[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
ex-arguing cases number nineteen twenty one ninety eight real-time data i'll see again through that year's systems incorporated mister ladel good morning and thank you honor may please the court brian ladel on behalf of real-time data the patent at issue in this case all claims subject matter that patent eligible they claim improvements to computer functionality something that this court clearly holds

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
is patent eligible in a clear line of cases from DDR to ENFISH to TALIS to visual memory.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
These are claims that are probably most similar to those in the visual memory case.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
And that case dictates the result here.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
These are claims directed to improving computer functionality by improving the way that data compression is utilized by a computer or computer system

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
in order to make the computers functioning more efficient, faster, and better.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
It was a new and novel manner of use of compression and how to configure compression systems.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
And that is exactly the kind of claim that this court holds to be patent eligible.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
Do you think this is something that should be decided at step one or step two?

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
I think, Your Honor, we think that

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
Under step one, these claims are clearly not directed to an abstract idea and therefore it could easily be resolved at step one.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
However, even if the court were to disagree, we think there's significant inventive contribution in the ordered combination of the steps and the claim elements that would require reversal under step two as well.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
And we also think that there are significant fact questions surrounding that that make it very inappropriate to decide, especially on a step to ground at the pleading stage.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
There's a lot that is absent from the district court's analysis.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
And we can talk about that.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
But what other than the ultimate conclusion

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
Did the district court say that you think is just wrong, a wrong statement of the law or a wrong description of the patent claims?

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
So I think a couple of key elements, Your Honor, and thank you for the question.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
We think that the district court's statement of the law, and I'll start there, is fundamentally incorrect in that the district court really failed to analyze or explain or distinguish

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
this court's line of cases about claims directed to improvements in computer functionality.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
Prior to the hearing on this matter, the district court had requested that each party identify the case from this court that it believed was most akin to the claims at issue here.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
We identified the visual memory case to the court because we believed and continue to believe that it presented the closest analog in terms of claims.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
The district court provided no analysis or explanation of why it disagreed or even how it understood the visual memory case.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
It never cited it in the discussion.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
Obviously, the discussion is very limited since it's only the transcript and there's no written order.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
In terms of the factual matter or the description of the claims, we think the district court fundamentally erred in suggesting that the claims are merely directed to

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
analyzing and encoding data.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
That's not accurate at all.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
The claims are directed to changing the configuration or configuring a computer system, and each family is a slightly different variant on this, but configuring a computer system in a new way that makes the computer system function better and more effectively through new ways to use data compression that were not known in the art.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
And there's a whole lot in the specifications that explain that, as well as the claims themselves, of course.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
This is just Toronto.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask you to address the following?

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
And perhaps this reflects, I don't know whether it's A54 to 55 of the appendix, or that's secondary to the substance.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
One way to view what the district court held, or at least one way to view the analysis, is

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
There are two asserted contributions among these five patents.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
One, choosing compression techniques by looking at what data is being compressed.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
And the second is deciding to compress only if you can actually save something, namely the time that compression plus storage of the compressed data

[00:05:10] Speaker 03:
would, that that has to be less than the time of simply storing the uncompressed data, which seems, and the first point seems rather nonspecific, since there's nothing about what you do with any indication of the content of the data in choosing a compression tool, and the second

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
seems like a statement of a result.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
Again, without any indication of how you decide whether compression is actually going to save time.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
So lack of specificity and results focus are two things that have been part of our abstract idea law.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
Why do these claims not fall under that combination?

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
Sure, and thank you, your honor.

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
So I think first of all, both of those concepts that you mentioned are new concepts that respectfully are very different ways of approaching data compression that were not present in the prior art and that changed the way that the systems using these inventions would function in an advantageous manner.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
And that direction toward

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
Here's how you configure your computer system to make it work better is precisely where this court's line of cases have said those are not abstract ideas.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
I would point, for example, to the claim that was discussed in the visual memory case, which was claim one, where the memory configuration was memory that's connectable to a processor and it has one or more programmable operational characteristics.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
and that then those determined the type of data stored by the different cash components.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
It didn't say what those characteristics had to be or how they were utilized in the claim, but this court recognized that that claim was directed to an improvement to computer functionality, not an abstract idea of just processing data, nor just to a result as the district court tried to suggest here.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
I think it's not

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
So as to the level of specificity, the court's case law makes pretty clear, including in visual memory, that claims aren't eligible or ineligible because of their breads.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
And I think that that's... I mean, I think you've read these cases as well as I have, starting at least with Enfish.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
I believe it to be the case that every single one of

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
the computer functionality improvement cases takes pains to use a term like specific and concrete or particular because you need some kind of dividing line no matter how gray the line may be.

