[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the Court.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
I am Nicole Saharsky for the Appellate.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
On page 25 of the Red Brief, Sandango argues that the only aspect of the claim that Maxwell identifies as an inventive concept is the use of the two time limits on rentals.

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
which is the same idea found abstract in step one.

[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
Are there features beyond those rules that provide the claims within an inventive concept at Alice step two?

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
We think this is a step one case, and I can explain why, but to specifically answer your question, this is an invention.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
If you look at the claim that has three components, first of all, there are two time periods that are controls that are used.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
There's this retention time period, and then there's the playback period.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
In the first, I think, wherein clause, or second wherein clause, there is a set of rules that explains how the two time periods work together.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
Rules for when you're in one time period versus the other, et cetera, and then whether you can continue playing the audiovisual work.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
And then third, the control information is sent along with the file so that it operates on the file, even if the audiovisual file has been downloaded.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
And here's why that's important to understand that this is a particular solution to a digital problem, a particular digital problem in a digital solution, as opposed to a range of solutions.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
Because what's happening here with the control information being sent on the file is that the rules can operate on the video even if it's not connected to a network.

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
A person can download a file onto the device that they're going to use, say, to watch a movie.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
And if the rules aren't met, then the file is not available any longer.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
It's as if the file disappears.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
That's not something that can happen in the bricks and mortar world with checking out a book from the library, a DVD, anything like that, because a person could keep the DVD or the book or whatever it is for a time period beyond what is authorized.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
But here we're talking about two time periods, the rules in which they're put together, and the way in which they operate.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
And so that really is subject matter that's patent eligible.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
It's not the idea of a solution.

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
It's a particular solution in the digital context.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
And that's where we think the district court here got it wrong, was it was looking at this patent, these patents, this representative claim, at way too high a level of generality.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
It, in Alice step one, said that this is just a patent that's directed to the idea of restricting access to a file based on rules.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
And saying that is like saying that a patent for a particular type of V8 engine is directed towards operating a car.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
It just doesn't account for the various particular limitations in the patent.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
And if this court's jurisprudence on Alice I think has taught us anything, it's

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
You can't just come up with the highest level of abstraction possible.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
You have to actually look at what does the claim do here?

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
Is it a solution or is it just the idea of a solution?

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
And so here those three components that I described are what provide the solution.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And they are only minimally preemptive because there are a number of other ways in the digital context that you could have a solution.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
So I'd like to talk a little bit more about that, what was in the prior art and the particular innovation that Hitachi, now Maxell, made here.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
So at the time that this invention was made, it was 19 years ago in the year 2000.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
And frankly, things were very different in terms of video downloads and video streaming.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
The specification in this case describes

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
the prior art, which was quite minimal.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
It describes three ideas that were manifested in that.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
The 522 patent issued in 2017.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
Yes, but the priority date is in the year 2000.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
And so that is the relevant time period.

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
There was originally a patent application filed in the year 2000 in Japan.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
Then the application was filed in the U.S.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
in 2001.

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
There were continuation applications filed, but the relevant time period is what was happening in the year 2000.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
And things that might seem commonplace today were not commonplace at all then.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
What the specification tells us in terms of the prior art was that there were a few ideas out there, and some of them weren't related to time periods at all.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
One of the ideas was we have a problem with a digital copy being able to be transmitted across networks and an infinite number of copies made, so why not give a degraded copy so that you wouldn't want to copy it and send it and send it.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
So the first patent that's mentioned, the first reference, involves a degraded copy.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
The second reference that's mentioned involves controlling the number of copies.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
Only allow a person to make one copy.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
But that does not solve the problem the same way that the time periods do here, because the person could keep watching that one copy over and over and over again, it could let all their friends watch the copy, etc.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
And then the third reference that's disclosed in the prior art is essentially a 90-minute playback period.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
that's almost operating like a DVR recorder where you could record what's happening in real time for 90 minutes and then watch it back within the 90 minutes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
And that's all that's disclosed.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
So what the patent here says and the innovation here is recognizing that you need to balance the rights of the copyright owners who will have to pay for, especially distributors, who will have to pay the copyright owners for however many copies are sent out for people to watch, however long they're sent out to watch those copies.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
balanced that against the rights of the person who wants to watch the video, the user.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
And the innovation that the Hitachi engineers made here was to recognize that the user probably only wants to watch the video once, but it might not do it right away when it downloads the video.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
Which is why they described a retention period which could be something like 30 days in which you'd have to watch the video sometime within that retention period.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
But then also that there's a more narrow period.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
Once you start watching the video, you basically have only a certain amount of time to watch it and you can't watch it again.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
And that's when you look at the claims here exactly what it says.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
It talks about reproducing the audiovisual information according to the control information.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
The first wherein clause talks about the two periods of time in the control information, the retention period, and then the playback period.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
And then the second wherein clause gives a series of rules that talks about where are you within those two periods, and if you're not within the rules that are set out, that it disables the start of a reproduction.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
It disables the watching the video.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
And so this is not the idea of restricting access in the abstract or even restricting access based on time.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
There are particular time periods, particularly two different ones that are used together, which had not happened at all up to that point in the digital context.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
And then it's describing that they're sent along with the file.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you a housekeeping question before we end, which is, is there agreement that the claim 13 of the 522 is representative of the asserted claim for 101 purposes?

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
Yes, that's the representative claim.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
And there's no claim construction issue as it comes to the court.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
There was a question below about what control information means.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
But here, I believe it is agreed upon that what we're looking at is essentially the three elements of this claim, which are the use of two controls, the rules by which they work together, and the fact that they're sent along with the audiovisual file.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
If I could just discuss a little bit more why it matters that they're sent along with the audiovisual file, because I think it's very important to preemptive effect.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
I mean, one of the things that this court and the US Supreme Court have said in the Alice context is the concern about abstract ideas is that we don't want to take things off the table in terms of scientific and technological innovation.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
We don't want to take math formulas or laws of nature or natural phenomena off the table.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
So the question is, you know, is this a specific solution or is it taking too much off the table?

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
And our answer is there are a number of possible solutions out there in the digital context.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
This is only one of them, and it is minimally preemptive.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
And if I could just give an example, which I think is pretty real world based on users today, you could imagine a circumstance which uses time limitations but is nothing like the claim that's here

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
in that there has to be some type of real-time control of the video file.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
So the video would have to be watched over, if the video were watched in real-time and it was streamed, that you'd have to stream the control information along with the video, almost like the way that a cable box works, where you need to have a constant signal, and if the signal's not there, you can't watch it anymore.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
If the control information didn't say, okay, based on the rules, you couldn't watch it anymore.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
And that would be a solution where basically you'd have to be online the whole time and you could still use something like the control.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
So what guidance do we have?

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
I think you used the term minimally preemptive.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
I mean, the Supreme Court has made clear, has it not?

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have to be a huge astronomical preemption issue.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
But I don't know how we tease out what's sufficiently preemptive or minimally preemptive.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
So do you have any place we would look for guidance in that regard?

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
I think you could look to other cases that this court has decided about a particular way of doing things as opposed to, you know, most of our case, a very small number of our cases even deal with the preemption issue.

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
I think that's just the case.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
I'm not clear exactly why.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
So do you have any particular case in mind?

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
Sure, I would point the court to the McRoe case, which had to do with using a set of rules to animate facial expression.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
I would also point the court to the Core Wireless case, which had to do with having an application summary window that allows users, especially on a small screen, to be able to access data more easily.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
I think the reason that this court has addressed preemption is because when it's asked this question, is this an invention that's directed to an abstract idea, the words abstract idea themselves are hard sometimes to put some content on.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
And so the court has looked to the guidance from the US Supreme Court about really, what is it we're worried about?

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
We're worried about taking too much off the table in terms of laws of nature, math formula,

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
et cetera, et cetera.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
So here are we taking a lot off the table?

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
I mean, the test is not preemption itself, but the fact that something leaves many other solutions open suggests that it is a specific solution and not just the idea of a solution.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Why don't you deal with BSG and SAP?

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
So both of those, I think.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
Because I think that's your problem.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
I think that's your problem.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I'm happy to address those because I think that they're both fundamentally different.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
So the SAP case addressed essentially mathematical algorithms, so a method of using statistical analysis for investment information.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
And the court said, this isn't telling us how to do it in any way connected to the physical world.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
It's essentially just math.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
And it doesn't matter if it's more specific math.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
It's math.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
And you can't take math functions and algorithms off the table because it will stop scientific innovation and development.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
And so I would put SAP, which had that language about a more narrow rule still not being sufficient, in broadly the math category.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
I'd put BSG in a slightly different category, which is taking a solution that exists in the bricks and mortar world

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
and just doing it on a computer.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
And particularly doing something that this court has found is abstract in a number of cases, which is collecting information, analyzing information, and reporting it back.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
So this was just a question about indexing with databases, and the supposed innovation in the BSG case was

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
We're going to look at the past data that's been used to set parameters for a database.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
We're going to tell you what that is and then you can decide whether you want to use those to set the parameters for your database.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
And I think this court said that's essentially something that you do in the bricks and mortar world when you're designing a database or if you're designing a spreadsheet.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
It's just indexing.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
It's directed to the abstract idea of indexing.

