[00:00:00] Speaker 01: Unilock versus EMDS. [00:00:04] Speaker 01: Mr. Mayor, we give them a chance to clear out. [00:00:07] Speaker 01: Proceed. [00:00:38] Speaker 03: This companion appeal stems from a decision, the first decision, that addresses or reached a final decision only on one claim per patent. [00:00:49] Speaker 03: So claim one of the 526 patent and claim six of the 451 patent. [00:00:55] Speaker 00: And the court... If we affirm the related case, this appeal becomes moot, right? [00:01:01] Speaker 03: Yes, under an affirmative related case. [00:01:03] Speaker 02: Isn't this appeal already new? [00:01:05] Speaker 02: You entered into a joint voluntary dismissal and you didn't preserve any right to appeal. [00:01:10] Speaker 03: So we brought that to your honor's attention in our briefing. [00:01:13] Speaker 03: That was the last section of our brief. [00:01:15] Speaker 03: And our point in, we distinguished the Ockmarine case. [00:01:18] Speaker 03: Where in the joint voluntary dismissal did you reserve a right to appeal? [00:01:23] Speaker 03: No, there's nothing expressed. [00:01:25] Speaker 03: I'm referring to our briefing. [00:01:26] Speaker 03: There's nothing expressed in the voluntary dismissal to preserve a right to appeal. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: then how is it not moot? [00:01:31] Speaker 02: You didn't preserve a right to appeal. [00:01:33] Speaker 02: You agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case in a settlement. [00:01:37] Speaker 02: The fact that you recognized your mistake and tried to get the district court to vacate that doesn't matter. [00:01:43] Speaker 02: It's on all fours with Aquamarine. [00:01:45] Speaker 03: Well, our point, the point that we make in our briefing trying to distinguish it from Aquamarine is this. [00:01:51] Speaker 03: So we have the same district judge, the same two patents, and then... I don't understand. [00:01:57] Speaker 01: Mootness is akin to jurisdiction. [00:01:59] Speaker 01: How do we have the right to review this case when there are no defendants in it and you voluntarily settled it? [00:02:07] Speaker 01: I will tell you that I spoke with my colleagues about asking you to defend why your appeal in this case is not frivolous in light of our Aquamarine decision. [00:02:16] Speaker 03: When we look at Aquamarine, one of the points it says is that there was no concrete living contest between adversaries. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: But there is none in this case because you settled with this defendant. [00:02:28] Speaker 03: Well, one thing that's unique about this case is that what happened was there was a... Where's your adversary? [00:02:34] Speaker 03: Well, the adversary's just left. [00:02:36] Speaker 03: Those adversaries... They're not your adversary in this case. [00:02:38] Speaker 02: You settled this case. [00:02:40] Speaker 03: No, my point is... So the adversaries, when they... You make that point all the time. [00:02:43] Speaker 02: Is there anybody in this case that is adverse to you, or did you voluntarily settle this case and dismiss all claims? [00:02:50] Speaker 02: We voluntarily settled and dismissed all claims. [00:02:52] Speaker 02: and you didn't preserve, because sometimes you get a bad claim construction ruling or the like, and you agree to non-infringement, settle, and reserve a right to appeal the claim construction. [00:03:02] Speaker 02: You potentially could have agreed after the invalidated decision here to, you know, settle for all other purposes, but retain a right to appeal, but you didn't do it, right? [00:03:14] Speaker 02: There is nothing in your voluntary dismissal that preserves anything. [00:03:18] Speaker 02: The case was gone. [00:03:20] Speaker 02: That is correct. [00:03:21] Speaker 02: then how is this case properly before us? [00:03:25] Speaker 03: Well, this is the point I want to raise, and that is the motion that was decided in the original case, that invalidated only to a claim for patent, that is the same motion that it was incorporated by reference into what we just heard today. [00:03:41] Speaker 03: So there was the arguments. [00:03:44] Speaker 03: And the reason why I think that's important is because Ochmarine says there wasn't a concrete living contrast between adversaries. [00:03:49] Speaker 03: Here, the unique situation [00:03:51] Speaker 03: is that, and this is as the order in this 17, 2171 case acknowledged, each of the moving defendants in that action incorporated by reference without modification, the motion be filed by defendants in this action. [00:04:08] Speaker 02: So our point is- So if they incorporated it by reference in that case, you should have been arguing it in that case, not this case, which is moved. [00:04:17] Speaker 02: It was the same motion. [00:04:18] Speaker 02: That's what we just argued. [00:04:19] Speaker 02: Yes, but if it was live, [00:04:21] Speaker 02: as to defendants that you can settle with it was live in the other case it's not live in this case uh... i think that that's our point our argument sound like it's a correct it sounds like you wasted our time in a case where you voluntarily settle and dismiss the case and then appeal from dot agreement to settle we want to emphasize again that this in the event that that that this [00:04:50] Speaker 03: appeal is moot, it affects a claim per patent. [00:04:54] Speaker 03: So it affects claim one of the 526 patent and claim six of the 451 patent. [00:04:58] Speaker 03: It would not affect the remainder of the claims that were on appeal in the companion case. [00:05:03] Speaker 02: Well, it doesn't affect any of the claims in the other case because it's not the same case. [00:05:09] Speaker 03: I see. [00:05:09] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:05:10] Speaker 03: Yeah, that's what you're saying. [00:05:12] Speaker 03: My point is if the, if the, [00:05:19] Speaker 03: appeal is moot and those claims are then, then that judgment then stands unappealed, then the companion case claims that aren't effective would still be in play. [00:05:29] Speaker 03: That's the point I'm trying to make. [00:05:35] Speaker 03: And we also, in our briefing, we talked about how the public interest in judicial precedent is not threatened by upholding jurisdiction in this appeal. [00:05:44] Speaker 03: To the contrary, allowing appeal, this appeal to rise or fall on the same merits of appeal number [00:05:49] Speaker 03: 1721-71 will serve the interest of the public, the parties, and the judiciary in rendering consistent judgments. [00:05:56] Speaker 03: So this all appears in our briefing. [00:05:59] Speaker 03: And we thought it important when we filed our appeal to bring this to Your Honor's attention, and that was the basis that we felt it was still appropriate to appeal. [00:06:10] Speaker 03: And if Your Honor has any questions on the merits, I think we've addressed that in the companion appeal. [00:06:18] Speaker 03: I have time remaining, so if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer those. [00:06:21] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:06:21] Speaker 01: Thank you, Mr. Mangrum. [00:06:22] Speaker 01: We'll take this case under submission. [00:06:25] Speaker 01: We're all done. [00:06:27] Speaker 01: Thank you.