[00:00:01] Speaker 01: Are we ready to proceed, Michael? [00:00:03] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:00:05] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:00:05] Speaker 01: I call case number 191825 Rothschild Connected Devices versus Coca-Cola Company. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: Mr. Carey, whenever you're ready. [00:00:16] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor, and good morning to all of Your Honors and may it please the Court. [00:00:23] Speaker 03: The first and main issue in this appeal is clean construction. [00:00:29] Speaker 03: regarding the claim term user interface module, which appears in claim 11, which is the only independent claim asserted in the case. [00:00:40] Speaker 03: This court reviews claim construction issues de novo. [00:00:44] Speaker 03: Here, the district court incorrectly construed user interface module in several respects. [00:00:52] Speaker 03: It improperly limited user interface module to direct communications only [00:01:00] Speaker 03: And it improperly required the user interface module to be physically part of the beverage dispenser. [00:01:09] Speaker 03: Now, the case implicates a lot of important legal principles, which is well established in the history of this court, including that a patentee is entitled to the full scope of the claim language. [00:01:24] Speaker 02: So let's assume that [00:01:27] Speaker 02: district court got the claim construction wrong. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: As I understand it, you say that the user interface module here is satisfied by two different features of the Coca-Cola device. [00:01:41] Speaker 02: One is the touch screen and the second one is the app. [00:01:49] Speaker 02: Is that correct? [00:01:50] Speaker 03: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:01:52] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:01:52] Speaker 02: Let's take the touch screen first and under your [00:01:56] Speaker 02: preferred claim construction, that would be a component that enables communication between the user and the dispenser. [00:02:05] Speaker 02: And with respect to the user identification, the way I read the record, that is received information received by the touchscreen, but the touchscreen doesn't do anything with it. [00:02:21] Speaker 02: So I guess I'm wondering with respect to that theory, how is it [00:02:27] Speaker 02: that the touch screen is enabling communication when it doesn't communicate the user identity to anybody? [00:02:37] Speaker 03: Your Honor, the user interface module is recited in claim 11. [00:02:42] Speaker 03: The actual claim language recites a user interface module configured to receive an identity of a user and an identifier of the beverage. [00:02:54] Speaker 03: All right, so the claim language [00:02:58] Speaker 03: is satisfied when the user interface module receives the identity of the user. [00:03:04] Speaker 02: That wasn't your theory. [00:03:05] Speaker 02: Your theory and the client construction that you urged required that it enable communication between a user and a dispenser. [00:03:15] Speaker 02: It does. [00:03:16] Speaker 02: Is it correct? [00:03:18] Speaker 02: I understand that the touch screen does receive the user identity. [00:03:23] Speaker 02: But is it correct that it doesn't do anything with it? [00:03:26] Speaker 02: It doesn't communicate it anywhere else? [00:03:31] Speaker 02: Is that true? [00:03:34] Speaker 03: That's not true that it doesn't do anything with it, Your Honor. [00:03:36] Speaker 03: It does do a variety of things with the information. [00:03:40] Speaker 03: So the touchscreen is on the outside of the dispenser housing. [00:03:45] Speaker 03: The user can walk up to the touchscreen. [00:03:49] Speaker 03: And the fact that it's a touchscreen, the user can [00:03:52] Speaker 03: can press certain areas of it and get a reaction. [00:03:57] Speaker 02: You're not answering my question. [00:03:58] Speaker 02: My question is about the user identity. [00:04:01] Speaker 02: What does the touchscreen do with the user identity information? [00:04:07] Speaker 03: It receives the user identity information and the beverage mixes that the user has previously set up to correspond to their favorite mixes. [00:04:18] Speaker 03: And it presents those [00:04:20] Speaker 03: It presents that user's mixes on the screen. [00:04:24] Speaker 02: No, it does not present the user's identity on the screen, right? [00:04:31] Speaker 03: It presents the beverage information on the screen associated with that user. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: Answer my question. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: It does not present the user's identity on the screen. [00:04:41] Speaker 03: I think that's correct, Your Honor. [00:04:42] Speaker 03: It doesn't give the user's name, but the beverage identifiers are presented. [00:04:47] Speaker 03: And the claim only resides that it received the user identity, not do anything more with the user identity. [00:04:53] Speaker 02: It doesn't have to communicate it? [00:04:57] Speaker 03: The claim simply resides the user interface module configured to receive the identity of the user. [00:05:03] Speaker 02: Yeah, but your claim instruction said that it has to enable the communication between the user and the dispenser. [00:05:12] Speaker 03: It does that. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: How does it do that? [00:05:15] Speaker 03: It does that by being a touch screen that the user interacts with. [00:05:20] Speaker 03: The entire session for customizing a beverage with this accused product is called a handshake. [00:05:30] Speaker 03: And there's a couple of record exhibits that describe very succinctly how that works. [00:05:42] Speaker 03: Once the user walks up to the beverage dispenser, scans the mobile app, and then information corresponding to that user's favorite beverage mixes are sent down to the machine and then transferred to the user interface touch screen and presented to the user. [00:06:01] Speaker 03: He then selects which beverage option he or she feels like having at that particular time. [00:06:09] Speaker 03: The claim recites only that the user interface module receive the identity of the user and the identifier, the beverage. [00:06:16] Speaker 03: It does those things, and it does more. [00:06:18] Speaker 03: It then presents the beverage options to the user. [00:06:21] Speaker 03: That's not recited by the claim language, but it does do that. [00:06:28] Speaker 02: What about your other theory about the app? [00:06:32] Speaker 02: The phone is not part of the user [00:06:38] Speaker 02: interface module, right? [00:06:40] Speaker 03: The user's phone is, the hardware of the phone is not, but the app is a piece of software that Coca-Cola makes and distributes, solely designed to be used with the freestyle machines. [00:07:00] Speaker 03: So it is part of the freestyle dispenser system. [00:07:07] Speaker 01: Isn't that... I know there's a case called Centellian. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: Isn't this a problem for you? [00:07:14] Speaker 01: I mean, assuming your claim construction holds, would the user's phone can be claimed as part of the user interface module? [00:07:29] Speaker 01: I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:07:30] Speaker 03: I didn't quite catch that. [00:07:32] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:07:34] Speaker 01: Could you please repeat the question? [00:07:35] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:07:36] Speaker 01: Coca-Cola is not itself supplying the cell phone. [00:07:40] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:07:40] Speaker 01: Right. [00:07:42] Speaker 01: So how do you get around the requirements of a case called Centillion in terms of just providing the software but not the cell phones themselves? [00:07:54] Speaker 03: Well, we're not alleging anything about the hardware of the phone. [00:07:59] Speaker 03: We're only alleging that the freestyle mobile application [00:08:05] Speaker 03: which is software that Coca-Cola creates and distributes. [00:08:10] Speaker 03: But that is a component that satisfies the user interface module limitation. [00:08:16] Speaker 03: So we don't, I mean, the app could be on a phone, it could be on an iPad, it could be on something. [00:08:24] Speaker 03: We're not calling any of that other hardware part of the accused product that Coca-Cola is infringing. [00:08:33] Speaker 03: But they are distributing the app. [00:08:36] Speaker 03: And they make the app. [00:08:38] Speaker 03: But they have a third party make the app. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: But it's entirely the customer on whether they want to install and operate the software on their phone, right? [00:08:52] Speaker 03: That's correct. [00:08:56] Speaker 03: But this isn't a method claim. [00:08:57] Speaker 03: It's not a method claim. [00:08:58] Speaker 03: And it's a system claim. [00:09:01] Speaker 03: And it's met when all the components of the system [00:09:04] Speaker 03: are made, used, or sold by Coca-Cola. [00:09:07] Speaker 03: So here, Coca-Cola has, you know, the district judge ruled in favor and denied summary judgment on all the other claim elements that had been raised. [00:09:17] Speaker 03: And as for this element, user interface module, this is a component that is made, used, and distributed by Coca-Cola. [00:09:24] Speaker 03: So the fact that it doesn't sell the phones is not material in our view. [00:09:29] Speaker 02: But in the Supreme Court's Microsoft case, it specifically held [00:09:34] Speaker 02: that software wasn't a component there dealing with 271F. [00:09:44] Speaker 03: That is, I am familiar with that case somewhat, Your Honor. [00:09:49] Speaker 03: I do recall them talking about that in that context. [00:09:52] Speaker 03: That's not an argument that Coca-Cola has advanced in this lawsuit to date. [00:09:59] Speaker 03: Maybe it's something that they'll, [00:10:00] Speaker 03: that they'll latch onto later, but they haven't made any argument of that nature at this point. [00:10:05] Speaker 03: So it hasn't been any development below in the district court about that potential issue. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: Can I ask you... I mean, you're assuming we were to agree with you. [00:10:19] Speaker 01: I'll just finish my question and I'll allow you to answer it, even though your initial time is up. [00:10:25] Speaker 01: Assuming we agree with you, it's really because [00:10:27] Speaker 01: The claims here and the spec are enormously broad. [00:10:32] Speaker 01: Have there been 112 issues in connection with this claim? [00:10:38] Speaker 01: I know it went down on summary judgment, but are there 112 issues looking in the background, depending on what the claim construction is? [00:10:46] Speaker 03: I don't recall about 112 specifically, Your Honor. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: I do recall specifically that on summary judgment, Coca-Cola moved in part for summary judgment. [00:10:56] Speaker 03: of invalidity based upon various anticipation and obviousness theories predicated on prior art. [00:11:04] Speaker 03: The district judge denied the summary judgment motion as to all of those invalidity grounds. [00:11:08] Speaker 03: Those were 102 and 103 arguments. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: Whether or not Coca-Cola would be able to pursue in this raised 112 arguments for purposes of a future trial, they may have, I just can't recall one way or the other. [00:11:25] Speaker 03: They didn't raise it on summary judgment, though, Your Honor. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: All right. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:11:29] Speaker 01: We'll let the remaining do have a very good final. [00:11:31] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:11:33] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:11:34] Speaker 01: Mr. Nichols? [00:11:37] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:11:38] Speaker 04: It may please the Court. [00:11:40] Speaker 04: I'm going to use the bulk of my time to address the claim construction issues in the Court's grant of summary judgment. [00:11:49] Speaker 04: If I have time remaining and the Court has questions, of course, I'll address the arguments [00:11:53] Speaker 04: that RCI has made regarding the abuse of discretion issues. [00:11:57] Speaker 04: That is, whether the dependent claim should have been that Coca-Cola should have been granted summer judgment on the dependent claims or that the court should have denied RCI's motions to compel. [00:12:12] Speaker 04: But I think those have been addressed pretty readily in the red brief. [00:12:15] Speaker 04: Your Honor is right. [00:12:16] Speaker 04: They were raised by your friend in his argument. [00:12:20] Speaker 04: Right. [00:12:21] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:12:23] Speaker 04: In this blue brief, RCI quotes the deposition testimony of the 377 Patton's inventor, Mr. Rothschild, and he tells a story about how James Smith used the beverage dispenser of claim 11. [00:12:37] Speaker 04: He says, quote, a beverage dispenser at the time I invented this invention that's the subject of this litigation was not able to personalize her beverage if the beverage dispenser didn't know that Lee Rothschild was approaching the machine. [00:12:51] Speaker 04: He further testified that the conventional beverage dispenser, quote, didn't know that Jane Smith was approaching the machine and that Jane Smith had a certain pre-store desire that Jane wanted her Pepsi with a little extra lemon. [00:13:03] Speaker 04: And that's in the blue brief at page three. [00:13:06] Speaker 04: There's two terms from Mr. Rothschild's story that I think are important to understand in the claim construction dispute. [00:13:12] Speaker 04: The Pepsi from Mr. Rothschild's story is the identifier of a beverage and Jane Smith's pre-store desire [00:13:20] Speaker 04: with a little extra lemon is the beverage product preferences of claim 11 or what the patent shortens to BPP. [00:13:29] Speaker 04: Now, I want to jump straight to the central issue here on claim construction, which is how the beverage dispenser claim 11 obtains the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage. [00:13:44] Speaker 04: And for brevity, I will refer to those two collectively sometimes as identity information. [00:13:50] Speaker 04: The reason that this claim construction dispute is important is that Judge Dyck is centered as focus on because the accused product Coca-Cola's Freestyle Dispenser can't, the user of that product can't identify himself to the beverage