[00:00:01] Speaker 06:
The United States court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:05] Speaker 06:
God save the United States and his honorable court.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
We have two cases to be argued this morning.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
The first is Blackberry limited versus Facebook, ink 2020, 12 56 in 12 58.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
Mr. Weiss burst.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Sanford Weiss burst for appellant Blackberry.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
The district court, while it was correct in denying a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility, erred at the summary judgment stage and finding that the patents were ineligible.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
Blackberry's claims are eligible and at least should have been preceded past summary judgment because they, in the words of this court in packet intelligence, meet a challenge unique to computer networks.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
More specifically, the 351 and 929 patents address overuse of the bandwidth on the network and the mobile device's battery.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
The 327 and 084 patents address the problem of tedious toggling between applications on the device to find events.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
Under cases including ANCORA, BASCOM, Core Wireless, and DDR, the claims should have been found eligible and allowed to survive summary judgment.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
I'd like to begin by explaining... Council, the first two patents are centered on a proxy content server.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
And what is...

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
The district court said that that is simply not eligible.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
Yes, let me address that question, Your Honor.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
The district court made two errors in that respect.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
Number one, the court focused on the proxy content server as its own component as opposed to the way it interacts with the network.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
The property content server's importance is that it is an intermediary between, on the one hand, the information sources that come from the internet, and on the other hand, the mobile devices.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
It's a conventional server, isn't it?

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
The hardware itself could perhaps be labeled conventional.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
However, the way it's configured in the network with the software, and I'd refer the court to the Bascom decision where similarly software was allowed to provide the architecture and the novel concept to be added to conventional hardware.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
Therefore, calling a single component conventional hardware does not end the inquiry under this court's cases.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
The reason why the proxy content server is different, even if it were viewed as a component by itself, the reason why it's different from a conventional proxy server, which is what the prior art called it, is that it acts more as an autonomous entity.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
It is doing the work that the mobile device formerly did under the conventional pull approach.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
And I'd refer the court to, among other pages of the appendix 11995 and 18395.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
which explained that in the prior art, the proxy, there was no proxy content server that was performing an active role in gathering and receiving information in the internet.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
So this is, this is Judge Raina.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
So what is the, what is the, the focus of that, of the, uh, the proxy server?

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
Uh, and what did the court look at when they considered the project?

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
So did it, did it consider the process server its functionality or

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
Did it consider what I understand your argument to be that the proxy server causes an improvement in internet technology?

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
Well, I think it's actually useful, and this may be slightly confusing, but I think it's useful to contrast the motion to dismiss decision at Appendix 180 with the summary judgment decision.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
Because at the motion to dismiss stage, the judge, Judge Wu correctly in our view,

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
looked at the overall invention.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
He talked about the, and this is again a page 180, he talked about how the proxy content server takes the information from the information sources, aggregates and stores it, and then sends it to the mobile device.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
He was speaking of it as a network and he referred to the possibility, at least of a factual issue, on improvement of the technology.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
However, when we get to the summary judgment stage, the district court sort of takes a different outlook on this point, and he focuses narrowly on the proxy content server and doesn't focus as much on the other components.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
And he says, well, this proxy content server is something that existed in the prior art.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
So we think that that sort of... Is a clever way of using just normal standard components, does that make it eligible or

[00:04:43] Speaker 05:
What is, in your view, the improvement on the technology?

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
So, Judge O'Malley, the prior art technology, the problem that was seen, and this is at 18185 of the appendix, among other places, is that there was too much use of the bandwidth of the network because you had to have the mobile devices constantly sending signals out to the information sources.

[00:05:07] Speaker 05:
That's all discussed in the provisional, right?

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
It is discussed in the provisional, yes.

[00:05:12] Speaker 05:
And what do we have to take from the fact that that disappears from the later application?

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
So we don't think, it's our view that it doesn't disappear.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
Rather, it's referred to more in shorthand.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
And this court has not required that the benefits or the comparisons of the prior art be present

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
in the claims, certainly.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
That's, among other things, the Unilock LG case.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
But this court hasn't also required it in the specification.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
And I don't understand my adversaries to be arguing that in their briefs, either.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
This court, in fact, in the recent TechSec case, acknowledged that you could have extrinsic evidence considered at step one on the issue of whether there was an improvement or comparison to the prior art.

