The oral argument of the month is from Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2012-1387 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2013)(Rule 36 Judgment): [Listen].
I thought that this oral argument was interesting because it touched on several issues that are of interest to practitioners. For example, each side seemed to argue that the use of the phrase “the present invention” helped their case. The term “the present invention” appeared in the specification and in arguments in the prosecution history. While the term “the present invention” was used in the specification, the specification was also asserted to disclose multiple embodiments. Strong statements in the prosecution history were asserted to effect a clear and unmistakable disavowal — yet, the appellant cited authority for why those statements did not necessarily apply to the claims in dispute.
After listening to the oral argument, you might find yourself wondering if a written opinion rather than a Rule 36 Judgment would have been helpful to understand the court’s thought process.