dispenser. [00:14:06] Speaker 04: Instead the user uses a cell phone to log into Coca-Cola's website and tells the website which Coca-Cola Freestyle Dispenser he is standing in front of and then the Coca-Cola server [00:14:18] Speaker 04: send information related to that user down to the dispenser that's been identified by the user. [00:14:23] Speaker 04: The freestyle does not enable direct connection, direct communication rather between the user and the dispenser. [00:14:30] Speaker 04: And the freestyle user cannot use the freestyle dispenser's user interface or the touch screen to input an identity of a user or identifier of a beverage. [00:14:42] Speaker 04: So the court granted summary judgment below [00:14:46] Speaker 04: of non-infringement because, quote, RCVI has not shown that the freestyle has a component that the user interacts with to input his or her identity and the beverage preferences. [00:14:58] Speaker 04: Now RCVI's core argument here is that the user interface of claim 11 can receive this information, this identity information from anywhere, literally anywhere. [00:15:09] Speaker 04: But there's nothing in the spec or anywhere else in the intrinsic record to support the notion [00:15:15] Speaker 04: that the user interface module can receive the user's identity or the beverage identifier from anywhere else but the user. [00:15:22] Speaker 04: And the case that this court has, this court's case, Convol versus Compact Computer is... I'm sorry to interrupt. [00:15:32] Speaker 01: I'm finding this confusing and that's not your fault. [00:15:35] Speaker 01: It's probably mine. [00:15:37] Speaker 01: But we're talking, I know we're talking about claim construction and I know this case is confusing because all of the claim construction arguments [00:15:44] Speaker 01: seem to merge with all of the infringement arguments looking at the accused product. [00:15:48] Speaker 01: But can we start, can you go back and start with what the district court held in his claim construction? [00:15:55] Speaker 01: I mean, two pit points of dispute are that he says, because of the word comprising, it must be a physical component of the beverage dispenser. [00:16:06] Speaker 01: And the other thing he concluded was, [00:16:08] Speaker 01: near and far and you know what I'm talking about. [00:16:12] Speaker 01: Can you defend those because I'm having a concern about those aspects of the course plane construction? [00:16:19] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:16:19] Speaker 04: So the construction, the course actual construction is that user interface module means a component of the beverage dispenser that enables direct communication between a user and the dispenser. [00:16:35] Speaker 04: And so for the first part that you focused on, your honor, [00:16:38] Speaker 04: The component of the beverage dispenser, the court did not say it is a physical component of the beverage dispenser. [00:16:46] Speaker 04: The court mentioned the physical connection or the co-location of the user interface and the beverage dispenser, but that was in the summary judgment order. [00:16:58] Speaker 04: In the claim construction order, the judge held that it means a component of the beverage dispenser. [00:17:04] Speaker 04: I don't think that's controversial, [00:17:07] Speaker 04: What he was trying to establish there is that it could not be something else like a user's cell phone or an app that the user installed on his cell phone. [00:17:22] Speaker 04: The second part of it is that the user interface module is a component that enables direct communication between the user and the dispenser. [00:17:33] Speaker 04: RCI doesn't disagree with anything there. [00:17:36] Speaker 04: except for the term direct. [00:17:38] Speaker 04: And the reason that the court put the word direct in there is the same reason that the district court in the convolved case put the word site into its definition, which is to suggest that the site is the location or the place at which a user actually selects an operating mode in convolved. [00:17:59] Speaker 04: And the court in that case emphasized that the claim construction was user interface, not just interface, [00:18:05] Speaker 04: And that the adjective user had to distinguish between different kinds of interfaces. [00:18:10] Speaker 04: Now, the same thing applies here. [00:18:12] Speaker 04: The user interface module must get the information that claim 11 requires that it receives. [00:18:23] Speaker 04: It must receive that from the user. [00:18:26] Speaker 04: And just as in convolve, the court used direct here to emphasize that the [00:18:34] Speaker 04: is that the user interface is the interface that the user interacts with, not some subsequent interface or components that merely execute the user's selection. [00:18:45] Speaker 04: Or to put it slightly differently, the convolved case specifies that a construction of user interface that includes a subsequent