[00:00:04] Speaker 05:
We have five cases this morning, three patent cases, two from the PTAB, one from a district court, a case from the claims court, and the veterans case, which will be submitted in the briefs and not be argued.

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
We will hear the first three cases, and then the panel will briefly adjourn and return

[00:00:34] Speaker 05:
after a slight recess.

[00:00:38] Speaker 05:
Our first case is LG Electronics v. Core Wireless, 2017-2028 and 2029, Mr. Moss.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
The board in this case applied a construction of displays a limited list, and that limitation

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
that reads the term and the notion of display out of the claim entirely.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
That fundamental error dictated its approach to the evidence and the outcome of the case.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
And accordingly, our view is the court should vacate and remand for the board to consider it under the proper construction, which would include the display limitation.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
According to the board, any functionality or data can be part of a limited list, as long as it's within the window, regardless of whether or not it's displayed on the screen of the device that's there.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
The claims themselves, however, make clear that the limited list must be displayed.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
So the way it is is that the application summary window must be configured to display, to be displayed on the screen, and that application summary window displays the limited list.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
The specification is consistent with that.

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
It says that once the application... Can you help clarify this?

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
I thought at least in

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
one form of relatively common parlance.

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
We would talk about a window, not all of whose contents is visible at exactly the same time, in particular.

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
Scrolling doesn't change the window, but it's still, all the material is still within the window.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
Isn't, like I said, I took what the board could be doing here is saying that's kind of what's

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
going on here.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
There may be something in the same window, but not, and that is displayed, but is not displayed at the same time as everything else in the window.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
Well, they're going to dispute about what constitutes a window, and their expert testimony get back and forth.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
And that may be a way of thinking about it.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
But at least in terms of the claim itself, it's talking about display, not potentially displayed or partially displayed.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
It says the application summary window will display

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
a limited list.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
So the limited list is inherently tied to what is displayed on the screen.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
And that's consistent with the entire purpose of the invention itself.

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
It seems to me you could use the language, but the claims use the language of window.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
And so everything that's in the window is displayed, but at different times.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
And I thought what the board was saying was, if you look at the sum total of what's in the window, including stuff you might have to scroll down to see,

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
while then eliminating from the screen stuff that's higher in the window, but no longer displayed.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
Everything does get displayed, but that there's still something, and if you think of it that way, then you fail to prove that in the prior art, something is missing, right?

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
There's something, some function or data that's missing, so that the full window, including the parts you have to get to by scrolling,

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
proved to have been limited in the framework.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
And that may be what the Board was thinking, but that's inconsistent with the way that the patent lays out what the claim does.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
That is, the notion of potentially displayed or partially displayed is nowhere in there.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
It is that it is displayed.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
For instance, in column three of the O2O patent, it says that once the application summary window is launched, the core data or functionality is displayed and not

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
partially displayed or accessed.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
And as I was saying, the entire purpose of this post-invention was that you wouldn't have to go down through layers and layers and layers.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
You would have an immediate list that would pop up that you could then access certain functionality of the phone without having to dig deeper.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
That was the problem that the specification identified in the prior art, that you'd have to go hunting and pecking through a variety of different windows and layers.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
And so the idea that it's not displayed immediately is inconsistent with that entire thing.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
The specification teaches that it has to be displayed and that the limited list is confined to what is displayed on the screen itself.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
But everything in the specification says that it is tied to the summary window, right?

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
And so why doesn't that, consistent with what we said in the poor wireless decision from the district court that was appealed from the district court, why doesn't that refute the very point that you're making?