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
And so it's not enough to say anything directed at, and anything that aims to improve computer functionality is enough.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
What we said is anything that is specific and improves functionality.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
And the question, I guess, is why this is on the eligible side of that line, with the focus being on specificity of how to achieve a result, not simply that you're improving the computer, because that language essentially is question-begging.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
I appreciate the question, Your Honor, and I think

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
I would say there are two key aspects to these claims that I think very clearly take them across that line that you're discussing.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
I think first of all, the claims don't merely say choose something that works.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
They talk about choosing how you choose the encoder and how you analyze the data.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
Based on a way that's different than the prior art and particularly looking at the actual content of the files and the data that's coming through, rather than a file descriptor like .pdf or .doc because, and the specification explains in some detail, why that prior approach didn't work very well.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
And it talks in the specification, for example, about some examples of these kinds of analyses

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
I'll refer in this instance to the 203 patent, which is the earlier patent in the first family at issue.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
And column 16, for example, discusses some of these analyses of parameters that you would use and the kinds of analysis that you would do of the data content in order to make these decisions.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
That's at page 172 of the appendix.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
it talks about embodiments using that approach uh... again in the same patent from column fifteen through twenty uh... it it explains a very detailed flow of that right so we i mean we often face cases in which there are uh... in which there's considerable detail of ways of doing something in a spec but the claim doesn't require any of them and therefore it says something

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
very very general and I think these claims do that namely use some something about the content no further specification to decide which compression tools to use.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
Why is that not insufficiently specific?

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
Well your honor I guess what I would say is I would quote what this court said in visual memory configuring and this is obviously referring to the claim there configuring the memory system

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
Based on the type of processor connected to the memory system is the improvement in computer technology.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
And and I think that these claims are at that or a higher level of specificity and that that's from page 1261 of the visual memory decision.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
But certainly these claims are as specific or more so than those held to be patent eligible in visual memory.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
I can hear that I've reached my... Before you sit down, I have two quick questions.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
One is that in the hearing, when the judge said, you know, can I look at all these claims together, and you said, well, we can start there, or whoever was arguing at the hearing, but that there are a lot of

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
dependent claims that we have to consider.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
What dependent claims do you think should be viewed differently than just sort of a global big picture without just the global big picture lens?

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
Are there any dependent claims you want us to focus on?

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
I think if we were looking at the the 203 patent, for example,

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
Claim nine is one of the dependent claims that we would suggest is it has some further important distinctions.

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
I would suggest that in the 530 patent claims two and four both add important distinctions as does claim six and 11.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
There are parallel dependent claims, so in that patent, claims 1, 21, and 25 are independent.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
There are similar dependent claims to some of the other independents.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
With respect to the 751 patent, I think the dependent claims, these are to claim 1, like 21, 22, 23,

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
and 24 all add important components.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
There are parallel dependent claims to independent claim 25.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
So I think all of those would be important to consider as well.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
This is Judge Toronto.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Can I just double check?

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
Did you point in your blue brief or your gray brief or in any of the joint appendix excerpts of

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
your opposition to the motion to dismiss to any of those claims, I don't remember seeing anything that is in particular about any of the five claims, one per patent that other than those five claims, one per patent that the red brief says are representative.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, I don't recall all of the details of the briefing before the District Court.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
I believe that those were each referenced in the briefing to the District Court.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
I looked in the Joint Appendix.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
There are four oppositions to the 12b6 motions in Commvault, Ixistens, Pure Storage, and Kegyle.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
And at least in the excerpts that you included in the Joint Appendix, there's not a single reference to any element of a claim.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
that doesn't appear in the five so-called representative claims.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
In one of the cases, Tegile, you talk about 751 Claim 1, but you itemize six elements, every one of which is in 751 Claim 25, which is the representative one.