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
Well, where do you say it's referred to in shorthand?

[00:06:00] Speaker 05:
Can you point me to that, at least?

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, I can.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
And it's in the addendum to our brief because the 351 patent is there.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
And I believe it is in column.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
Yes, if we look at appendix 279, column two towards the bottom, the proxy content server also provides a method of combining the information so that the mobile device user has a consistent and transparent experience of receiving information content and advertising content.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
That's what I would point the court to as sort of a cross-reference to the discussion that's certainly in more depth in the provisional of 18185.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
That was also supplemented, by the way, by expert evidence on this point, including the paragraphs with the Almorav declaration and testimony that I referred to earlier, 11995 and 18395.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
But to get back to the important point is,

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
A conventional piece of hardware by itself does not render something ineligible.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
And I think, Judge O'Malley, you referred to it as a, is it enough to have a clever idea of how to use those components?

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
And I would respectfully submit the answer is yes.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And in cases like Bascom, in cases like Ancora, Ancora I think is maybe the closest decision to our case.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
Because in Ancora, what you did was you took a conventional piece of hardware, which was the BIOS memory of the computer, the basic input-output set system memory.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
It existed for a while before the invention.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
But what the novel idea was to put the verification program for verifying that the user had a software license, to put it in that memory, the BIOS memory, instead of in conventional memory.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
So they took down the clever idea.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
They moved something.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
Council, what about the meta tags?

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
Aren't they just information?

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
So the meta tags are addressed first of all by the nine to nine patent, which is a companion patent shares that pretty much the same specification.

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
What that, what that does, I think the best way to think about it is it's an additional sort of tool that the, that this proxy content server in its broader environment uses to save on transmission from the proxy content server to the mobile devices.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
And it's not just a sort of shorthand code.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
That's how it was in the prior art, certainly.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
But in the context of this invention, what the MetaTag allows the invention to do is to wait until a user arrives at a space where the advertisement would be, and then only at that point to send the advertisement over this limited bandwidth network.

[00:08:43] Speaker 05:
And so it's not just... Council, can I ask a question about that, though?

[00:08:46] Speaker 05:
Is the claimed advance of the 929 really focused on the MetaTag?

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
The 929 compared to the 351, if we look at claim one of each patent, perhaps the key difference is the metatag concept.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
That does not appear in 351.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
It's added for the first time in 929, which was a continuation of 351.

[00:09:09] Speaker 05:
In terms of... But isn't it still focused on the server?

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
I would not dispute that assertion.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
It is focused on the server.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
I would suggest that the metatag is an additional way in which the server can be efficient, can economize on the use of bandwidth.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
I think it's helpful to step back and this is a problem that's sort of uniquely solvable in the internet context because in a traditional newspaper context, and we saw I think Facebook and it's brief referred to, the idea of providing a sort of insert advertisement in a hard copy newspaper.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
The problem with that is that you have to provide that all up front at the same time when the newspaper is delivered.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
What the internet allows you to do for the first time is to send something at the moment just in time that you need it.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
And so you can economize, whereas in the prior art you couldn't economize on not printing the insert.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
In the context of the 1999 invention, you can wait.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
until the user actually needs to read the advertisement and only then send it.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
And so, therefore, you're economizing on the bandwidth.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
So it's certainly not the linchpin to our argument before the court today, but it's an additional, I guess, tool that the proxy content server uses to be efficient and to save on bandwidth.

[00:10:27] Speaker 05:
Now, I'd like to... I'm sorry.

[00:10:30] Speaker 05:
Does the 929, then, is that something that improves upon the server of the 351?

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
The 929

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
with its meta tag is one aspect of the improvement that there's.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
I view these patents sort of as a set.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
The 929 is a continuation of the 351.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
I think they're working together.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
The 351 is certainly the more important improvement.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
I would say the 929 is an incremental improvement.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
If I could briefly.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
Councilman, to what extent do you have to rely on the provisional in order to save the claims of the 351 patent?

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
I don't think it's absolutely necessary.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
I think it's certainly the most expensive explanation of the benefits compared to the prior.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
We also have expert testimony and inventor testimony on that score, which the tech sec among other cases.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
I think another example is Ariosa do refer to extrinsic evidence.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
So

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
That's even more further afield from the provisional.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
But the provisional is part of the file history.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
It's something that would be considered in construing the claims.