device-to-device interface involving the execution of a user's selection effectively reads the term user out of the claim language. [00:19:04] Speaker 04: And I believe that's where Judge Dyke was going with some of his questioning. [00:19:10] Speaker 02: No, it's not where I'm going. [00:19:13] Speaker 02: I think the problems with the district court's claim construction, what I was asking was whether under the patentee's own claim construction of the blister of the touchscreen, whether the [00:19:31] Speaker 02: TouchMe does anything with the information about the user identity, and apparently it doesn't. [00:19:38] Speaker 02: That's actually correct. [00:19:40] Speaker 04: It does not do anything with it. [00:19:41] Speaker 04: What I'm going to suggest, Judge Dyck, is that the touchscreen, the theory that the plaintiff has put forward on infringement, and I'm sorry to mix this up for one second, but the infringement theory is that the user interface [00:20:01] Speaker 04: or what he calls the blister computer, which we dispute that that's the user interface. [00:20:07] Speaker 04: But the blister could receive the identity of the user from somewhere else besides the user. [00:20:16] Speaker 04: And in that theory, it would come from, for example, the communication module. [00:20:21] Speaker 04: But that is contrary to what this court held in convolve. [00:20:26] Speaker 04: In convolve, what was important is that the user interface [00:20:31] Speaker 04: was used by the user and that's where the selection was made. [00:20:35] Speaker 04: Here the selection is the user identification and also the identifier of a beverage. [00:20:42] Speaker 04: And those cannot come from anywhere else but the user under the convolved analysis. [00:20:49] Speaker 04: Convolved analysis applies just the same as here to eliminate the possibility that, as Mr. Carey was arguing earlier, that it would be sufficient for infringement [00:21:00] Speaker 04: that if the user, the identifier of a user came from the user's cell phone to a server, from the server to the communications module, from the communications module to the user interface module. [00:21:16] Speaker 04: That is not direct and that also eliminates the user. [00:21:20] Speaker 01: Well, Mr. Nichols, the problem I'm having is what you're saying, it may make sense [00:21:25] Speaker 01: But the claim is very broad here, and the specification is very broad. [00:21:32] Speaker 01: So your statement may make sense as a common sense proposition, but what is there in the claim or in the specification that would limit this to what you're suggesting? [00:21:44] Speaker 04: Right. [00:21:44] Speaker 04: So looking at the claim first, the only function of the user interface module is to receive the [00:21:54] Speaker 04: identity of the user and the identifier of a beverage. [00:21:59] Speaker 04: That information is then provided to the communications module which transmits the identity of the user and the identifier of a beverage to the server over network and receives back from the server the beverage product preferences or BPP based on the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage. [00:22:20] Speaker 04: Then the communication module communicates the user generated beverage product preferences which you got from the server to the controller. [00:22:28] Speaker 04: The controller actuates valves and mixes up beverage and that too is based on your beverage product preferences. [00:22:34] Speaker 04: So the claim itself says that the user interface module is what receives the identity of a user. [00:22:43] Speaker 04: The only way it can receive it because of the term user interface module is from the user. [00:22:48] Speaker 04: Now if we look to the specification, so that's the claim. [00:22:51] Speaker 04: The specification, there is no embodiment of the specification where the beverage dispenser receives an identity of a user or identifier of the beverage from anywhere else except directly from the user. [00:23:08] Speaker 01: What does directly mean in this context? [00:23:14] Speaker 01: contemplated that it would come from the user but could be indirect. [00:23:19] Speaker 01: So what is the word directly? [00:23:21] Speaker 01: What job is it doing here in this claim construction? [00:23:25] Speaker 04: Right. [00:23:26] Speaker 04: Directly, the purpose of the district court's use of the term direct was to show that the same thing is in convolve where the court used, in that case, site. [00:23:41] Speaker 04: Now, the directly or indirectly that we find in convolve [00:23:45] Speaker 04: was from the prior district court's construction from its 2005 Markman order. [00:23:52] Speaker 04: But the federal circuit in the Convalve case in 2016, the Convalve appeal, said that the word indirectly was included because the district court intended to avoid pedantic arguments that a graphical user interface is not a user interface just because the user