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
So I'm not sure that you have made any argument to us or shown us that you made any argument in the district court about that any of the

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
claims other than the five matter to the 101 analysis?

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, I guess I would have two suggestions in response to that.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
The first is I believe that we discussed both in the blue brief and in the briefing to the district court the fact that there are a great many dependent claims and that this was a motion these were motions brought at the pleading stage directed to essentially all claims in a patent

[00:15:24] Speaker 01:
and it's the defendant's burden under the, under I4I and Section 282 to actually make a showing as to an eligibility.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
And so I do think there's a little bit of improper burden shifting in suggesting that all claims have to, a defendant can basically come in and say, well, here's a claim and require the patent owner to then defend all claims

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
especially where briefing and other constraints limit their ability to do so.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
That said, I do think we discussed the importance of looking at dependent claims in both the district court and in the blue brief.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
My second question, and I know your time's up, and I'm sure Judge Newman will give you a little bit of time, but the second question is in the two decisions where Judge Young and Judge Strader found the

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
the same claims to be patent eligible.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
What is the status of those cases?

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
So I believe that basically my recollection is imperfect.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
I think that at least one of those may have settled, but I believe another is essentially stayed in light of the

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
ruling of the district court in delaware that's being appealed here because obviously a finding that became rest due to cotter collateral stoppile would would be relevant and so i believe that one of them is stated but i think one of them may have settled previously okay thank you okay let's hear from the other side and we'll make sure that everyone has time to explore the arguments mr newcombe

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
Um, I'm not sure the court is able to hear me because I had a connection problem earlier.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
Are you able to hear me?

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
Yes, I can.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
Uh, thank you so much.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
Jane Newcomb, I represent Fortinet and I'm speaking today on behalf of all of the appellees.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
These five real time patents from all claim in varying ways.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
the use of processors and encoders to compress or decompress different kinds of data using different kinds of compression or decompression techniques.

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
While claiming the use of processors, however, the patents don't claim and are not limited to any particular processor.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
That's abundantly clear based on the claim language and specifications.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Any off-the-shelf computer, for example, will do.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
Likewise, while the council, can I ask you, I have a threshold issue and that is a process one.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
Um, what troubles me the most is that we have virtually nothing, no reasoning from the district court to go on.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
I mean, the district court essentially just reached a conclusion.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
I mean, in, in a few pages where, um, just referred to some broad general issues, even citing McCrow, which went the other way.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
in support of what he was saying, he gives us really nothing to review.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
Is it really our job to assess these patents, you know, 150 claims across five patents in the first instance?

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
Shouldn't we remand and ask the court to explain itself?

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
We don't think so.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
And my thinking, Your Honor, would be as follows.

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
Number one, the district court here

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
We had a gosh, I think almost a two and a half hour long hearing, which included a fair amount of colloquy between the court and counsel on both sides, including some healthy debate under both Alice.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
But even in that colloquy, even in that colloquy that the court said many things that that sounded just wrong, like talking, seeming to confuse 101 with enablement or

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
talking about obviousness.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
So, I mean, wouldn't it be better if the district court explained that those apparent confusions did not creep into the decision-making?

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
Well, look, I think the obviousness point, as I read that portion of the transcript, it was a choice of language which meant to go to ALICE Step 2, the inventive

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
a hook that may be able to get you beyond abstract claims.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
As to the remainder of your question, I think there's no question that this court's job would be easier had the district court here done a more detailed and, for example, a written opinion.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
On de novo review, however, under both Third Circuit and Federal Circuit precedent,

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
Um, we're not seeing any requirement that the decision be, uh, in written form and, uh, I'm not saying, I'm not saying the decision had to be in written form.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
I mean, I, I, you know, I did plenty of rulings from the bench, but, but when I did, they were very specific site, you know, site, citing the cases, citing to, you know, in a patent context, citing to specific claim language.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
I mean, I, you know, and I've seen.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
rulings from the bench from Judge Stark that actually look almost like a full written opinion.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
So I'm not saying you can't do it from the bench.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
I'm saying that isn't there a need to at least issue something that looks like a written opinion?

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
Or sounds like a written opinion?

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
We don't think so, Your Honor.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
The way we read the transcript is that Judge Connolly here went through both step one and step two in ALIS.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
And especially on the de novo review, given the face of the patents and their specifications, Your Honor may not be surprised to hear that it's very clear to us how he came to his reasoning on both step one and step two.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
And for the, I mean, on the abstraction reason, there was a,

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
a repeated back and forth between the court and counsel about, you know, show me what exactly is being claimed.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
Where do we get away from the abstraction?

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
For example, of using any processor on any kind of data with any coding or encoding technique, selecting data by any attribute or parameter.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
And if one reads the transcript as a whole, it supports the conclusion that

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
under step one, there's a failure.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
There was, uh, I think in what portions of judge loves report and recommendations.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
Do you disagree with other than the ultimate conclusion?

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
So, um, you know, there are two, there's the carbonite and the act in decision.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
Um, and we have a couple of thoughts.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
First of all, I'm in the carbonite recommendation.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
The discussion of the 728 patent, the overlapping patent between that decision and this case, we respectfully believe that Magistrate Judge Love misread or failed to account for certain portions of the patent specification.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
For example, Judge Love explained that he thought the 728 was patent eligible due to his understanding that the patent required a specific configuration of different encoders.

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
If it helps, Your Honor, that's an appendix 785.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
That's actually incorrect when compared to the specification.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
If you look, for example, at appendix 251, column 16, beginning at line 35, the patent or the specification is pretty clear that the encoder can be any type.

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
And even content dependent versus content independent encoders can, in fact, be the exact same encoder.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
Judge Love, you know, denied the Alice motion by citing disputes between the parties on claim construction issues.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
You can see that, for example, at Appendix 807 and Appendix 810.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
Here, there were no and real-time raised no claim construction disputes to Judge Connolly to get in the way of an Alice analysis.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
And the third point is not to beat a dead horse, Your Honor,

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
We found the exchange between the court and counsel in Delaware to be informative and useful to the court and included a fair amount of admissions by my friend at opposing counsel table.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
And Amanda Strait Love did not have the benefit of those admissions.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
Those three thoughts, Your Honor, are, of course, aside from my observation that Judge Love's decisions are not binding on this court, but I think this court knows that.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
Can you explain why, as to, I guess, one of the two ideas that are talked about as reflected in the five patents here, the one about choosing a compression tool based on some parameter or attribute of the data, but not based on some essentially label

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
on the data that tells the system which we choose.

[00:25:25] Speaker 03:
Why is that not a specific enough improvement in an important computer functionality?

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
Even at that level of generality, that is you don't have to analyze every bit in the data, just something about a data block

[00:25:51] Speaker 03:
that gives you a parameter or attribute that you then use to select the compression tool.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
So, if I may, let me approach that from two different angles.

[00:26:02] Speaker 02:
First, in terms of various of these patents, right, claiming that you choose your compression or decompression, depending on the patent technique, based on an attribute or parameter of the data or the data block,

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
I think it's important to recognize at the outset that what attribute or parameter of the data should be or is being claimed will be considered is not clear at all.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
And the specifications make clear that this patentee was trying to claim any and all analysis of or attribute of or parameter of any data.

[00:26:43] Speaker 02:
By way of one example from the 728, that column,

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
starting line 22, the patent discusses recognizing data types, data structures, data block formats, file substructures, file types, and or any other parameters that may be indicative of the data type or content of a given data block.

[00:27:06] Speaker 02:
So as I read that hook or that limitation within the patent, Your Honor, it's not telling you

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
For example, that any type of content within a data block would suggest one type of compression or another.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
Even if it were, it's not telling you what kind of compression you should then apply.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
And it's certainly not claiming that it has any method or mode of compression, which doesn't already exist in the priority.

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
Does that go to 101, or does that go to enablement?

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
Oh, in this.

[00:27:47] Speaker 02:
So as we all have, I've read the case law and in the last couple of days, I was listening to some recent arguments on Alice issues.

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
Then I, I know it's, it's easy for the Alice discussion to get into written description or enablement issues.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
I don't think that's an issue in this case.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
For example, because sure sounded like enablement to me.

