[00:00:00] Speaker 06: Okay, the next argued case is number 20, 1903. [00:00:03] Speaker 06: Invent SBE against the International Trade Commission. [00:00:08] Speaker 06: Mr. Lamkin. [00:00:28] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:00:29] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:00:30] Speaker 02: I'd like to begin with the 590 patent before turning to our beloved 439 patent. [00:00:36] Speaker 02: The 590 patent requires encoding such that the upper digit is assigned more digits or larger number of bits than the lower digit. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: Nobody says or argues that the plain mean of a sign ordinarily connotes exclusives of assignment through separate encoding mathematics or mathematically sequestered calculations. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: The fact that the Commission has to add so many words to the word assign, requiring the upper digit, and I'm quoting from the brief, to be reflected in, quote, bits that are separate and distinct from the codeword bits associated with the lower digit, which is achieved through separate encoding mathematics, shows that the Commission is importing limitations from a particular embodiment in the specification without any words, expressed words of exclusion or disclaimer. [00:01:21] Speaker 02: And we know that the ID did exactly that because if you looked at page 59 of the appendix, the ID says specifically, what embodiment 6 discloses in terms of encoding technique is highly relevant if not dispositive. [00:01:34] Speaker 02: Skilled artisans would know that an assign does not inherently connote exclusive and unique assignment or separate encoding mathematics. [00:01:44] Speaker 02: because we can assign more than one student to a class. [00:01:48] Speaker 04: What if any evidence is there, and I just don't remember what's in your brief, for how artisans in the field would use the term assigned as opposed to people thinking of school-based analogies. [00:02:02] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:02:03] Speaker 02: So on page 10560 to 10561, our expert explains that folks would understand that when you put in a 1 and you have that digit reflected, that's a sign. [00:02:14] Speaker 02: And when you end up with a 0 so that it's zeroed out, that can't be reflected, that that would not be assignment. [00:02:21] Speaker 03: In addition, people, in fact... Well, that's just the expert mapping the claim language onto the accused. [00:02:29] Speaker 03: It is. [00:02:30] Speaker 03: But we're trying to figure out, let's put that away for now, and just try to figure out what is assigned to it. [00:02:37] Speaker 02: And Reed-Miller encoding, which my colleagues, my opponents say, existed from the 1950s, that would assign multiple digits to multiple bits, because it had ones and zeros and multiple columns. [00:02:48] Speaker 02: It would do multiple assignments in that respect. [00:02:51] Speaker 04: It was a matrix multiplication. [00:02:52] Speaker 02: It was a matrix multiplication, and you apply a module or two, and you can end up with that exact same thing. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: This is well known in the art that you can do these things. [00:03:00] Speaker 03: But I mean, I just want to read this patent, at least. [00:03:02] Speaker 03: I can understand one particular conception of what it means to have a coder encode information by assigning to the upper digit a larger number of bits. [00:03:14] Speaker 03: And that's by having the upper digit be described by a code word that has a larger number of bits than the other digits' respective bit-sized code words. [00:03:27] Speaker 02: That is, in fact, a simple example that it gives. [00:03:30] Speaker 02: And then it talks about combining them so that you have a 10-bit digit code word where the first part reflects the upper digit and the last part, the last four digits. [00:03:37] Speaker 03: And so therefore, you are encoding your digits on a digit-by-digit basis with each having their own code words. [00:03:46] Speaker 02: Yeah, in that instance, that one embodiment. [00:03:48] Speaker 02: But we don't ordinarily take a single embodiment and read its specifics onto the claim and limit the claim where the term used, assigned, [00:03:56] Speaker 02: is more expansive in general usage. [00:03:58] Speaker 02: And here we all agreed on plain and ordinary meaning, or the ID selected plain and ordinary meaning. [00:04:03] Speaker 02: And a sign is more expansive than that. [00:04:05] Speaker 03: But we can't construe it in such a way that it just becomes something very vague. [00:04:10] Speaker 03: I mean, I was concerned a little bit about your proposed construction, which is [00:04:16] Speaker 03: assigned means corresponds. [00:04:19] Speaker 03: I mean, to me, to accept that kind of construction just moves us further away from understanding how to figure out what the claim really means. [00:04:29] Speaker 03: And the same thing with the alternative in your brief about, well, we're just looking for a digit that will affect a larger number of bits. [00:04:42] Speaker 03: And that also [00:04:45] Speaker 03: made me wonder if that's really the right way to understand is a sign. [00:04:48] Speaker 02: Well, sir, I think those are the way we'd understand a sign in its ordinary meaning. [00:04:53] Speaker 02: Because you would say when the digit affects the bit, that's a sign there's a correspondence between the two. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: And the specification, and this is an appendix, excuse me, 285, line 63 to 65, uses the word correspond. [00:05:06] Speaker 02: And even the IT scheme. [00:05:07] Speaker 03: In the context of the spec, though, its usage of correspond really is talking about this very specific allocation of x number of bits [00:05:17] Speaker 03: Digit one and then x minus y digits bits to digit two. [00:05:23] Speaker 02: Yeah, it's talking about in the context of that embodiment, but that is the one place where you have a synonym for a sign. [00:05:29] Speaker 02: But the commission itself on page 37 is brief says the bits assigned were a quote. [00:05:34] Speaker 02: Its value depends on the value of the CQI digit. [00:05:37] Speaker 02: And one thing we know is if you're zeroed out from multiple byte by zero, your value doesn't depend. [00:05:42] Speaker 02: The bit's value does not depend on the CQI digit. [00:05:45] Speaker 02: That's been zeroed out. [00:05:46] Speaker 02: It will have zero impact. [00:05:47] Speaker 03: You went too fast for me. [00:05:49] Speaker 03: Something getting zeroed out and then something, something. [00:05:52] Speaker 02: So the commission on page 37 of its brief says that a bit is a sign where its value depends on the value of the CQI digit. [00:06:01] Speaker 02: Now when you took a look at the matrix and you take the CQI digit and you zero it out, you multiply it by zero. [00:06:07] Speaker 02: That bit, the resulting bit, will not depend on the value of the CKI digit. [00:06:11] Speaker 02: The CKI digit could be a billion, could be 0.1, could be 1, could be 0. [00:06:15] Speaker 02: The resulting bit is still going to be a 0. [00:06:18] Speaker 02: And that is because when you multiply anything by 0, it's 0. [00:06:20] Speaker 02: And no one would think that if the outcome bit has no dependence, no relationship, no anything to the digit, that that would be assigned. [00:06:30] Speaker 04: And so let me just, let me just, I guess. [00:06:33] Speaker 04: tell you what's in my mind. [00:06:36] Speaker 04: I don't understand there to be any reasonable dispute about what you just said about the effect of these things and including no dispute about how if you use this kind of what some of you call blended bits in the range of the function that [00:06:56] Speaker 04: as I think you pointed out in your gray brief and is it 77 to 86 or something of the ALJ's decision, the Joint Appendix ALJ's decision, that if you use this method, the fundamental purpose of the encoding method here is served. [00:07:12] Speaker 04: Namely, the upper digit is more protected against error than the lower digit. [00:07:16] Speaker 04: I think [00:07:17] Speaker 04: As I'm seeing this, there's only one question, whether one takes embodiment six as the scope of this language, and that depends very much on a sense of how strong, as an ordinary language matter, this word a sign is in the context as encompassing more than concatenation of code words into a single code word. [00:07:43] Speaker 02: And I think that assign ordinarily can include implementations where you do assign it uniquely, or you assign it jointly, as all of our examples are. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: But even if you were to say, assign means exclusively and uniquely assigned, that you can only have one CQI digit per bit, if you take a look at page 15 of our pilot leaf, that's table 14, it's talking about the 3G matrix. [00:08:05] Speaker 04: Right, the 3G only. [00:08:08] Speaker 04: Argument which is a separate a separate point which looks very much like what's the one with the? [00:08:15] Speaker 02: Diagonal block coding what the diagonal block coding yes, yes It looks very much like that in fact also looks very much like embodiment six in a sense because the whole top of it the first 15 rows Those reflect what you refer to as the blending different upper digit and lower digit kind of ones or zeros when you get to the last five rows those last five rows reflect the upper digit only a [00:08:36] Speaker 02: Five times that's the upper digit five times It's hard to say that you don't have the upper digit assigned or you have the lower digit sign where the result is five times The upper digit repeated and so in this in this scenario. [00:08:50] Speaker 02: We have the same digit Repeated five times the upper digit so you have five more assignments to the upper digit by any I understand it at least with respect to this 3g and [00:09:01] Speaker 03: it's going to generate a 20-bit code word. [00:09:06] Speaker 03: And the first 15 bits, whatever value you see there, it's going to be a blending of all the digits. [00:09:16] Speaker 03: But for the last five, I can look at the last five bits of that code word [00:09:23] Speaker 03: and know that it's only talking about the upper digit. [00:09:27] Speaker 02: Five times, exactly. [00:09:28] Speaker 02: It's the upper digit five times. [00:09:30] Speaker 02: Everything else is zeroed out, it's multiplied by zero, so it can have no effect. [00:09:34] Speaker 02: The only thing that goes into those last five bits is the upper digit. [00:09:38] Speaker 02: Upper digit, upper digit, upper digit, upper digit. [00:09:40] Speaker 02: So you will have more, the upper digit assigned more bits, at least five more bits than the lower digit every single time. [00:09:48] Speaker 02: If that doesn't fall within assigned a greater number of bits, I'm not sure what would. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: And it looks a lot like embodiment six because you've just taken one top of the code word matrix and said, hey, the top of the code word matrix, that's blended. [00:10:01] Speaker 02: Bottom five rows of the code word matrix, that's uniquely and exclusively assigned to the upper digit. [00:10:06] Speaker 04: Well, it's different from six in that the top rows are not uniquely devoted to anything. [00:10:12] Speaker 02: But I think that in that way, the commission's construction is actually on the edge of absurd. [00:10:18] Speaker 02: Because in the commission's view, you could have 19 out of the 20 uniquely assigned to the upper digit. [00:10:23] Speaker 02: So every single one of those rows except one is uniquely assigned to the upper digit. [00:10:27] Speaker 02: But one of them is blended. [00:10:29] Speaker 02: In the commissions you would say, ah, because you've got one blended bit, one bit flexible, that doesn't have more digits, more bits assigned to the upper digit. [00:10:38] Speaker 02: And that's absurd. [00:10:39] Speaker 02: Any speaker of English language or any skilled artisan looking at this and saying, wow, 19 of 20 reflect the upper digit, it is the upper digit repeated 19 times out of 20. [00:10:49] Speaker 02: We know that the upper digit's been assigned more bits than the one... I'm sorry. [00:10:54] Speaker 03: I understood everything you said, but I don't know what you're referring to. [00:10:57] Speaker 02: Oh, I'm just doing a hypothetical example in the Commission's view. [00:10:59] Speaker 02: Oh, giving a hypothetical... In the Commission's view, if you had 19 out of 20 uniquely assigned... That wasn't an actual excuse to Bonnie, then, or something. [00:11:04] Speaker 02: No, I can't translate the page, but in their view, if this upper part of the scale were one line... [00:11:10] Speaker 03: In the lower part, the last five, or 19? [00:11:13] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:11:14] Speaker 02: And it kind of makes it clear that it's absurd, because I don't think any skilled artist will look at that and say, oh, you don't have more digits. [00:11:21] Speaker 02: There's more bits assigned to the upper digit in that context, where 19 or 20 are just repetitions of the upper digit. [00:11:27] Speaker 02: If I could turn quickly to the 439, so as to not leave that on the table, unless there are further questions. [00:11:35] Speaker 02: We think the Commission erred in construing two terms. [00:11:38] Speaker 02: The first is the data obtaining section that demodulates and decodes using identified parameters. [00:11:44] Speaker 02: And the second is construing per subband group basis to require multiple different subbands and different parameters for each. [00:11:51] Speaker 02: Beginning with the first. [00:11:53] Speaker 02: The claim recites a data obtaining section that demodulates and decodes using the modulation parameters decided at the parameter deciding section. [00:12:02] Speaker 02: When an apparatus flame speaks of performing a function that simply requires the device to be able to perform that function, if called upon to do it, to be able to do so without modification, it doesn't require that it be performing that function at any particular moment or time. [00:12:18] Speaker 02: And that flows from silicon graphics. [00:12:20] Speaker 02: In silicon graphics, the claim referred to a rasterizing circuit that rasterizes, or rasterization circuit. [00:12:27] Speaker 03: Before we get into capability of, there were two [00:12:31] Speaker 03: Infringement theories are the two non-infringement theories. [00:12:34] Speaker 03: One relates to the standard, per se, and then the other one to the accused products. [00:12:39] Speaker 03: Am I right about that? [00:12:41] Speaker 02: I think that my understanding is that they all related to the standard, that the accused products, when practicing the standard, either do or don't practice the claims. [00:12:48] Speaker 03: Because there's a non-infringement theory about how the accused products do not do all of these processings on a per subband group basis. [00:13:00] Speaker 02: Ah, I see. [00:13:01] Speaker 02: And that's right. [00:13:02] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:13:02] Speaker 02: But the argument is, in order to satisfy the standard, they have to be able to. [00:13:07] Speaker 02: And they actually, in fact, do everything on a sub-branch group basis. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: I think maybe if you're referring to page 61 and 62 of the intervener's brief, that's the argument where the numbers don't line up. [00:13:21] Speaker 02: But that all relies on evidence that was excluded that the ALJ refused to consider. [00:13:27] Speaker 02: at their behest, and so I don't think you can invoke excluded evidence and say, well, that proves my case when you were the one who got it excluded. [00:13:34] Speaker 02: But even so, that's a proffer. [00:13:36] Speaker 02: And our expert was prepared to, it's our proffer, actually, our expert was prepared to say, look, a skilled artisan looking at those return results would look at those and say that those meet the claims, if I'm understanding what part you're referring to. [00:13:49] Speaker 03: Did you put on any evidence that if you practice the standard, at some point you will [00:13:57] Speaker 03: Be performing these exact steps It recited in the claim in the sense that yes the accused phones will be receiving data that was modulated and and encoded by the very parameters that the phone itself had selected earlier so in terms of how often that would occur I don't think there's evidence that says it will occur this number of times and [00:14:23] Speaker 02: But our expert testified, and this was page 10881. [00:14:26] Speaker 02: What page? [00:14:27] Speaker 02: 10881. [00:14:28] Speaker 02: And then again at 10878 and 1820. [00:14:33] Speaker 02: These are all slightly different language. [00:14:35] Speaker 02: But it typically would do that. [00:14:37] Speaker 02: Typically the base station would select the same parameters that were chosen by the device because that's what optimizes the results. [00:14:45] Speaker 03: I thought your expert had said if the data [00:14:52] Speaker 03: came in modulated by the same parameters that the phone had itself selected earlier. [00:15:00] Speaker 03: Would it be able to receive that kind of data? [00:15:03] Speaker 03: And would it be able to demodulate that kind of data using those parameters? [00:15:06] Speaker 03: And the answer to that question was yes. [00:15:09] Speaker 03: But that's much more of a hypothetical of whether to assume for the moment that it, in fact, does receive that kind of data. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: I think that was opposing counsel's expert. [00:15:18] Speaker 02: And that was a cross-examination and said, well, if they do receive it, yes, they can use it. [00:15:22] Speaker 02: And then he adds, I don't know how often that happens. [00:15:24] Speaker 02: That's the opposing counsel's expert. [00:15:25] Speaker 02: Our expert said that. [00:15:26] Speaker 02: Typically it would do so because it optimizes and that's 108 81 allies 18 to 25 they would tend to and that's 108 78 and that's because the reason you're setting up those CQI is [00:15:38] Speaker 02: information is that is going to tell the base station what works best, what I can do in terms of throughput best. [00:15:45] Speaker 02: But even apart from that, I think the key point that I would like to make is when you're talking about something that has a capacity, say there's a structure that, and use a present tense verb, that simply means it's capable of. [00:15:58] Speaker 02: In silicon graphics, it was a circuit, a rasterization circuit, that rasterizes. [00:16:03] Speaker 02: That doesn't mean it ever has to be rasterizing. [00:16:05] Speaker 02: It just has to be capable of rasterizing [00:16:07] Speaker 02: without modification, without change, when called upon to do so. [00:16:11] Speaker 03: The concern I have here with your reliance on capability of case law is that even assuming for the moment that this claim that we're looking at is a capability claim, those cases are contemplating that once you activate those products that they will, in fact, [00:16:32] Speaker 03: operate in a mode that performs the actual recited steps in the claim, the functionalities that are associated with the claimed apparatus. [00:16:40] Speaker 03: And here, I'm not so convinced that that is, in fact, what happens, that once you turn on these phones and they operate under the standard, it just snaps into a mode that, in fact, it is receiving this kind of data that is modulated based on the very parameters that the user phone had itself selected. [00:17:00] Speaker 02: Well, Zhenshan, the ID [00:17:02] Speaker 02: The commission never finds that this will never happen. [00:17:06] Speaker 02: The commission actually, the finding is, even