(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on whether it should hear a case that could create the most significant precedent in years on the contentious issue of patent eligibility.

American Axle & Manufacturing Inc, represented by a team of Steptoe & Johnson lawyers led by James Nuttall, asked the high court in December to take its appeal of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidating its patent to reduce driveshaft noise.

The Supreme Court denied review in another case about the same issue, Athena Diagnostics Inc v. Mayo Collaborative Services Inc last year, despite the Solicitor General's recommendation to take up the case or one like it.

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.

In 2019, a 2-1 Federal Circuit panel found that parts of an American Axle patent related to reducing noise from driveshafts was invalid, after Neapco challenged their validity in a patent infringement case.

Inventions covering abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature can't be patented under Section 101 of the Patent Act, and the majority said American Axle's invention was directed to a simple application of Hooke's law, a physics principle.

The case left the Federal Circuit "bitterly divided" - in one of its judges' own words - and included a six-to-six decision to deny full court review with five separate opinions.

The Supreme Court last addressed patent eligibility in 2014 in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a landmark decision that helped establish a two-part test to determine if a patent covers an abstract idea. Critics say that case and its descendants have led to unpredictable eligibility decisions and the cancellation of valid patents.

Neapco, represented by a team led by J. Michael Huget of Honigman, has said in a brief that the "chaos" over patentability alleged in American Axle's petition is "not the reality," and noted the Federal Circuit has affirmed Section 101 decisions at a 91% rate since the decision in Alice.

In a 2019 amicus brief in another patent case, the Solicitor General said the high court should "provide additional guidance in a case where the current confusion has a material effect on the outcome of the Section 101 analysis," like Athena. In Athena, the Federal Circuit decision to deny a full-court rehearing also included "multiple separate opinions articulating different understandings" of the issue, the brief noted.

The case is American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 20-891.

For American Axle: James Nuttall, John Abramic, Katherine Johnson, Robert Kappers, and Christopher Suarez of Steptoe & Johnson

For Neapco: J. Michael Huget, Sarah Waidelich and Dennis Abdelnour of Honigman and Thomas Goldstein, Eric Citron, and Charles Davis of Goldstein & Russell