[00:28:09] Speaker 02:
Well, uh, good.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
Then I definitely don't want to wave that defense, your honor.

[00:28:13] Speaker 02:
There's no question that in the specifications for these patents that there are numerous examples that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to look at and say, I could implement that.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
For example, in a couple of places, there's a laundry list of known in the prior art coding or encoding techniques.

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
The problem is if you look at the claim language, it uses these generic terms and I think quite

[00:28:43] Speaker 02:
craftily, the claim language is designed not to be limited.

[00:28:48] Speaker 02:
So what we have is a disclosure of examples in this particular instance of what kind of attribute or parameter of the data you might look to.

[00:29:00] Speaker 02:
But the patent isn't claiming that and certainly isn't limited to that.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
You could do the same thing with encoders, the same exercise with the processor, and the same with the kind of data.

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
But beyond my observing that, the data parameter or attribute which is used to select the compression technique is not clear.

[00:29:24] Speaker 02:
Judge Tarantino, I take your question to be what about this phrase, which we see in a few of the limitations, that whatever data attribute or parameter you're going to look at in order to choose your unspecified coding or encoding technique,

[00:29:42] Speaker 02:
that it should be something beyond only looking at the descriptor.

[00:29:46] Speaker 02:
And we don't think that changes this analysis for at least two reasons.

[00:29:51] Speaker 03:
First, I mean, often in 101 cases, we find certainly this is true at the 12b6 stage because the record amounts to basically the complaint and the patents.

[00:30:11] Speaker 03:
Often what we find is that something in the specification confirms that what appears to be, in the claim, a very general idea is nothing like an improvement.

[00:30:34] Speaker 03:
And therefore, that is, and the example, I guess, in particular,

[00:30:41] Speaker 03:
application of that thought here would be this question.

[00:30:45] Speaker 03:
Assuming, as appears to be the case, that parameter and attribute of the data is anything about it that tells you something about the data with the one exception stated expressly in the claim as an exception, not a descriptor, that choosing compression or decompression techniques based on that

[00:31:09] Speaker 03:
Is there anything in the spec that acknowledges that at that level of generality, something under that broad class has been done before?

[00:31:22] Speaker 03:
Or is it really quite new to say, in order to decide what compression or decompression tool to use, we're not just going to be looking at what the data tells us by a descriptor, but we're going to at least

[00:31:39] Speaker 03:
peek at the actual data?

[00:31:44] Speaker 02:
The idea that one would look at something about a data other than the suffix, for example .doc or .xls, has not been argued in this case, nor is there support in the specification.

[00:32:04] Speaker 02:
that that concept is novel or inventive to use Alice Step 2 language.

[00:32:13] Speaker 02:
And I would further note, Your Honor, that if you read the claim language, it's not even different.

[00:32:20] Speaker 00:
The question at Alice Step 2 has to do with whether something is so routine and conventional and well-known.

[00:32:32] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to understand how, for instance, someone could have done these things in their head without a system like this, because I can't imagine how to compress data in my head.

[00:32:51] Speaker 02:
So two thoughts there, Your Honor.

[00:32:54] Speaker 02:
Number one, I think when we're talking about abstraction, the mental equivalence of a compression

[00:33:02] Speaker 02:
Oh, I just heard my... Please proceed.

[00:33:06] Speaker 02:
Please answer the question.

[00:33:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:33:09] Speaker 02:
There are mental equivalents outside of the computer context.

[00:33:13] Speaker 02:
For example, stenographers who take shorthand version of transcription or an abbreviation code for language or for numbers.

[00:33:24] Speaker 02:
But going to Judge Tarantino's prior question, I think the best indication that

[00:33:31] Speaker 02:
This patent is not claiming that there's something particularly special about looking at something beyond the descriptor would be two things.

[00:33:40] Speaker 02:
Number one, if you read the claim language, it's not even disavowing looking at the descriptor.

[00:33:44] Speaker 02:
What it is, you can still do that.

[00:33:47] Speaker 02:
And I think as this very broad claim language was designed, you could still be putatively infringing.

