The oral argument of DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE v. ONO PHARMACEUTICAL, 964 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) is probably an instructive case for those arguing cases before the Federal Circuit. When a judge — even a highly experienced judge — asserts how the mechanics of patent prosecution work, they just might be flat out wrong. That was the situation in the Dana-Farber oral argument, where Judge Lourie suggested that the inventors listed for a divisonal application must be the same as the inventors listed in the parent of that divisional application. Listen: