[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
20-1865, Final Rod versus John Crane.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
Mr. Holman, please proceed.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, my name is John Holman and I represent Appellants Final Rod IP LLC and R2 R&D LLC DBA Super Rod.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
For the purpose of continuity with our briefing, we'll refer to both parties today collectively as Super Rod.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
We're here today because the District Court aired when it abused its discretion in excluding certain

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
expert testimony of both SuperRod's technical expert, Mr. Hetmanak, and SuperRod's damages expert, Mr. Reading.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
Now, this exclusion resulted in SuperRod having to take a stipulated judgment of non-infringement of all accused products.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
Well, let me turn you first to Mr. Reading and his damages calculation.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Where in the record did he provide a justification or a rationale

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
for his use of a 2015 hypothetical negotiation for the Series 300 product, which I think came on the market in 2018, right?

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
In Mr. Reading's report, let me see if I can find the citation, he did explain his basis for the 2015 date.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
And his analysis was that in 2015, the parties would have negotiated for a patent license.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
and set up a product license, a patent that would have covered use of the patented products.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
In his report, appendix page 2489 and 2497, as well as 2514, Mr. Reading explains that the accused product would include the Series 200, the Series 300, and any future products introduced by John Crane that would fall within the coverage of the patent.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
His reasoning for this was a share of the risk.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
instead of negotiating a lump sum patent license, whereas John Crane could then decide to leave the market in a year or two and have it overpaid for a license, or whereas the burden would be borne on SuperRod to give a product license and then have to pursue each derivation or new product as they come out, because the Series 300 is just the next step in the line of the series of the infix.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
When Series 200, or rather Series 100, Series 200,

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
Series 300.

[00:02:25] Speaker 01:
And so Mr. Readings, his opinion was that it made much more sense to go ahead and license a patent.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
And so that the parties could decide whether to continue using that patent and pay the per unit royalty or not, and not pay anything.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
So that is clear throughout his report.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
And there's several other citations to the appendix that I can provide.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
He is clear on his explanation.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
He furthered in his deposition.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
He goes into additional detail about the 2015 negotiation date, how it would include both Series 200 and Series 300.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
There's been a whole lot of debate also among the experts, John Crane's expert on page appendix 6031, paragraph 10 of Mr. Adalka-Shadokat's report.

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
He also did a 2015 assessment, which he assumed would cover both a Series 200 and a Series 300.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
That issue, although is contested through briefing, is not necessarily contested on the expert level.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
So I would submit that that 2015 negotiation date is proper, even for the product that was not put onto the market until 2018.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
Is there a citation to Mr. Reading's testimony, again, where you say

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
he made these arguments, these three arguments with respect to the 300 products being similar, et cetera?

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
If I understand the products being similar, I don't have the citation record in front of me right now on where he discussed that the products were similar.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
Well, his rationale that you articulated, which is why they would have done a license in 2010 would have covered 300.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
Appendix 2489.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
Appendix 2497 to 98.

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
We're on 2489.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
Okay, so this is just the beginning here.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
It's the very first point on top of the page of 2489, a hypothetical negotiation would have been between Supervisors License or John Crane, the licensee for a non-exclusive US license, to the patent in suit, not to a product.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
It would be to the patent that would cover any product that would come into the future.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
That was his opinion on what the parties would have negotiated.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
If you look at page 2497,

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
Mr. Reading explained that the reason why you would go to this type of license agreement, like I mentioned before, it was kind of a share of the risk, but it was because they would have no basis to estimate the complete full extent of the use of the patents in suit that John Crane will eventually utilize throughout the life of the patents.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
He's clearly foreshadowing additional products to fall within the patent and to fall within the license that these parties would be negotiating hypothetically.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
OK, why don't you move on?