must position [00:24:13] Speaker 04: a cursor on the screen using a mouse, for example, such that the user is interfacing with the mouse and the mouse is interfacing with the computer. [00:24:21] Speaker 04: The word indirectly was not meant to undo the construction, and that is that the information had to come from the user or there was no purpose for having the adjective user as part of the term user interface. [00:24:36] Speaker 04: The same thing applies here. [00:24:37] Speaker 02: And, you know, could the... There were used specifications here to support the [00:24:43] Speaker 02: limitation directly? [00:24:46] Speaker 04: The specification doesn't use the term directly, but every embodiment in the specification, including the embodiments that RCDI points to incorrectly, show that the beverage dispenser must receive the identity of the user directly from the user. [00:25:10] Speaker 04: So if you look at [00:25:12] Speaker 04: The embodiment, this is Appendix 104, Column 7 of the patent. [00:25:18] Speaker 04: These are embodiments that RCDI has pointed to, Your Honor. [00:25:24] Speaker 04: If you look at trying to find the 32, starting at 32, it says, in one embodiment, the identity code may be transferred where the user may download the code to a mobile device, for example, personal digital assistant, mobile phone, et cetera. [00:25:41] Speaker 04: And the mobile phone will wirelessly transfer the code to the user interface module and or the communications module when the mobile device is within range of the dispenser. [00:25:51] Speaker 04: Now RCDI mentions that as... That sounds like this situation. [00:25:56] Speaker 02: What's the matter? [00:25:59] Speaker 04: The matter is that the phone is transmitting wirelessly when it's within range of the dispenser. [00:26:07] Speaker 04: That's not over the cellular phone, cellular telephone line. [00:26:11] Speaker 04: And it is directly to the user interface rather than up through the cellular system to a server, to the communication device, and then down to the user interface. [00:26:26] Speaker 01: So this is very different. [00:26:29] Speaker 01: Before you run out of time, I just wanted to give you a moment to address the point that Judge Dyke, I think, and I raised about the Centillion case and the Microsoft case. [00:26:41] Speaker 01: in terms of direct and indirect infringement if we're talking about the cell phone here. [00:26:46] Speaker 01: Right. [00:26:46] Speaker 04: I mean, we obviously, Mr. Kerry mentioned that we... I'm sorry. [00:26:57] Speaker 04: Mr. Kerry mentioned that we had not raised the issue of distinguishing between software and the cellular telephone. [00:27:06] Speaker 04: Well, the reason we haven't is because he's only accused the cellular telephone [00:27:10] Speaker 04: and the app, there's not been an accusation that the app by itself was infringing. [00:27:17] Speaker 04: So we do, we will depend on the differences between software and hardware as mentioned in those cases, but that's not been Mr. Carey's allegation up to now. [00:27:33] Speaker 04: This is the first time that we've heard RCGI admit that the phone is not [00:27:38] Speaker 04: the user interface module or at least part of the user interface module. [00:27:47] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:50] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:27:51] Speaker 01: Mr. Carey, will we start your rebuttal time if you need it? [00:27:59] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:27:59] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:28:00] Speaker 03: Just a couple of points. [00:28:03] Speaker 03: I want to correct what I believe are some inaccurate [00:28:07] Speaker 03: statements that my colleague made in his argument. [00:28:13] Speaker 03: First, principally too, the first being Mr. Nichols said that the judge's definition of user interface module does not include the physical part of the dispenser limitation. [00:28:28] Speaker 03: That's a very inaccurate treatment of the claim construction order because [00:28:35] Speaker 03: just a review of the clean construction order which is at appendix 74, 75, and 76. [00:28:43] Speaker 03: There are, the district court there in explaining his construction of user interface module no less than three times explicitly [00:28:54] Speaker 03: states that the user interface module in his construction must be physically a component of the dispenser and physically a part of the dispenser. [00:29:04] Speaker 03: I mean that limitation is all over the clean construction order. [00:29:08] Speaker 03: It was repeated in the summary judgment opinion as well and for Coca-Cola to argue that it's not part of the construction is simply not accurate. [00:29:17] Speaker 03: Another thing I wanted to mention and correct, the statement that [00:29:24] Speaker 03: the touch screen does not receive, does not, you don't input beverage, the user does not input beverage