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
Well, I'll grant you that the better reading is that the summary window should be tied to the screen itself.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
Claim 16 of the 020 patent is even clearer to that to say that the summary window is on the display screen or displayed on the screen itself.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
But that aside, regardless of how you think of the window and how far it extends and whether or not it has multiple layers to it,

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
The claim language is still that the application summary window is displaying the limited list.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
That is, the limited list is tied to what is on the screen itself and displayed.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
So, and with respect to the prior decision, there was no construction issue in that case.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
No one was disputing or had an issue with the construction of the claim itself.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
That one was purely a sufficiency of the evidence issue.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
But this, what we have here is you have the specification and claim language that clearly is tying the limited list and the core functionality

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
to being displayed, and that is immediately accessible.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
The figures one through three of the O2O patent are what the patent says are the limited lists, and all of them are appearing on a single screen.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
All the functionality and data are right there and accessible, and that's entirely consistent with what the patent was trying to do.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
That is to put everything immediately on the screen for the user to access out of the gate.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
And you think that that reading is sufficiently strong that it governs even under a BRI standard?

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
Yes, cases like Dell and the rest, where you can't just eliminate a limitation out of the claim itself.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
I mean, the board's analysis doesn't account for the display aspect of the limited list in and of itself.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
And it's clear that Blanchard, in fact, doesn't provide all the functionality or data on the screen.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
There is, as you can see through if you scroll down, there is additional functionality or data down further below that's not displayed.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
it matters to the ultimate outcome of the board's determination and how it viewed this entire issue, including the evidence that went to us.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
Unless there are any further questions over here.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
Can I say, you filed a letter fairly recently saying, invoking SAS Institute, I'm told is the way to pronounce it, SAS Institute, and asking for remand on the narrow

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
ground?

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
Have I pronounced that correctly?

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
I believe so.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
But it was a kind of conditional request, because there was a to the extent that and then a parenthesis saying and to the extent that.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
Can you just clarify what you're asking?

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
This entire thing arises in a unique situation in that LG asked for the board to institute on both Schnarl and on Blanchard, instituted only on Blanchard.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
But for Apple, it instituted on Schnorrl.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
Well, Schnorrl in combination.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
Fair enough.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
Well, that might be actually a rather significant point, since in the other case, the board said, we need Aberg and we reject the argument on Schnorrl alone, if I'm remembering correctly.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
But it's still instituted, at least in part, on the same grounds that we asked for.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
And so in terms of the issues are currently decided by the board, at least in some contexts and before the court.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
Why isn't your request untimely?

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
SAS was decided a long time ago.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
I mean, at the time, we said that people who then came in and immediately raised the SAS issue were justified in asking for that.

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
But with all this passage of time, how can we wait till a couple days before argument to raise an SAS issue?

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
Again, in the context of the cases were already before the court, the board had already at least made a determination with that.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
It seemed a better course to allow the court to pass upon the issues that are currently before it.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
We just wanted to make sure that we raised the issue and made clear our position that if there are other proceedings, and my understanding is the board on its own raises this issue and will address the issue if there is a remand.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
And do I understand the time incorrectly?

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
Your reply brief was, I think, April 14 and April 24 was assented to the Supreme Court.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
So you haven't had any subsequent, any intervening filings to make.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:09:37] Speaker 05:
We'll save the rest of your time for a bottle if you need it.

[00:09:39] Speaker 05:
Mr. Wang.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, the PTAB's determination that all of the challenged claims are not unpatentable under the Blanchard patent should be affirmed.

[00:09:56] Speaker 00:
First, the board's claim construction was appropriate and correct for the limited list requirement.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
And second, substantial evidence supports the board's determination

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
that a limited list was not disclosed and planchered.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
Even if we agree with you both because of the claim construction issue and because the board is correct that the petitions and the presentations approved were pretty weak in this case by LG, what happens if in the next case where the board is asking us to affirm, the PTO would be asking us to affirm the decision to knock out

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
these same claims, or most of these same claims.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
So if we agree on Apple, doesn't LG benefit from that?

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think I'd agree with you.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
We have to win on both appeals.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
And if you win on the second appeal, what's left of this appeal?

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
Then we would go back to the district court where it stayed pending the damages retrial.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Okay, but don't you have a Fresenius problem then?

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'm sorry, could you clarify what you mean by that?

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
Okay, so our decision in Presidius said that even if we decided the underlying merits of the case, that if the patent gets knocked out at the PTAB, then those claims are no longer viable claims that can be asserted.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I apologize, I misunderstood you.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
So if you do uphold what the PTAP decided in the Apple IPR, then I agree that the cases are finished and there is no damages retrial in the converse and LG case at the district court.