[00:11:37] Speaker 01:
And we think it should be considered here.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
And this court's precedents don't rule it out.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
I see I'm into my rebuttal time, but I briefly want to address the second set of patents.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
And my key point there is that this court

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
focused on the information gathering aspect of those patents, as opposed to the full set of what the patents does do, which is to both gather the information and to display it on a single user interface on the mobile device.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
And that combination of features is similar to core wireless, among other cases.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
And that is the inventive and non-abstract notion there.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
If I could reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal, I would do so.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
We will do that.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:20] Speaker 06:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:21] Speaker 06:
May it please the Court, Heidi Keith, arguing for appellees regarding the ads-related patterns.

[00:12:28] Speaker 06:
What we just heard was an awful lot of what the appellants wish the claim or the specification covers.

[00:12:34] Speaker 06:
But we have to look to exactly what the claim actually does cover.

[00:12:39] Speaker 06:
The claim requires nothing more than receiving information, storing it,

[00:12:47] Speaker 06:
selecting it to be sent somewhere else and then potentially transmitting it.

[00:12:52] Speaker 06:
The information that can be stored and sent can be as small as a single bit.

[00:12:58] Speaker 06:
And this is something that was specifically acknowledged by the district court in its opinion.

[00:13:03] Speaker 06:
This is in our red group at page 37.

[00:13:06] Speaker 06:
You can receive information according to the claim from a single source and information source.

[00:13:12] Speaker 06:
You can store that information.

[00:13:14] Speaker 06:
then send that information based on a trigger.

[00:13:17] Speaker 06:
The claim is silent to bandwidth or battery savings.

[00:13:21] Speaker 06:
It's silent to offloading from a mobile device.

[00:13:23] Speaker 06:
There's nothing to say that it couldn't still be done.

[00:13:26] Speaker 06:
That doesn't have to be in the claim, does it?

[00:13:30] Speaker 06:
So, Your Honor, I think it doesn't have to be per se in the claim, but what we learned, for example, from the Berkheimer decision is that if it's not

[00:13:39] Speaker 06:
distinctly referred to within the claim, that itself can trigger ineligibility.

[00:13:45] Speaker 06:
For example, in Berkheimer, I'm sure your honors are aware, the broader claims were found to be ineligible.

[00:13:52] Speaker 06:
And only when the claim added in, where you don't restore repetitive information, could you then achieve the benefit.

[00:14:00] Speaker 05:
The problem here is that if you... We have said that you can find the description of benefits either in the

[00:14:09] Speaker 05:
written description or even through extrinsic evidence, haven't we?

[00:14:13] Speaker 06:
Yes, you have, Your Honor.

[00:14:14] Speaker 06:
But here, for example, there's no reason that the supposed benefit would be triggered if you followed the steps of the claim.

[00:14:22] Speaker 06:
For example, if you were to send simply a single bit, a single piece of information, that's not what you're contemplating.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
But, Counsel, we're not talking about obviousness here.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
We're talking about eligibility.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
A claim to a chemical compound

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
doesn't have to recite its advantages or utility in the claim.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
And here, when we're talking about eligibility, it's a question of steps and components.

[00:14:52] Speaker 06:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:53] Speaker 06:
And the reason that I raised the issue of the fact that you could perform this claim and achieve nothing like the benefits that they're counting is

[00:15:04] Speaker 06:
If you look through the claim and you send only a small piece of information, even through push, even through the system, that is acknowledged in claim one as being something that was already happening.

[00:15:16] Speaker 06:
And that does not, I'm not asking, I'm not talking about that for obviousness purposes.

[00:15:21] Speaker 06:
I'm talking about the fact that that is therefore not the benefit they were attempting to achieve.

[00:15:26] Speaker 06:
In fact, the patent itself tells us that the real goal of the patent was a business reason and a commercial reason.

[00:15:34] Speaker 06:
In column three, beginning at line 16, the patent says, one possible goal of combining information with advertising content is to achieve a revenue source for the provider.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
But that's not the only purpose, is it, counsel?

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
It also talks about other purposes.