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
There's nothing special about using a computer.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
That's also, I think, the teaching of the Supreme Court's cases in Alice and Bilsky, when you're just taking a bricks and mortar idea and there's nothing special about using the computer, that it's directed to an abstract idea.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
And so the difference, I think, between the BSG case and cases like it is that here we have a uniquely digital problem

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
and it required a uniquely digital solution.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
And I think looking at some of the real world examples in the briefs is a good way to think about that because I think one of the things Fandango suggested is this is just like Alice or Bilsky because we're just, it's just like taking a book out from the library and you're just putting in a rule that's saying like you can only have the book out from the library for a certain number of days.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
And we don't think that's true because the book from the library can't be perfectly reproduced at almost no cost.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
It can't be transmitted across networks nearly instantaneously.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
The digital problem is that you have potentially millions of perfect copies that could really hurt the rights of the copyright owner, and you needed a way to deal with that.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
And the solution of the fact that a copy would degrade or that you really couldn't make the copies economically in the bricks and mortar world would not be a solution in the digital world.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
But there's something that you can do in the digital world that you can't do in the bricks and mortar world, which is you can essentially make the content disappear.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
If someone takes out a book from the library and they keep it for too long, at least under technology that I'm aware of, there's nothing that makes the book disappear.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
Someone could invent something like that, and that would be... Oh, they don't have to.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
I used to be an explosor in this kind of relationship with the NCO.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
Okay, there may well, with the libraries that I frequent, there is not any mechanism that causes the book to disappear after the 21-day period.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
But that is something that you can do in the digital world, and that's really the innovation here, is that you can have these two different time periods in these rules that operate on the file so that the file is just no longer available, so that there's no opportunity to keep it for longer, there's no opportunity to send it on, there's no opportunity to make copies.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
you're willing to your rebuttal.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
Chief Judge Prost.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
I may have pleased the court.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
My name is Steve Lieberman and I represent the appellee.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start, if I may, with my friend's response to Judge Wallach's first question.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
She introduced an element, this control information being sent with the file, along with the file.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
That argument was never made in the appeal briefs to this court, I believe.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
They were never made in the briefs to the district court.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
And the reason they were never made is because the element does not appear in the claim.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
And that's what I'd like to focus this court on, the claim.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
And it's the only claim that's at issue.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
If you look at the claim, it's not technological and it's not specific in any way.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
There's no information about how the functional steps of transmitting, receiving, storing, or reproducing are achieved.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
In fact, there isn't even a mention of the computer in the claim.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
One could read that claim, I would submit, although you don't need to address this issue.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
Claim 13.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
There's no reference to computer in the claim.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
So this is at page 322 of the appendix.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, page 85 of the appendix.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
I apologize.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
There's no reference in there to a computer.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
There's no explanation as to how the transmitting, receiving, storing, or reproducing were achieved.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
Indeed, reading the claim literally, one could say that this claim covers a store clerk handing a videotape to a person, along with a written set of instructions which say, here are the rules about how long you can keep this and when you can play it.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
Moreover, there's a lot of reference in Maxell's brief to the user experience.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
And we know why it's in there.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
It's in there because you've got these three cases involving GUIs.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
But there's no GUI claimed in the claim.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
In fact, the claim doesn't even say whether the user is required to be told about these time periods or not.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
None of that is in there.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
The control information, as the parties have agreed, is just a set of temporal restrictions.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
My friend made reference to limitations on the number of copies.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
That's not in here.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
This case could be a completely different case if what it were about was this.

