{"id":11922,"date":"2022-05-29T21:01:11","date_gmt":"2022-05-30T03:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11922"},"modified":"2022-05-31T17:03:35","modified_gmt":"2022-05-31T23:03:35","slug":"broken-axle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11922","title":{"rendered":"Broken Axle"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Bill Vobach<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US Solicitor General’s office has filed its brief<\/a> in American Axle v. Neapco<\/em>. The SG recommends that the Supreme Court grant certiorari in the case and asserts that the Federal Circuit was wrong in this decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can listen to the oral argument at the Federal Circuit here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can review the Federal Circuit’s original opinion here: [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can review the Federal Circuit’s modified opinion here: [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can review then-district-court-judge Stark’s opinion here: [Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Update 5\/30\/22:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some interesting quotes from Judge Moore’s dissents in the original opinion and the updated opinion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority’s validity goulash is troubling and inconsistent with the patent statute and precedent. The majority worries about result-oriented claiming; I am worried about result-oriented judicial action. I dissent.<\/p>AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. NeapCo Holdings<\/em>, 939 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(Judge Moore in dissent at 1375).<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The majority concludes, though no party argued it at any point in this litigation or appeal, that the claim terms “positioning” and “inserting” have different meanings. And only because of its newly proffered, completely sua sponte<\/em> construction, claim 22 is deemed ineligible. There is simply no justification for the majority’s application of its new Nothing More<\/em> test other than result-oriented judicial activism. This is fundamentally unfair. I dissent from this unprecedented expansion of \u00a7 101.<\/p>AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. Neapco Holdings<\/em>, 967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(Judge Moore in dissent at 1305).<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Update 5\/31\/22:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n