[00:11:37] Speaker 05:
To the extent that the claims are identical in the two cases.

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
And they aren't exactly overlapping, but I'm fairly certain that where it doesn't overlap, those are not as certain claims in the LG case.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
So what I meant earlier was that we do have to win on both appeals in the sense that

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
We need the court to affirm the PTAB's decision in this current appeal and reverse and remand in the Apple appeal, which my friend will be arguing right after me.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
The board's.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
Your own IPR doesn't involve some of the claims that are in the case against you?

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
What I meant, Your Honor, is that LG and Apple challenge different claims in the IPR.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
Right there.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
A complete victory in the Apple case for Apple would still leave some claims here.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
They would, but I don't believe that those claims were asserted in the district court litigation.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
So I think it would be a pure victory.

[00:12:34] Speaker 02:
Right, the district court litigation only asserted a couple dependent claims, right?

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
And those overlap with the dependent claims challenged by Apple.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
So the board's claim construction was certainly appropriate.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
LG complains about that in this current appeal.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
They complained that they didn't have an opportunity to respond to the board's claim construction.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
Now, in any IPR petition, it is the requirement of the petitioner to lay out how the challenge claims are construed.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
They never argued what they argue now on appeal.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
That limited list is somehow constrained by the device's screen size.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
What they said was that it should be construed according to plain meaning.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
What they meant by that was that it is limited by the number of functions and data.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
They did not mean that it was constrained by the size of the particular device's screen.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
That only comes up in this current appeal.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
And that is abundantly clear about what they expected the term to mean because their expert in deposition testified twice that the term meant that limited lists meant fewer than all the functions.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
During the first deposition, in Appendix 2547, he admitted that,

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
He made that even more clear in his second deposition in Appendix 3211, where he testified, I thought everybody had interpreted the limited list of functions to mean that you wouldn't have all of the functions available.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
So Mr. Morris, I think this morning in his briefs, has stressed not so much that

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
the list has to be fewer than all the functions, but that the list that you're talking about has to be what's on a contemporaneously visible display screen.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
Your honor, that's inconsistent with the claim language, with the intrinsic record, and with the prosecution history.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
The board's construction was entirely accurate.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
In fact, it is the construction that the parties actually adopted and used throughout the IPR proceedings.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
there's nothing in the claims that restrict the limited list to what is shown on a particular devices screen there are specific embodiments in the patent that discuss i think he has very much stressed that the claim uses the word not only windows display it is why does that allow for and i think it's somewhat

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the claims refer to an application summary window that does display the limited list of at least one function from the first application.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
And your earlier question was exactly right, Your Honor.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
You can have a window that displays a limited list, even though it requires scrolling down to reveal the additional functions.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
And that is entirely contemplated by the patent.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
When you look at the specific embodiments discussed on the patent, it talks about, for instance, the company

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
If you go to Appendix 40 at Column 5 beginning at Line 5, it refers to a contacts manager application that displays phone numbers and email addresses or that lists names of the people stored in the device.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
If you then go to the embodiment at Appendix 39 at Column 4, Line 51, it talks about the Bluetooth application.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
where the summary window lists the other Bluetooth devices in the vicinity.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
What those two embodiments envision is a list that does, that is not limited by its size.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
In fact, LG even concedes that at their gray brief at 910.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
They concede that the limited list can vary in size.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
Now, there's also the scrolling embodiment.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
Yes, yeah.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
I mean, you could have a variant size from this to this.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
So the scrolling embodiment is very important for this particular issue.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
And the patent, in numerous instances, talks about scrolling within the window to display these functions.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
At appendix 39, at column 3, at line 45, a highlight is available in the app snapshot dropdown, which may be scrolled in order to select a required item.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
You see similar references to scrolling at appendix 39, at column 4, beginning at line 6, and at appendix 39, at column 4, beginning at line 12.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
And if you look at two dependent claims, it'll really drive home the point, Your Honor.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
If you look at dependent claims 14 and 15, which you can find at appendix 40, claim 14 says, said limited list displays only functions in said subset and thus cannot be scrolled to reveal additional functions outside of the subset.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
What that's telling us is that for that dependent claim, you cannot scroll to reveal additional functions, but it's just that dependent claim.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
By implication, the other claims, you can then scroll to reveal additional functions, exactly how you imagine a normal window with additional functions listed below.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
You use the up or down keys to get to those functions, and you scroll to reveal them.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
And that is an application summary window displaying the limited list.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
Rather than impose any sort of artificial limit on the list based on screen size, as LG would ask the court to do, the patent says the exact opposite.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
It says that any manner of presentation will work.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
And if you look at appendix 39, at column 3 beginning at line 62, that's exactly what the patent says.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
Any manner of presenting the common functions offered within an application and or data stored in that application