identifiers into the touch screen. [00:29:38] Speaker 03: It's simply not how it works. [00:29:40] Speaker 03: Just like the patent describes at column eight, lines 33 to 36, the touch screen of the accused device presents all of the users [00:29:54] Speaker 03: The mixes are, you know, I like, my favorite beverage is Coca-Cola with lemon, number one. [00:30:03] Speaker 03: Number two, I like 60% Coke, 40% Sprite, that kind of thing. [00:30:07] Speaker 03: So when you walk up to the dispenser and you log in with your app, those different mixes are presented to you. [00:30:16] Speaker 03: The user then touches the touch screen to select the one they want poured right then and there. [00:30:22] Speaker 03: And that selection is inputting the beverage ID for the mix that you just picked. [00:30:29] Speaker 03: So the statement that the touch screen does not, the user doesn't input the beverage IDs in the touch screen is simply incorrect. [00:30:38] Speaker 03: I'd like to talk for a minute about this convolve case because this case I think has been wrongly cited by Coca-Cola and in fact it very much supports [00:30:51] Speaker 03: between construction that we're advancing. [00:30:54] Speaker 03: In convols, there were two accused products, right? [00:30:59] Speaker 03: There was a Seagate product and there was a Compaq product. [00:31:03] Speaker 03: And the technology at issue there involved controlling hard drive noise by allowing the user to select the speed. [00:31:12] Speaker 03: So if you slowed the speed down, it would be quieter. [00:31:15] Speaker 03: And the court was looking at a user [00:31:18] Speaker 03: interface limitation in the patent at issue there. [00:31:22] Speaker 03: And the Seagate devices had no user interface whatsoever. [00:31:29] Speaker 03: There was nothing that the user could interact with that was part of the Seagate device. [00:31:35] Speaker 03: What the patent owner in that case was trying to say was the user interface were these things that the opinion refers to as the ATA SCSI interfaces. [00:31:45] Speaker 03: These aren't user interfaces. [00:31:48] Speaker 03: their internal computer programs that executed the selection that the user did make somewhere else. [00:31:55] Speaker 03: And the court in convolve said, well, the user doesn't interface with those things whatsoever. [00:32:02] Speaker 03: Those can't be the user interface. [00:32:05] Speaker 03: All right, so then Compaq, the Compaq devices had a user interface and it's referred to as a graphical user interface. [00:32:14] Speaker 03: But the claims that issue the user interface module, there were some claims that required these specific limitations of outputting commands, right? [00:32:26] Speaker 03: And the Compact devices had a user interface, but the question was whether the Compact interface then met the command issuing limitations of the claims. [00:32:36] Speaker 03: So here, this is why Convol supports our argument. [00:32:41] Speaker 03: The case against Seagate failed because there was no user interface at all. [00:32:44] Speaker 03: There was nothing for the user to interact with. [00:32:47] Speaker 03: By contrast here, the user interacts with both the touch screen on the freestyle machine and the user also interacts with the mobile app. [00:32:56] Speaker 03: So both of those are things that the user interacts with. [00:33:04] Speaker 03: Both of those are things the user interacts with. [00:33:06] Speaker 03: The claims against Compact were met [00:33:10] Speaker 03: except for the ones that didn't have this command issuing limitation. [00:33:14] Speaker 03: There was no infringement, but for the claims where there were no command issuing limitations, the graphical user interface and the compact devices were found to be infringing. [00:33:30] Speaker 03: So both of those reasons, CONVOLVE I believe, and CONVOLVE also had a specific construction that the communication between the user and the interface could be direct or indirect. [00:33:42] Speaker 03: And here, you know, it should likewise not be limited to just direct because the specification [00:33:52] Speaker 03: doesn't limit it to direct and specifically says that any known or future technology could be used for the communications. [00:33:59] Speaker 03: There's simply no principled reason to say that Wi-Fi communications can be covered but not in internet communication. [00:34:06] Speaker 03: The patent can work either way and there's no reason to draw that distinction. [00:34:13] Speaker 03: a Wi-Fi communication also goes from user to Wi-Fi router to destination. [00:34:18] Speaker 03: The fact that the Wi-Fi router is sitting there in the middle is not relevant. [00:34:22] Speaker 03: And in fact, they even, so there's no further questions. [00:34:27] Speaker 03: I'll wrap it up. [00:34:29] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:34:30] Speaker 01: Thank both sides. [00:34:31] Speaker 01: And the case is submitted.