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
And sticking with reading, the second issue with reading is his apportionment analysis.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Reading did consider all necessary apportionments.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
We believe the judge erred in abuse of discretion in excluding Mr. Reading simply because he didn't apportion down to another level, which John Crane's expert did.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
Mr. Reading considered the smallest sellable

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
unit which is the fiberglass sucker rod as a whole.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
And viewing the technical expert of John Crane who opined that 70% of the value of that was in the in fittings.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
Mr. Reading reviewed that, agreed with it, said that was a reasonable number applied to 70%.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
He didn't apportion anymore because he didn't feel that there was any necessary need for further apportionment.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
And it explained in his deposition

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
Each of the factors that would have been considered through additional apportionment, Mr. Reading especially stated that he found those to be worthless.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
Any unpatentable features within the in-fitting itself.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
And the reason there is, the purpose of the in-fitting is to connect to the fiberglass sucker rod.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And the invention here is that internal geometry that connects the rod to the in-fitting.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
You have to have a strong connection here.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
in order for these rods to work and not break.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
Therefore, he put all the value of the end fitting itself, because this is a solid single piece of machined metal, so you can't take away a feature.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
This is not like FinGen or Vertnex, any of these other software cases where you have dozens or hundreds or thousands of potential

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
of features or components that independently could be utilized or even patented, where you could remove a patented feature and the product would still run as it's intended.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
This, if you remove the internal geometry of this, you have a piece of metal that's essentially worthless.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
And that was Mr. Reading's opinion by applying 100% of the value of the invading to the patented invention.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
And I mean, I read his testimony as being quite conclusory.

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
And therefore, I'm having a hard time reversing a district court judgment, district court judge's judgment in that regard on an abuse of discretion standard.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, and I assume that was with respect to the apportionment position?

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
OK, well, I also want to point out that,

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
There's no evidence what the unpatented features of the infitting are also.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
I mean, there was John Crane didn't identify, at least as expert didn't identify, criticized the Mr. Readings apportionment analysis, but he didn't identify what unpatented features would provide value.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
But the problem with your argument is that what matters is the value of the particular way of connecting the rods, as opposed to the particular way of connecting the rods in the prior art.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
The patent owner doesn't purport to invent connecting these rods together, right?

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
Well, I'm having a little trouble with your argument here, obviously.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
But why don't you proceed?

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
Mr. Holman, it's Judge Clevenger.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, even if Ready was qualified to testify, you still have to get the hemniac back in action on the 300.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
That's where I was going to go to right now with very limited time.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Yeah, it would help me and you do that if you'll distinguish between the 300 and the 200.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
First point to make, there were five limitations that Mr. Havnick was excluded on.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
Only one of those was addressed at the hearing.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
That's briefed.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
Four of those on page 31 of the blue brief were not even discussed or considered.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
And there is no- Right.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
But if the judge was correct on the one limitation that he did do on the 300, the others would be harmless error.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
That's incorrect.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
The others would go to the Series 200.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
No, I'm talking about with the 300.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
With the 300, Your Honor, the main issue with the 300 is that prototype FEA or the sheer requirement of an FEA at all to apply it on the compressive force limitations of the Series 300.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
Now, there's nothing in the record that would show that

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
Mr. Hapnick would require an FEA to apply on the compressive force limitations.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
Now, that being said, since the issue here seems to be the main issue is the prototype.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
Now, there's ample evidence in the record to show that these series 300 prototype FEA was done on a nearly identical end fitting as the commercialized series 300.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
They had the same 12 wedge systems, the same geometry.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
There was a slight difference in some of the angles of the wedges.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
And I think that the cases that we relied upon in our briefing in the Cortis, the Medtronic, which is also an FEA case, that the data was slightly different.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
I think that's all fours here.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
And Liquid Dynamics versus Vaughan uses a CFD, which is a computational fluid dynamics.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
It's actually just a more complicated FEA.

