Supreme Court's inaction in obscure drive shaft case leading to problems for technology firms

• Google and Cisco Systems aren't too happy about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week in a lawsuit over vehicle drive shafts of a certain very specific size.
• The justices on Tuesday refused to hear a hotly contested patent case involving drive shafts of "substantially uniform wall thickness" that pitted American Axle and Manufacturing against Dana Corp.
• While the two Silicon Valley firms may have little interest in the mechanics of drive shaft manufacturing, they share a keen interest in the mechanics of patent laws.
• In a legal brief urging the justices to take up the case, the companies say they hold more than 1,400 patents and want to promote a patent system with a reasonable "balance" among inventors, users and follow-on improvers.
• The two firms are worried about what they view as a disturbing trend in which appeals courts second-guess trial judges regarding whether a patent is valid.
• In that process, ending in what's called a "Markman" hearing (named after a 1996 Supreme Court case), both sides present detailed evidence to a trial judge about the scope of the patent and its history.
• Nowadays, the companies argue, the Federal Circuit reverses trial judges more than one-third of the time--resulting in less incentive for companies to settle suits early, aggressive defenses of clear cases of infringement and pursuit of questionable cases.
• Permitting this trend to continue, they say in a brief written by Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, creates legal uncertainty and "prolonged and wasteful litigation rather than innovation."
• In the current case, Dana sued American Axle, alleging that its drive shafts had a thickened end tube, in violation of Dana's patents.
• Open source panelists tout business models, pan patents (InfoWorld) from Yahoo!