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
will constitute a window.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't make sense to limit the list according to a particular screen's size.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
The patent expressly says, while it may be great for mobile telephones, the invention works just as well for laptops and for desktop PCs.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
And in those, the screen's obviously bigger, and you could see the list.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
They didn't intend to limit a limited list by a particular device's screen size.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
They bring up this claim differentiation argument, so I want to briefly address that.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
It doesn't work in this particular instance for them for many reasons.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
If you compare claim one to claim three, of course claim one can be a subset of all the functions, but it can also be a subset of less than all the functions.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
And that's consistent with the computer program code of this particular invention, which says that the user or the system designer

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
can define and set out these limited lists in advance.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
So it's meant to have that expressed flexibility.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
But even if you were to say that claim one is coextensive with the dependent claim three, this is one of those instances where the dependent claim tail shouldn't wag the independent claim dog.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
And the reason for that is because, of course, a limited list is going to be a subset of something, and all the parties agree to that.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
In fact, LG conceded

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
that during prosecution, the patentee defined, open quote, the limited list in claim one as a subset of all of the functions offered by a given application.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
And you could see that in LG's blue brief at page 31 at note eight.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
There's other prosecution history statements that confirm that, that the patentee was equating a limited list with a subset.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
So this is an instance where the patentee was very clear that it understood that the limited list is, in fact, subset

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
In fact, LG didn't even dispute that in the IPR proceedings.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Its expert at appendix 3210 was asked, well, you understand the O2O patent is designed to take functions that are available within an application and bring them to the application summary window, correct?

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
The expert's answer, as long as it's a subset.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
And again, in LG's blue brief at page 14, you could see that in discussing the limited list, they equate the limited list with a subset.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
So LG's reliance on claim differentiation is simply misplaced in this instance.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
In fact, it violates its own argument because they're trying to suggest that the claim, the independent claim is somehow narrower than the dependent claim in that they're saying that claim one requires a limitation based on the device's screen size.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
And if they're not saying that, then their own claim differentiation argument works against them because then you have claim one and claim 13.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
both limited by a device's screen size.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
So it just doesn't apply in this instance.

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you about what may be two related things?

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
But suppose, and this is the premise of this question, is that we would affirm the board on what it decided on Blanchard.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
Suppose, again, premise of this question,

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
that we would affirm the board in the Apple case.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
What is your position about a remand for consideration of Schnorrl?

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I don't think a remand based on Schnorrl in this instance is appropriate for many reasons.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
One, I think getting to the question you're really getting at is that it would really be futile.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
The board in dealing with the Apple IPR already determined that Starrall on his own was insufficient.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
Sure, maybe LG makes a different argument, so maybe they have that argument.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
But back to Judge O'Malley's comment, it is way untimely.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
The SAS decision came out in April 2018.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
They just submitted their notice.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
It's true that it's been eight months, but what, as a concrete matter,

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
happened during that period that should affect whether we should send the non-instituted ground back to the board.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
It's not like they filed a brief after April 24th and omitted it from that or we didn't have oral argument or anything like that.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
I'm having a little trouble seeing why a very long period of time, nevertheless, should actually affect whether we send it back.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor, but I would try to flip that.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
For what reason should we give LG a handicap in this instance?

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
This is their issue.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
They surely knew about SAS.