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
Again, they couldn't even determine whether information in that was accurate, but they still allowed the test, the expert to testify.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
I think those cases out there are on point with our,

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
our argument with the use of the prototype and that Mr. Hapnack was well within his ability to use that prototype to bolster his opinion of the compressive force limitations on the Series 300.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
Now, I see that I am actually coming up against my allotted time.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
If you have a quick question I can answer, I'll be happy to.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
No, that's fine.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
We'll reserve your rebuttal time and let's hear from Mr. Carroll.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
Well, have we left the 200 behind?

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
The 200 series?

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, the 200 series is only affected by those four limitations that were excluded without reason.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
The series 200 is not affected by the exclusion based on the prototype FEA.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
Well, there is an FEA with regard to the 200.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
It was just done by the other side, right?

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
And it was done on the actual product, and there is no complaint on appeal on that FEA.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
What is your proposed relief on the 200?

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
Our proposed relief on the 200 is for this court to remand the ruling on those four limitations that were excluded in violation of Federal Rule 52A, which requires some reason to be put on record, whether in an opinion

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
are in a hearing that allows an appellate court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction to determine with whether the judicial discretion was abused or not.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
It can't be determined on the current record.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
So a remand for that... Let's do over.

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Do over?

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
That the district... We would have the district court opine, give his reason for the conclusion.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, I think that would be the appropriate step here, unless this court finds it.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
And again, there is argument from both sides on here that those limitations are or are not present or are or are not supported.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
But I don't see, given the research and the case law that I've read, I don't see that this court has the ability to review the opinion when- Yes.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
Was there a clear holding that the 200

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
The FEA analysis on compressive force was sufficient to allow that testimony.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
I didn't see it focusing on the 200 at all.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
The series 200 FEA was not challenged.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
What do you mean, not challenged?

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
John Crane did not challenge Mr. Hetmanek's use of the series 200 FEA.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
It was only the prototype of the Series 300 FEA that was challenged in their motion, and that was ruled on by the court.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
The Series 200 FEA.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
And the damages report you have on the 200 has not been challenged?

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
It has not been challenged, Your Honor.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
So possibly there would end up being a trial on the 200, is that correct?

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
Assuming that you look on the 300?

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
Let's turn to Mr. Carroll.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
Mr. Carroll.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
Good afternoon.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
May you please report.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
Why don't you begin with where we left off with Mr. Holman and what to do about the district court's failure to treat the 200.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
Is that something you waived and you never raised?

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
Is there a problem with that?

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
No, your honor.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
Um, I don't believe that to be accurate.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
So with respect to the claim limitations that issue in the case, the district court judge exercises discretion, uh, to limit testimony on items that pertain to both the S 200 as well as to the S 300.

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
And for example, um, there are claim limitations, a claim limitation, 32 of the 75 patent.

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
which deals with an obtuse limitation.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
And in that case, the district court judge read briefing, heard argument, asked counsel for appellants to provide support for the analysis performed by the expert, which they could not do, and determined that the testimony there should be precluded.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
And in a similar, in that regard, you know, we even asked the expert in his deposition

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
sitting here today, you have no basis of which to say that the angle is obtuse.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
And he said, I did not measure that.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
And the district court heard that and deemed that to be unreliable junk signs that should not be allowed to come in.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
Where do we see that in the district court's college?

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
Can you cite me to where the district court was talking about the obtuse limitation?

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
Well, we cited in the record the appendix at 3204, which is the deposition testimony.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
And we noted at appendix 3-119, 3-1-8-2 that Mr. Hepmanak merely recited the claim language to apply on this limitation and did not provide the requisite scientific support or measurements for his opinion.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
And that's it.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
That equally applied with respect to the ratio limitations and the obtuse limitations where there was a lack of measurement, a lack of analysis, and then, of course, testimony from the witness in his deposition where he could not provide support and in fact was undermining the attorney argument that the attorneys for appellants were attempting to backfill the lack of analysis and the attendance.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
A little bit confused about your answer.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
I thought Judge Clevinger was asking where the district court dealt with that, not where you're in your briefing or in your arguments you dealt with that.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
Um, sorry, Your Honor.