[00:15:54] Speaker 06:
The only other purposes that it ever talks about in the specification of the 351 and 929 patents are helping a user get the right information,

[00:16:03] Speaker 06:
at a triggering time so that it can potentially reduce cost because the advertising is being sent.

[00:16:10] Speaker 06:
Nowhere is anything about improving the computer mentioned in any way.

[00:16:15] Speaker 06:
This is not a technological solution to a technological problem.

[00:16:20] Speaker 06:
It's a business problem getting the right information to the right person so that you can reduce cost potentially, just like watching ads.

[00:16:29] Speaker 05:
Of course, there's always a business purpose behind software.

[00:16:33] Speaker 05:
improvement.

[00:16:33] Speaker 05:
So the question is, just because it was a business purpose doesn't necessarily mean it isn't improving how the proxy content server works.

[00:16:46] Speaker 06:
So again, you hear, Your Honor, we have admissions that the proxy content server is not an improvement in hardware.

[00:16:54] Speaker 06:
In fact, we know that this was

[00:16:56] Speaker 06:
standard hardware, and that the software that is used to program it is simply, quote, implementation details.

[00:17:04] Speaker 06:
And we know that not only from the argument of counsel down below when he admitted during the oral argument that the changes to the software were just implementation details, but we know that from the specification itself that talks constantly about the fact that the way the proxy content server is implemented can be done in several ways.

[00:17:25] Speaker 06:
one quote is from the specification at column three.

[00:17:28] Speaker 06:
The combining of information may be achieved in several ways based on the implementation of the proxy content server.

[00:17:35] Speaker 06:
Unfortunately, the remainder of the specification, the entire intrinsic record, is silent as to what those implementation details are, which brings us directly into the two-way media case, where you also had information getting from a source, hopefully to the right person, in a more efficient, they said in that case, way,

[00:17:54] Speaker 06:
But there was no description of how that was to happen.

[00:17:57] Speaker 05:
What about the bandwidth benefits that are described in the provisional?

[00:18:03] Speaker 06:
So the first answer, Your Honor, is that the provisional is that was dropped from the provisional when it came into this specification.

[00:18:12] Speaker 06:
But even if that language were maintained in the specification,

[00:18:15] Speaker 06:
The provisional does not say anything other than if you are sending lots of data not using push, you may have bandwidth difficulties.

[00:18:26] Speaker 06:
But the claim does not require massive amounts of data being used.

[00:18:30] Speaker 06:
Instead, the claim is silent to the volume of data.

[00:18:33] Speaker 06:
Therefore, you may not even have a bandwidth issue that needs to be solved.

[00:18:38] Speaker 05:
Step one, wouldn't any incremental benefit to the technology

[00:18:43] Speaker 05:
be sufficient to render it eligible at step one?

[00:18:47] Speaker 06:
I don't believe so, Your Honor, because it's not solving a computer-only problem.

[00:18:51] Speaker 06:
And then the last thing I would say is that, for example, BSG tells us that you have to take the abstraction out.

[00:18:56] Speaker 06:
If simply performing the abstraction results in something beneficial, that's not enough.

[00:19:01] Speaker 06:
For example, any amount of filtering for putting the information to the right person is going to achieve

[00:19:09] Speaker 06:
bandwidth benefits and potentially battery benefits, but that's simply by practicing the abstraction, which does not take it out of abstraction, nor does it add anything inventive.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
Is adding the proxy server as a gateway, as a patent says, on page 310, on line 60, using the pen as a gateway between the computer network and the wireless network, was that conventional at the time of the patent?

[00:19:40] Speaker 06:
Yes, absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:19:41] Speaker 06:
And we know that because the inventors actually admitted that being able to use a server to store information was well-known.

[00:19:50] Speaker 06:
Their own expert talked about the fact that using a proxy as a gateway between information was well-known.

[00:19:59] Speaker 06:
That's an appendix 1.991.

[00:20:02] Speaker 04:
Not between information.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
It's a gateway between a computer network and a wireless network.

[00:20:09] Speaker 06:
That's exactly where proxies sit.

[00:20:12] Speaker 06:
It's between any two pieces.

[00:20:14] Speaker 06:
And so the notion that a proxy sits between any information source and a place that receives the information was, in fact, well known.

