Summary: As the new year begins (and people return from holiday) outlines of Federal Circuit cases are published (3 of them yesterday) and Paul Michel rears his head again (he still meddles by public criticism, wielding influence to impact the court's direction in absentia)
THE Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) improved a lot last year. We are very pleased with its work under the new lead (after Rader left in disgrace). Last year it consistently rejected software patents. It's pretty incredible because only a few years prior to that the opposite was true (under Rader and before Alice).
A very detailed breakdown by Ropes & Gray LLP's Scott A. McKeown has just been published. He calls it "2017 CAFC Guidance"; it's fairly objective and reasonably OK. But watch this advice (how to trick examiners);
Patent prosecutors navigate complex USPTO rules and seemingly esoteric examinational requirements to procure patent rights. In doing so, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) does not have the full force and effect of law. Nevertheless, patent examiners (rarely trained lawyers) adhere to their interpretation of the Manual requirements. To budge examiners off of entrenched, legal positions, savvy prosecutors will keep a trained eye on the Federal Circuit for help.
As with any news platform focused on the patent world, we keep a close eye on the major court cases in the US, particularly those that have a direct impact on IP value creation. Key decisions from district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Supreme Court, ripple throughout the IP world and so it’s important to know the cases that are coming which are likely to have repercussions for our readers. With all that in mind, we asked former CAFC Chief Judge Paul Michel to cast his eye over the Federal Circuit’s docket to identify what he believes we’re likely to be talking (and writing) about in 2018. Here are his top five.