[00:17:36] Speaker 03:
Give me one second to turn to the transcript from the hearing.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
Um, the hearing transcript is reflected in the relevant portion on APPX 48 and 49.

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, we're on 48.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
48.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
There is a discussion about the other claim limitations.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Which line?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
The questioning, this is actually my argument to the court, which goes from line three to line 25 and moves into APPX 49 until

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
line three, and then the court asked another question about what did he say.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
You were making the argument about the ratios and obtuse.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
Where does the judge respond?

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
Well, he then goes into a discussion with opposing counsel to ask them for court rebuttal on those points.

[00:18:51] Speaker 02:
But I don't see where he either agrees with you or doesn't agree with you.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
But the district court did provide an order, albeit a short one, explaining that he determined the testimony on those claim limitations was not met.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
And I think an important component of context here is that the district court heard many examples of where Mr. Hepinac looked at an FDA of the wrong product

[00:19:29] Speaker 03:
where he admitted later that it was the wrong product, and he knew it was the wrong product when he proffered his opinion, where he emphasized on complex geometries as having meaningful differences when looking at the distribution of force in a wedge design such as present by either the S200 or the S300, and otherwise found the testimony to be wholly unreliable.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
And the judge did state on a P P X five nine, um, line five.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
So at any rate, I think I've got this.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
I'm going to grant that motion, that job or motion as well as in the absence of sufficient information in the report to establish the basis of his report of his opinion of infringement.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
So, um, your honor, I'd now like to turn to the issues mentioned by the other side concerning Mr. Redding's report.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
First, as justification for Mr. Redding's failure to use the actual date in which the S300 product was sold, i.e.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
in 2018, there are some important considerations here.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
First, the series 300 did not exist in 2015.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
Mr. Redding's analysis couldn't possibly have accounted for any of the unique aspects that were added

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
to the 2018 product launch of the S300.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
In addition, Mr. Redding readily acknowledged that he had a lack of experience in this particular field.

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
And further, Mr. Redding did not look for a talent, and this actually ties into whether he failed to perform step two of the apportionment analysis

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
And in that regard, Mr. Hetmanek's report does describe that ATPX6115 that there are various components of these end fittings.

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
And some rigor by Mr. Redding to investigate these issues could have yielded an appreciation by him that the products are very different.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
In addition, the market had changed in the oil industry between 2015 and 2018, and perhaps most egregiously,

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
The party who would have negotiated the licensing agreement in 2015 had sold the company to a much smaller Texas-based company called Endurance with Solutions.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
So he ignored all of those factors when picking the wrong hypothetical negotiation date.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
And then in terms of counsel's argument that Mr. Redding's opinion with respect

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
to a portion that was correct is simply wrong.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
Mr. Redding did no work to support his 100% assumption, claiming that the end fitting provides all of the value to the particular product.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
The record, in fact, was otherwise against that view.

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
And rather than in tackling that issue on, he simply ignored it.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
And in that regard, he failed to perform the second step required

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
under apportionment, as this court has declared under Syngian, Bernadix, and in other matters.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
So once again, Mr. Redding was off on the hypothetical date of negotiation.

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
He was off on his failure to perform the second step of the apportionment analysis.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
And, Your Honor, we did, you touched on, one of the panelists touched on the issue of the use of discretion standard in play.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
You know, the district court judge heard extensive argument, read extensive briefing, and listened to counsel on appellant side attempt to explain away the lack of support for its conclusory assertions contained in its reports.