[00:20:23] Speaker 06:
And that's, again, at appendix 11991 through 11993 and also available in... Okay.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Is it still the case?

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
Does your argument still hold in the case of a mobile device?

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
And the purpose of the proxy server is to push information from the internet to the mobile device?

[00:20:49] Speaker 06:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:20:50] Speaker 06:
Nothing changes with the fact that it's a mobile device.

[00:20:53] Speaker 06:
And we looked at the TLI case for that as well.

[00:20:55] Speaker 06:
The mobile device is just the information recipient.

[00:20:59] Speaker 06:
And it was well known that mobile devices could receive push technology

[00:21:03] Speaker 06:
And that is also in the specification of the patent in column one, line 39 through 46.

[00:21:10] Speaker 06:
OK, thank you.

[00:21:12] Speaker 06:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:14] Speaker 06:
I see my time is up.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
Keefe.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
We'll hear from Mr. Tchaikovsky.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
Mark Tchaikovsky for Appellate SNAP, Inc.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
for the 084 and 327 patents.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
You have heard Blackberry's counsel actually mention during his opening comments that this is an eligible information gathering and display patent similar to core wireless.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
What you heard is how Blackberry's desired characterization is tethered in any way to the claims in terms of having a new display, especially with respect to the 084 patent, which doesn't mention a display or any user interface of any sort.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
And even Blackberry agrees it's directed to a server that identifies and transmits action spot information.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
That's in the blue brief at page 55.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
And they admit it does not require a display.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
Any appendix citations to the allegedly disputed material facts presented at the district court that Blackberry now contends the district court area but not considering or resolving against Blackberry are not supported or not shown.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
There is no dispute.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
And how Blackberry's claim construction is adopted by the court

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
in light of mostly Blackberries propounding those positions and concurrent summary judgment motions for infringement, advanced broad constructions, and relied on expert testimony that sought, for infringement purposes, to stretch the claims to cover the circumference of the earth with no precision, limits in time, or any particular way of displaying the collected information.

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
But did the court tend to overgeneralize the claims?

[00:22:57] Speaker 05:
I mean, the court

[00:22:58] Speaker 05:
didn't consider the positioning of the proxy content server, the predefined information categories, the feedback signal or triggering events.

[00:23:06] Speaker 05:
Isn't that kind of exactly what we always warn against?

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
Oh, OK.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I was focusing on the action spot back, but going back to the ad server patents themselves, no, I would say consistent with the court in terms of

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
uh, charge point and frankly, IV versus capital one.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
The court took a abstraction that is, you know, collecting information or EPG for that matter and others.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
And, and then there are additional elements, claims that are simply, um, as, as their own expert, Dr. Almorov suggested in the record, just traditional,

[00:23:55] Speaker 02:
conventional, generic, and well-known.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think Dr. Almothering's deposition and in his expert declaration, again, due to infringement concerns, admitted that these are all traditional, well-known, and generic concepts.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
So I don't think any of them rise to the level of what we see in tech tech, computer improvements in the technology, or something that changes the way in which the computer operates.

[00:24:22] Speaker 05:
Well, let's go back to the,

[00:24:26] Speaker 05:
to the action spot patents.

[00:24:30] Speaker 05:
It seems like you're making the same argument that Ms.

[00:24:34] Speaker 05:
Keefe made, which is if you don't have a lot of advance, then we should assume there's no advance.

[00:24:42] Speaker 05:
In other words, doesn't display of even one action spot on a graphical user interface improve on the prior art?

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
Well, again, Your Honor, if we focus on, for example, the 084, which I know Blackberry would like to not focus on, there's no display in there.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
That's how we know.

[00:25:00] Speaker 02:
We look at those claims and we see, and as Blackberry admitted, Blackberry states again on page 55 that it's simply organizing and... But what about the 327?

[00:25:11] Speaker 05:
What about the 327?

[00:25:13] Speaker 02:
And then the 327, much like in Erickson or TLI, is simply placing what we see in the 085 in claim one

[00:25:21] Speaker 02:
into a traditional technological environment that is a mobile communication network.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
We have a generic processor, a generic display, a generic user interface.

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
We have no novel display.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
They'd like to mention that there's toggling is somehow, you know, we're getting this.

[00:25:39] Speaker 02:
If toggling, we're patent eligible in and of itself.

