines to “clarify”, using the vehicle of the American Axle case.”

    You make an excellent point, and I know a law professor in the DC area that would likely agree with you.

    However, the majority of CAFC judges are now busy swinging the Alice-Mayo wrecking ball with frightening results – swallowing up the entirety of patent law with lunacy. What to do?

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    February 17, 2022 08:21 am

    Most respectfully, the Biden administration championed Judge Leonard Stark for a seat on the CAFC – Stark being the judge who penned the American Axle decision at the district court level.

    Imagine a judge so clueless he holds patent claims ineligible b/c said claims involve (not preempt but remotely involve) a law of nature. Now imagine an administration so clueless that it promotes said judge to the CAFC.

    My point – you make some really great points above. I was genuinely impressed by your information-laden discussion about startups. I look forward to more articles from you. Abby Rives of Engine (https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/583564-patent-trolls-kill-startups-but-the-biden-administration-has-the) and the patent-hating crew at the EFF need to read, and comment upon, your article. I’d like to see comments from Charles Duan of R-Street (who is a pretty decent guy subject to rational discussions on the merits) comment as well.

    However, don’t expect much from this administration unless it directly benefits Fortune 100 tech companies.

  • [Avatar for MaxDrei]
    MaxDrei
    February 17, 2022 06:25 am

    For this observer, looking in from Europe, what comes to mind is the old aphorism about being careful what one wishes for.

    Given the doctrine of Binding Precedent, the inability of the Justices to grasp the nuances of eligibility, and the egregious Law of Horrible Unforeseen Consequences, might it not be better for everybody if SCOTUS declines to “clarify”, using the vehicle of the American Axle case, eligibility in the predictable engineering arts. Might it not be more helpful for engineering innovation for SCOTUS to hold back until the Federal Circuit has made a few more attempts to draw the line with more logically satisfying reasoning?

    As to interference by the legislative branch in the up-to-now abundantly “clear” text of 35 USC 101, this too will surely NOT bring the greatly-to-be-wished-for “clarification”. Or will it?

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    February 16, 2022 06:36 pm

    An adage that fits:

    Follow the money.

    What types of industry has “Biden’s ears” (if not his puppet strings)? WHO stands to benefit in what ways from whatever direction may be forthcoming (including the current ‘non-decision’ direction)?

    Hint: it is not the disruptive innovator.