[00:23:37] Speaker 03:
And he also was confronted with a liability expert who looked at the wrong product, who ignored what he essentially held out to be the gold standard, which is at his disposal.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
He was told not to perform an FDA, the actual accused S-300 product by the client.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
And the judge looked at the totality of these circumstances and deemed this to be an example where the testimony ran the risk of accusing the jury.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
And in fact, I think consistent with the Gumpshire Industries case from the Fifth Circuit, where the court stated that

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
that more technical information is involved, it is easy for the jury to get lost in the labyrinth of concepts.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
The court went on to explain there, the Fifth Circuit went on to explain about the procedures involved in a salt mine here in the oil well are often foreign to the average juror, and that a jury practically grasping at complex forklift and mining concepts could miss subtle distinctions revealed on cross-examination and drown in the untrue and the unproven.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
And so too here, this is a case where

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
the jury would have drowned in untrue or unproven allegations and been forced to sit through farce or fiction coming from the other side.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
And that's what was diagnosed by the district court.

[00:24:58] Speaker 03:
And the district court exercised its discretion similar to the Domtar case, 95 F 1320.

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
That was a bench ruling in place there.

[00:25:08] Speaker 03:
And the Fifth Circuit upheld that the district court satisfied

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
its obligations as a gatekeeper and excluded unreliable testimony and junk signs from entering into a courtroom.

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
With that, I will wrap up.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you for your time.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
Mr. Holman, you've got rebuttal time left.

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
I just want to make a couple quick points here.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
On the limitations that were excluded without much discussion, the obtuse and the ratio limitations,

[00:25:41] Speaker 01:
They were not discussed in the order.

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
The opposing counsel kind of inferred that they were briefly discussed in this court order.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
They weren't at all.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
The court order was simple to the point.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
It just said this motion is pending and it's granted.

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
So there was no discussion.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
The discussion that was pointed out in the hearing itself was just court and then full time.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
Mr. Holman, the judge's attention was drawn, at least, to the racial limitation, correct?

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
And the judge said that he read everything, including Holman's declaration and statement, right?

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:26:24] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:26:26] Speaker 02:
Holman said in the statement he didn't measure it.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
He didn't know.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
Isn't that correct?

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
That's not entirely correct because, Your Honor, these limitations as far as the angles being obtuse, that's a mere visual inspection that he, Mr. Mahatmanak said that he performed.

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
You can just look at these and determine as an engineer, a professional engineer, whether an angle is obtuse or acute or right.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
In the ratios, he said it was just a matter of you measure the dimensions because they're on the drawings.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
He used the drawings for his... But he said he had not done either one.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
He had not included those calculations in his report.

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
So in the report, as to Inbringer, he didn't have a view.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
He didn't state one way or the other.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
He stated that the limitations were present in the accused device, and in the drawings that he used to view those dimensions in order to determine whether the angles were off, too, so that the ratios were greater

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
are connected or are actually attached to this report, the actual dimension manufacturing engineering drawings of the Series 300 and the Series 200.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:27:40] Speaker 01:
I also want to make one quick point.

[00:27:44] Speaker 01:
John Crane's expert, Mr. Sharikov, Dr. Sharikov did do an alternative analysis on the date for negotiation and he determined that there were no changes in the market, there were no changes

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
from the time periods or the parties, other than being different entities.

[00:28:01] Speaker 01:
And they said there was no difference in 2018, his 2018 calculations.

[00:28:05] Speaker 01:
So council's argument that there would have been all these changes is undermined by John Grange's only expert.

[00:28:15] Speaker 01:
Running close on time, and I wanted to make one point on the Domtar case, because it's very important.

[00:28:19] Speaker 01:
That case had an expert who falsified and made fictitious data in order to support.

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
the defendant's position, and that's why the court was careful and cautious in preventing that from getting to the jury to cause confusion.

[00:28:33] Speaker 01:
That case is not on all fours at all here.

[00:28:36] Speaker 01:
There is no falsification of information that was used to generate any sort of report.

[00:28:43] Speaker 01:
I see my time is up.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
Well, thank you.

[00:28:47] Speaker 00:
We thank both sides, and the case is submitted.

[00:28:50] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:52] Speaker 00:
It concludes our proceedings.

[00:28:56] Speaker 00:
The honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.