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
They could have brought it up early.

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
What has happened during that time frame?

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
Well, the parties have invested the time and resources to prepare for this hearing.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
By the time that you are considering this motion, this whole case will have been taken under submission.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
There is a cost in time, there is a cost in resources, and everyone has been dedicated their attention to preparing for this.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
Now the other question to ask is, why didn't LG bring this up earlier?

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
They haven't provided a single explanation for why they didn't.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
They could have brought it up eight months ago.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
They chose to bring it up at the end of last week.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
I think I didn't.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
In fact, I know I don't quite fully understand something you said earlier, I think, in response to Judge O'Malley about whether you need to win both cases.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
If there's an affirmance on Blanchard here and an affirmance in the Apple case, do you have a stake?

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
I thought you said,

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
In that event, you don't actually have a stake in whether the remaining claims, namely the ones only in these IPRs and not in the Apple IPRs, survive or not.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I believe that's correct because I don't believe the claims that would survive if you did affirm the PTAB's decision in the Apple case were actually asserted.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
So does that hopefully answer your question?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Well, you have a stake in the sense

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
That's true, Your Honor, but in the sense of the actual case against LG, there would be nothing to proceed on if you were to affirm that decision in the Apple appeal.

[00:24:52] Speaker 05:
Do you have a closing comment, Counsel?

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, two closing comments, really.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
And it goes to the claim construction and the substantial evidence issue.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
The claim construction in this case is that's a known quantity.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
Everyone knows it's going to happen.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
The fact that they disagree with the result doesn't give them the opportunity to have a redo.

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
They knew claim construction was going to happen.

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
Second, on substantial evidence, there was plenty to support the board's decision.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
The fact that they're trying to come up with new arguments on appeal doesn't work.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
And finally, on the question of remand, I would just point out, Your Honor, that they haven't filed a motion to remand based on SAS.

[00:25:29] Speaker 00:
What they filed was a notice of supplemental authority with a somewhat conditional, maybe timid request if they lose this appeal.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
It shouldn't be recognized.

[00:25:37] Speaker 00:
It's untimely.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
They haven't explained why they didn't do so, and it would prejudice us, and it's probably futile.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:44] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:25:45] Speaker 05:
Mr. Morris has some rebuttal time.

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
Let's start with the SAS issue, because I have to say that I think your friend on the other side has a very good argument.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
Eight months is a long time.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
You all have been fighting this battle for a long time.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
You knew that you were fighting this.

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
You knew that you had the district court case.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
You'd gotten a decision from us in the district court case.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Why didn't you do anything in the eight-month interim period?

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
I mean, every other party that had an SAS issue raised it right away as soon as the Supreme Court decision came down.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
To be clear, our view is that if the court affirms in the Apple case, which it should do, our view is there's nothing to be done on that issue.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
That's it.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
There's no reason to send it back.

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
There's no reason for a remand for us to consider a shnarled.

[00:26:36] Speaker 01:
That gets rid of it all.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
So the letter was a filing, just to make clear our view on that issue.

[00:26:43] Speaker 02:
Even the dependent claims that were not asserted in the Apple IP?

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
You can just ignore those?

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
Our view is that the court can and should affirm an Apple, and that will dispose of the issue entirely.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
Turning back to a few points my colleague made,

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
With respect to whether or not the new construction, et cetera, it has been our position throughout that the limited list is confined to what is displayed.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
At Appendix 70, our petition laid out specifically that the individual windows in Blanchard, and what we're talking about is the, like, 320 window, was the limited list because it didn't have functionality going beyond that.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
But how can you now argue that your

[00:27:28] Speaker 02:
definition of plain and ordinary meaning is different from what your own expert testified to what the plain and ordinary meaning was.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
Your position was, as the board said, about as conclusory as you could get.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
And your presentations were about as conclusory as you could get.

[00:27:47] Speaker 02:
So then you've got an expert who says, this is what plain and ordinary meaning is.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
Why aren't you bound with that?