if the base station happens to consider the CQI report of the UA, it does not appear likely much is required for the base station to choose the very parameters initially decided. [00:17:16] Speaker 02: So it's not likely it's going to happen on any individual basis. [00:17:19] Speaker 02: But it's critically important that if and when that happens, that the user device be able to demodulate on that basis. [00:17:26] Speaker 02: Because you can't have the user device send up a CQI signal and say, here are the ideal parameters. [00:17:31] Speaker 02: Modulation and coding have the base station choose the same ones and then have the phone say sorry. [00:17:37] Speaker 02: I actually can't use those Signal dropped call terminated. [00:17:40] Speaker 02: That's not a good phone to be able to meet the standard and function It has to be able to utilize the same parameters if they're sent back I see that I'm well out of time if I may reserve anything can I just just suggest something and I don't know if it's maybe it's just me there's that there's [00:17:58] Speaker 04: There's some worry, at least in my mind, along the following lines. [00:18:04] Speaker 04: The language, the four performing language that is characteristic of capability claims, talks we've interpreted to mean basically, you turn it on, it does this. [00:18:18] Speaker 04: You have language here that seems more definitive [00:18:23] Speaker 04: about what must be done. [00:18:27] Speaker 04: That is, it uses present tense language, and yet you want to interpret that to mean something that requires very much less actual performance along those lines than even the capability standard does. [00:18:48] Speaker 04: Namely, it can, [00:18:53] Speaker 04: may virtually never. [00:18:55] Speaker 04: There seems something, perhaps, upside down about that. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: So Judge Taranto... Why is that the wrong way to look at it? [00:19:02] Speaker 02: So I think if it happens rarely, that at most might go to something like damages, because something that doesn't happen very often, people would argue, isn't terribly important. [00:19:10] Speaker 02: It isn't very valuable. [00:19:12] Speaker 02: But in fact, [00:19:14] Speaker 02: Here, we know that it's actually incredibly valuable, because you have to be able to do that. [00:19:18] Speaker 02: In those events, if the base station selects those parameters, you're going to have to be able to demodulate and decode according to those parameters. [00:19:25] Speaker 02: Otherwise, like I said, you have the phone that says, oops, sorry, I can't do what I'm supposed to do, no call. [00:19:31] Speaker 02: If there are no further questions, thank you. [00:20:00] Speaker 01: Hello, Your Honors. [00:20:01] Speaker 01: May it please the Court? [00:20:02] Speaker 01: If I can, I'd like to stay with the 439 for the moment, please. [00:20:07] Speaker 01: Here, Your Honors, IMBT failed to demonstrate any infringement with respect to Claim 1, and in particular, limitations 1D and 1E. [00:20:14] Speaker 01: I'd like to explain to you just why that is. [00:20:18] Speaker 01: Now, IMBT relied on the LTE standard, as we were just discussing, but that standard does not require that the parameters associated with the CQI index reported up from the mobile device must be the very same parameters eventually used by the B station in future communications. [00:20:36] Speaker 01: And in fact, IMBT failed to demonstrate even a single instance [00:20:40] Speaker 01: where that would ever happen out of the standard. [00:20:42] Speaker 03: The two responses to that would be number one, Mr. Lampkin was analogizing the silicon graphics, you know, widget that rasterizes. [00:20:54] Speaker 03: And that looks similar to some of the claim limitations here, you know, parameter deciding section that decides. [00:21:05] Speaker 03: And then the second is his point that his expert said, [00:21:10] Speaker 03: Usually, typically, it makes sense for the receiver to receive data that's modulated using the same parameters that the user device had in fact selected. [00:21:24] Speaker 03: So they have testimony apparently that says that it can and does happen. [00:21:31] Speaker 03: And secondly, they say there's no requirement in the claim that it must happen every single time. [00:21:37] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor, thank you for that. [00:21:39] Speaker 01: What I'll do is address the second point first about their evidence. [00:21:44] Speaker 01: This is alluded to on page 60 of their opening brief when they say that both experts agreed that the accused products being LTE compliant must be able to receive and obtain data under the parameters originally decided upon by the mobile device. [00:21:58] Speaker 01: But again, that doesn't say anything about whether that actually happens, whether the very same parameters reported in the CQR report by the mobile are eventually the same ones decided upon ultimately [00:22:13] Speaker 