The oral argument of the day is from GALDERMA LABS., LP v. AMNEAL PHARMS. LLC, No. 2019-1021 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2020). I thought this argument was interesting for its discussion of prosecution disclaimer.
I thought it was particularly interesting for the discussion of American Piledriving Equipment v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For some reason, I seem to have heard American Piledriving mentioned in multiple oral arguments recently. That’s always interesting when multiple panels start talking about an old case — it tends to pique one’s interest.
A third point of interest was Judge Stoll’s questioning about how does a patent owner make clear to the public via the IPR file history a retraction of a limiting position that the patent owner took during the IPR, when the PTAB rules in favor of the patent owner without adopting the limiting position that the patent owner asserted for purposes of claim construction. The PTAB has the authority to refuse to enter a paper, unlike ex parte prosecution.
On a totally unrelated note, my great-grandfather had a patent on a pile driver. It’s fun to look back at old patents for the artistry of the drawings and the approach to the written description and claims: [Link].
You can listen to the oral argument of GALDERMA LABS., LP v. AMNEAL PHARMS. LLC here:
You can read the court’s decision here: [Link].
You can listen to the oral argument of American Piledriving — from 2010 (Judges Linn, Gajarsa, and Bryson) — here:
You can read the court’s decision in American Piledriving here: [Link].