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
But his plain and ordinary meaning was always on the notion of displayed.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
Even the block quotation that the board pulls out of his deposition testimony says that there is one functionality displayed, and there is additional ones.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
And with regard to what's on page 3211 of the appendix,

[00:28:08] Speaker 01:
It says that because not all functionality is in one window of Blanchard.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
Again, it's the one window.

[00:28:13] Speaker 01:
And the board then changed what it viewed as a window, but that didn't change the expert's view of what that meant.

[00:28:20] Speaker 01:
So it's anachronistic to look back based on what happened in the final written decision and how the board resolved some issues and say, you've now conceded those points when all throughout our view has been that each of the windows in Blanchard, 320, not 320 through 324, but 320,

[00:28:36] Speaker 01:
is the application summary window that displays a limited list.

[00:28:39] Speaker 01:
That's been our view throughout.

[00:28:40] Speaker 01:
We have not tried to expand on that.

[00:28:42] Speaker 01:
So it's not a new argument or a new construction.

[00:28:45] Speaker 01:
That has been our consistent position throughout.

[00:28:47] Speaker 01:
Now, it's just that the board adopted a claim construction and then made certain other findings.

[00:28:51] Speaker 01:
And that has led to, again, as I say, an anachronistic view of how you look at the evidence.

[00:28:56] Speaker 01:
But if you take our position from the beginning, that has been our position.

[00:29:00] Speaker 01:
And that is the position that we still have.

[00:29:02] Speaker 01:
That is consistent throughout.

[00:29:04] Speaker 01:
That's our view of how Blanchard works.

[00:29:06] Speaker 01:
With respect to a few other points that my colleague made, the contacts manager in the Bluetooth discussions in the specification in no way suggests that the limited list is long or extensive or it has additional things.

[00:29:19] Speaker 01:
It merely indicates that, in fact, there are finite lists that might occur.

[00:29:24] Speaker 01:
So in the contacts example, it says if you're in the calendar and you look up the contacts, it might give you certain information about the person in there.

[00:29:33] Speaker 01:
So like the contact information.

[00:29:35] Speaker 01:
Or if you're in the context of information and you pull up the phone, it says it might give you the last dialed number, or it might give you a missed call.

[00:29:43] Speaker 01:
In no way does it suggest that it can't be displayed on one screen, or that somehow it's so extensive that it can't be displayed.

[00:29:48] Speaker 03:
Well, what about the several references to scrolling, columns three and column four in particular, that I think Mr. Wang?

[00:29:58] Speaker 01:
Right, none of those.

[00:30:00] Speaker 01:
To be fair, there are aspects about scrolling, but none of them suggest the limited list

[00:30:04] Speaker 01:
that those expand the limited list or goes beyond displaying the information.

[00:30:11] Speaker 01:
In fact, claim 14, which they look at, it says that the limited list, right, and then you can't scroll to reveal additional information.

[00:30:18] Speaker 01:
That suggests that you're now off into a different world outside of the limited list.

[00:30:22] Speaker 01:
That is, you're scrolling beyond it to reveal a different set of functionality or data or some other kind of list.

[00:30:29] Speaker 01:
Not that the limited list goes on and on and on.

[00:30:32] Speaker 01:
Everything that talks about the limited list and what it's about is about displaying information.

[00:30:38] Speaker 02:
What about the fact that the spec itself specifically says that the summary does not have to be presented within any kind of frame?

[00:30:46] Speaker 01:
Agreed, and that's about graphically showing what it is that's around it.

[00:30:51] Speaker 01:
So it doesn't have to have any graphical information to set it off, but that doesn't suggest that the limited list goes beyond what's on the display screen.

[00:31:01] Speaker 01:
claim I think 16 is the strongest indicator or talks about the program and it says that on a displayed on a screen the summary the menu is displayed on a screen the application summary is displayed on the screen and the application summary window displays the limited list of information everything is about displaying the information on the screen not that you would scroll beyond that and still be within the realm of the limited list.

[00:31:26] Speaker 01:
Unless there any other questions we ask the court to vacate and remand.

[00:31:28] Speaker 05:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:31:30] Speaker 05:
We'll take the case under advisement.