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
Then EPG with its multiple display inputs would have been a patentable invention.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
Then IV versus Capital One, which had multiple inputs and displays of information, would be patentable.

[00:25:54] Speaker 05:
Interval licensing... What about the ordered combination of the claim elements there?

[00:25:58] Speaker 05:
I mean, the argument that your friend on the other side is making is that it is improving technology because

[00:26:06] Speaker 05:
It allows the display of information on one user interface when prior art systems required multiple applications.

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
Again, as Judge Wu cited on A105, there was no evidence of the ordered combination, which just had generic specs of receiving, transmitting, and displaying information.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
And that's all it requires, using generic components

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
that it changes the character of what the claims are directed to.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
The claims are directed to locating and mapping activity of interest or collecting, and we just heard it from counsel in his opening remarks, information gathering and display.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
That's what the claims are directed to.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
And then when we just add in the generic components, this court's replete with case law

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
that adding those generic components don't take the order combination and make it passable.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
Again, PLI, interval licensing is excellent with its attention manager and its multiple displays being combined together.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
This is not core wireless, right?

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
In core wireless, we had a summary window

[00:27:15] Speaker 02:
in the claims that actually added within it the ability to access applications from that summary window and actually the ability to then launch those applications from that new summary window in and of itself.

[00:27:28] Speaker 02:
Here we simply have display action spots, which again, long-standing practices, crime maps that we've seen, earthquake maps that we've seen.

[00:27:38] Speaker 02:
As the court was told during the Rule 12 context, absolutely correct,

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
And then the court waited to have the developed record of summary judgment with claim construction, the plaintiff's infringement contentions, Blackberry's propounded broad claims for action spot, determining one action spot.

[00:27:55] Speaker 02:
It's that breadth that is put into this that we rely that the claims are directed to the broad notion

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
of protecting action spots, which we've been doing from time immemorial.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
Like I said, crime maps, earthquake maps at Caltech, which you have then tremors, et cetera, which give you the activity level on those earthquake maps.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
And now we've just put it like TLI for interval licensing.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
in a generic mobile environment.

[00:28:24] Speaker 02:
There's nothing special to that mobile environment.

[00:28:27] Speaker 02:
There's nothing special to that display.

[00:28:29] Speaker 02:
This is not what we have in core wireless.

[00:28:31] Speaker 02:
It's more like trading technologies, EPG, or otherwise.

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
Council, are you arguing quantity, are you arguing that there is no technological advance or improvement at all, or that there's some but not enough, similar to what we've heard before?

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
I don't believe there's a technological advance in either of the two action spot patents at all.

[00:28:59] Speaker 02:
I believe the action spot patents in and of themselves are directed to the abstract idea of locating and mapping activity of interest.

[00:29:09] Speaker 02:
And in fact, the inventors and closed Bashar in the record

[00:29:15] Speaker 02:
admitted that I was just looking at how to organize information in light of what was happening on social networks.

[00:29:21] Speaker 02:
There was no how, there was no way, there was no specificity.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
This wasn't about that.

[00:29:27] Speaker 02:
This was just about identifying action spots.

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
And they thought about it.

[00:29:30] Speaker 02:
As the SAP versus InDespic says, even if you believe, Your Honor, we may assume that techniques claim are groundbreaking, but that doesn't make them eligible.

[00:29:40] Speaker 02:
It's not enough for them to ask 102 and 103 muster.

[00:29:46] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:29:48] Speaker 03:
We have your argument.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
Sturrow, wife first.

[00:29:53] Speaker 03:
We'll give you your four minutes for bottle time.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Judge Lurie.

[00:29:57] Speaker 01:
I'd like to start with the business reason issue that was raised by Ms.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
Keefe.

[00:30:02] Speaker 01:
So the issue there is that advertising helps bring down the cost of the wireless service.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
So what we're talking about when we're sending advertising and content is yet more information than you would have had previously.

[00:30:14] Speaker 01:
And that gives rise to an even greater use of bandwidth.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
which is the reason why the provisional and other evidence, including the inventor and expert testimony, talk about the need to reduce bandwidth by using the proxy content server.

[00:30:27] Speaker 01:
And this is important, that the proxy, I said this in the opening, but I want to underscore it, is the proxy content server is not like the prior ARC proxy servers, because it is much more autonomous in what it does.