[00:33:56] Speaker 02:
The limitation is a negative limitation that it can't be exclusively the descriptor.

[00:34:01] Speaker 02:
The second would be the idea that you could look at any and all other parts of the attributes or the parameters of the data is right there in the specification.

[00:34:12] Speaker 02:
For example, you could look at the data types, the data structures, the data block formats, the file substructures.

[00:34:19] Speaker 02:
And I've already read portions of this quotation before, so I won't do it again.

[00:34:24] Speaker 02:
But the suggestion that choosing

[00:34:29] Speaker 02:
and an unspecified compression method or an unspecified type of data based on an unspecified attribute or parameter, which attribute or parameter can be something beyond just the file name suffix is right there in the intrinsic evidence for the patents.

[00:34:53] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:34:54] Speaker 04:
Any more questions for Mr. Newcomb, Judge O'Malley, Judge Duranto?

[00:34:58] Speaker 00:
No, thank you.

[00:35:00] Speaker 00:
No, thanks.

[00:35:01] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:35:02] Speaker 00:
Thank you to the court.

[00:35:04] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.

[00:35:05] Speaker 04:
We'll hear from Mr. Redel in three minutes.

[00:35:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:35:09] Speaker 01:
I want to start with a question Judge Toronto asked a moment ago about anything in the specification that suggests that choosing compression based on the content of the data was

[00:35:21] Speaker 01:
something that was known in the art or conventional?

[00:35:23] Speaker 01:
And the answer to that question is unequivocally no.

[00:35:26] Speaker 01:
The specifications make clear that that was something new.

[00:35:29] Speaker 01:
That wasn't how compression was used in the past.

[00:35:32] Speaker 01:
And indeed, if we look, for example, at the 203 patent, the specification talks about the prior art as either using essentially a one-size-fits-all approach, where you use one encoder no matter what you're looking at,

[00:35:48] Speaker 01:
or using file descriptors, the file extension, as the means of choosing an encoder.

[00:35:55] Speaker 01:
And it criticizes both of those approaches and explains why the approach the patent takes to compression is advantageous and will allow for these improvements in the computer functioning.

[00:36:07] Speaker 01:
And I think that's discussed heavily in the background section of each of the patents.

[00:36:13] Speaker 01:
If we look at the 203 specification, for example,

[00:36:16] Speaker 01:
That would be in columns one to three, which is at pages 165 to 166 of the appendix.

[00:36:24] Speaker 01:
I also want to go back to something that my friend suggested a number of times about specifying in the claims.

[00:36:32] Speaker 01:
the nature of the parameter or the nature of what that had to be and I think that runs directly contrary to the analysis that this court performed and I know I keep coming back to the visual memory case but if we look at the claim that was considered there it recited one or more programmable operational characteristics of a processor and that those programmable operational characteristics

[00:37:01] Speaker 01:
determine the type of data stored in the cache.

[00:37:04] Speaker 01:
It didn't recite what those characteristics had to be or how they were programmed in the claims.

[00:37:10] Speaker 01:
And the court didn't suggest that it was reading in some limitation.

[00:37:15] Speaker 01:
That was something that was not necessary to decide the 101 question.

[00:37:22] Speaker 01:
And I think this goes to the point Judge O'Malley raised.

[00:37:24] Speaker 01:
sometimes those questions of brett's might go to other issues under section one twelve or section one of two or one of three but they don't go to eligibility and i think that's exactly uh... parallel to the claims here i don't i would suggest that they're written with somewhat more specificity then the claim in visual memory but they certainly meet the standard that the court articulated and applied in that case and uh... and that

[00:37:55] Speaker 01:
continues to be the rule as far as we understand it.

[00:37:59] Speaker 01:
If there are other questions, I'm happy to address them, but I know I'm right up at the edge of my time.

[00:38:07] Speaker 04:
I'm going to say any more questions, Judge O'Malley?

[00:38:11] Speaker 04:
No, thank you.

[00:38:12] Speaker 04:
Judge Toronto?

[00:38:13] Speaker 01:
No, thanks.

[00:38:14] Speaker 04:
Okay, thanks to both counsel.

[00:38:16] Speaker 04:
This case is taken under submission.

[00:38:19] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.