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
Back at the time frame, and there's no evidence about this because the claim doesn't pose the solution, back at the time frame

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
It was difficult or impossible to embed in digital media that you gave to somebody the ability to know when it first started playing.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
And the claim claims a solution to that.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
We've come up with a technological way of doing that.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
That's not in the claim.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
There's nothing about how you detect.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
There's nothing about how you turn it off.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
The turning off

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
It could just be some employee pressing a button manually.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
It's just not in the claim, and this is the only claim we're talking about.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
So I would submit, and by the way, the only language that I think you could tie my friend's argument to her response to your first question was the language according to the control information.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
That's not a construed term.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
I don't think you can fairly read

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
the particular point that she made into that language.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
I would say that this case is very similar, indeed exceedingly close to the Smart Flash case, and is miles and miles away from the cases where this court has held that there has been an improvement to the way the computer functions, a technological solution to a technological problem.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
We don't have any of that here.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
I thought it was very interesting that Ms.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
Saharsky characterized this case as a step one case.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
And I think that was probably wise, although there was discussion of step two in the brief.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
This court in BSG wrote, it has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention significantly more than the eligible concept.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
That was why I asked the question.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
I intuited that, Your Honor.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
And here, their argument below and their arguments in the briefs

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
was that what makes this significantly more something different is the concept of these two time periods.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
And they talk about how specific the time periods are.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
Let me just pose one example that I think points out how that argument doesn't work.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
Let's say that the second time period was, you can only watch the movie on weekends.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
Or you can only watch the movie on Tuesday nights.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
Or you can only watch the movie on Tuesday nights in a time plot that's up against a particular program.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
That's essentially what they have.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
Now, it would be a very different analysis if you claimed it that way, and you said, and here is technologically how you do that.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
And here's why you couldn't do that with the prior art, and we fixed that.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
But that's not in the spec.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
It's certainly not in the claims, and it's not something that they've argued at all.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
So again, looking at the case law, I was trying to find a case where this court had held that something was eligible as not being directed to an abstract idea, where the language didn't appear in this court's decision.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
about an improvement to computer technology or a technological solution to a technological problem.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
I couldn't find one.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
I went through all of the cases, Bascom, DDR, and... I thought you were going to tell me something.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
Excuse me?

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
I thought you were going to tell me something new.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
No, no, no, no.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
I couldn't find one.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
All the cases, including the GUI cases, and I would say they're completely irrelevant here because there's no GUI in the claim, all of those cases talk about specific improvements to the way the computers operate.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
We don't have that here.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
They essentially, I thought they conceded that point.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
in their briefing.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
I see that my friend is trying to sort of resurrect the argument that maybe there's some technological lacuna that you ought to read into the language according to the control information.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
But again, it wasn't presented below.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
It wasn't presented on appeal, and it's not in the claim.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
The contrast to the McCrow case

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
I think this court is very familiar because McCrow is cited to this court and discussed by this court on a regular basis.

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
How very tied in the claims in McCrow were to a specific technological improvement that was tied to a physical act, which is how do you make the faces in an automated fashion change when you're going from one sound to another sound.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
And you can hold up those two claims, not just the specificity of the sounds, I'm sorry, not just how technological the claim language sounds in Macro, but when you really drill down into it, what you have there is something which was a really huge technological advance.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
What you have here is just the idea of two time periods.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
And while we're on two time periods, it's really only one time period.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
Because when you rent something,

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
In every rental, an essential part of that is the time period.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
So every rental, every software license is going to have a time period.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
So what additional did they put into it?

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
They put in addition to it a second time period, which is that once you start watching it, you have a certain period of time during which you have to finish it.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
Sort of like a three-day pass or a seven-day pass at Disney World.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
I think we have your argument.

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
Just briefly.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
Tell us where it is.

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
In 13, respond to your opposing counsel.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
Where is it?

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
This language that refers to reproducing the audiovisual information according to the control information related to the audiovisual information.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
That describes the fact that the control information, it is reproduced according to the control information which is related to the audiovisual information.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
It can only be played under those circumstances which means the control information has to be there sent with the audiovisual information.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
This is also in another claim in the patent in 389.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
And the court took this as a given.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
This was not disputed below as a matter of claim construction.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
I point the court to the appendix pages 10 and 11 that the court below understood this to be a limitation of the claim.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
And so I think that's important.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
We're not talking about time periods in the abstract.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
We're talking about two time periods, specific rules, and a specific way that they work.

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
And the district court here just can't be correct because it looked at this at way too high of a level of generality.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
This patent comes to the court with a presumption of validity.

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
This is the type of thing that is eligible for patenting.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
We thank both sides.

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
That concludes our proceeding for this morning.