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
And I think this is prime dispute of fact territory, because we heard...

[00:30:44] Speaker 04:
Counsel, I have a simple question.

[00:30:46] Speaker 04:
I think that will put a lot of clarity into your arguments, at least for me anyway.

[00:30:51] Speaker 04:
Are you arguing that the PANs are eligible as step one or step two?

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
Well, we're arguing both, Your Honor.

[00:31:00] Speaker 04:
But if you argue that they're eligible as step two, then you're asserting that they're directed to an abstract idea that the claims are.

[00:31:09] Speaker 01:
We strongly are arguing on step one based on ANCORA among other cases.

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
We alternatively have presented an argument under step two, and part of the reason for that is that ANCORA and BASCOM, which I would submit are our two key cases, BASCOM sort of waffles a little bit.

[00:31:27] Speaker 01:
I don't mean to offend the court, but waffles a little bit between step one and step two and goes to step two.

[00:31:32] Speaker 01:
And ANCORA actually relies on BASCOM as precedent in the context of step one.

[00:31:37] Speaker 01:
So there isn't always a stark distinction, at least in those two cases, between the two steps.

[00:31:42] Speaker 01:
So we are arguing under both steps.

[00:31:45] Speaker 01:
So again, the bandwidth innovation is important.

[00:31:48] Speaker 01:
Proxy content server is more autonomous.

[00:31:51] Speaker 01:
That's 11995 and 18395.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
Briefly on the two-way case, which was mentioned,

[00:31:56] Speaker 01:
that there was much less information in those claims on what the innovation was.

[00:32:01] Speaker 01:
And, in fact, as court specifically pointed out, there was nothing on the feedback signals that were used.

[00:32:06] Speaker 01:
Here, by contrast, the feedback signals clearly described in the claims as location of the device, as well as the triggering event being time.

[00:32:13] Speaker 01:
So we have that element of specificity that was absent from 2A.

[00:32:17] Speaker 01:
And the claim itself, as Judge O'Malley pointed out, does not need to recite the benefits.

[00:32:23] Speaker 01:
It does certainly need to refer to the features that accomplish those benefits, but here it does so.

[00:32:28] Speaker 01:
It talks about a system for push as a preamble of claim one.

[00:32:31] Speaker 01:
The preamble is something that can be considered.

[00:32:34] Speaker 01:
Uh, and it lays out exactly what the proxy content server is doing in at least as much specificity as was present in Angkor and Bascom.

[00:32:43] Speaker 04:
Uh, turning to the other set of... Is the implementation of the push technology that results in

[00:32:50] Speaker 04:
a reduction in toggling by the mobile device user, right?

[00:32:56] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:32:56] Speaker 01:
On the second set of patents, that is precisely the key invention, is that the prior art, you were toggling back and forth between, say, a Google search and a map, and you had to keep them both in mind when you were figuring out where the events were.

[00:33:08] Speaker 01:
Here, the key to this innovation is that it brings it all together.

[00:33:12] Speaker 01:
Uh, inventor Bouchard, who was the second inventor, uh, was cited by my adversary that he was focusing on the information gathering aspect, but the other testimony in the record, which gives rise to the fact dispute among others, 1964 and 1980 is talking about the combination of these two separate.

[00:33:31] Speaker 04:
Why, why wouldn't, why wouldn't the, the.

[00:33:34] Speaker 04:
the absence or the non-requirement of so much toggling, why would that not be an improvement in computer functionality?

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
We think it would be an improvement in computer functionality, just as it was in core wireless, DDR, and data engine, is when the user has to do less navigating back and forth.

[00:33:54] Speaker 01:
That is construed by those cases as an improvement in the efficiency of the computer.

[00:33:58] Speaker 01:
It's also a problem that's unique to the internet, which goes back to the packet intelligence case that I started with.

[00:34:05] Speaker 01:
So, for all of those reasons, we think that both of these patents should be viewed as non-abstract at the summary judgment stage at step one and alternatively to have an inventive concept at step two.

[00:34:16] Speaker 01:
If the court has no further questions, I'll rest on my briefs.

[00:34:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:34:20] Speaker 03:
We will try not to waffle this time.