01: by the base station. [00:22:14] Speaker 01: But if you turn back to page 40 of their opening brief, Your Honors, that's when IMBT alludes to some of this evidence that he was discussing earlier. [00:22:27] Speaker 01: Now, those assertions are such as that the accused products quote often will use the same parameters decided by the mobile. [00:22:36] Speaker 01: But those assertions are wholly unsupported by the evidence. [00:22:40] Speaker 01: If we turn to page 40, there are two portions. [00:22:44] Speaker 04: Forget about their brief. [00:22:46] Speaker 04: So Mr. Lampkin specifically cited page 881 of the transcript in which he said, and at least on quick reading, [00:22:55] Speaker 04: Some support on that page that their experts said typically that's what will happen And we're putting aside here whether it's relevant or not that that's what will happen doesn't he say typically it will happen well Yes, sir. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: He says typically, but that doesn't mean that it ever it ever will And he has very similar touch. [00:23:12] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:23:13] Speaker 04: I don't get that well the reason when I say something typically happens aren't I saying more often than not even that that attack in fact happens and [00:23:22] Speaker 01: Well, I think what we should do is look at the underlying document that he was referring to when he was testifying. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:23:29] Speaker 01: He was looking at appendix 1333, and that's some of the technical specifications of the LTE standard, Your Honor. [00:23:48] Speaker 01: And so the third sentence down says, schedulers, this is within the Bay station. [00:23:55] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, what page am I supposed to be looking at? [00:23:57] Speaker 01: 1333. [00:23:58] Speaker 01: Oh, just 1333. [00:24:00] Speaker 04: 1333, got it. [00:24:01] Speaker 04: One too many digits, sorry. [00:24:16] Speaker 01: And so what it's testifying about, the basis for that testimony that they, the speculation that the expert has that they typically do, it's based on this line, Your Honor. [00:24:27] Speaker 01: Schedulars within the base station may assign resources taking account. [00:24:31] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, what page, where on what page am I, you're reading from? [00:24:35] Speaker 01: Same page, 01333, Your Honor. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: Where on that page? [00:24:40] Speaker 01: It's the third paragraph under 11.1, base schedule or operation. [00:24:45] Speaker 01: It begins, schedulers may assign resources. [00:24:50] Speaker 01: So it reads, schedulers may assign resources taking account the radio conditions at the UE, which is the mobile device, identified through measurements made at the ENB, which is the base station, and or reported by the UE. [00:25:05] Speaker 01: Mobile device and so in essence what this is saying is that the base station may take into account the parameters reported within the CQI report that it receives from the from the mobile your honors, so this does not say that it that the base station will that it must be its ultimate decision as the parameters on [00:25:31] Speaker 01: that information within the CQI report. [00:25:34] Speaker 01: It doesn't say that it ever will or that it typically will. [00:25:36] Speaker 01: It just says that among the various things that the base station can consider, the various values and measurements and estimations that it can consider, is the parameters reflected in the CQI report. [00:25:53] Speaker 04: Can you address the question of whether it matters what actually happens in the use of these devices as opposed to simply what they are able to do? [00:26:10] Speaker 01: Is this as far as what, silicon graphics? [00:26:13] Speaker 01: Is that what you're referring to? [00:26:14] Speaker 04: Yeah, that would be part of it. [00:26:16] Speaker 01: Sure, but just one point I'd like to make, though. [00:26:19] Speaker 01: IMBT's counsel mentioned how the IED, the ALJ's initial determination, never made a finding on this. [00:26:24] Speaker 01: That's actually incorrect. [00:26:26] Speaker 01: At appendix 123, she's down that IMBT failed to present evidence that the parameters corresponding to the CQI index are the very same parameters the base station ultimately decides upon. [00:26:41] Speaker 01: But so what we have here, Your Honor, it's a failure of proof, a complete failure of proof by IMBT to ever show that a base agent would ever, in any instance, either in the past or in the future, even randomly, use the very same parameters reported by the CQI. [00:27:04] Speaker 01: And this is, again, what IMBT's counsel alluded to earlier when he was talking about an offer of proof. [00:27:09] Speaker 01: And this, we believe, illustrates that they knew of the shortcomings in their infringement proof because it happened on the last day of trial. [00:27:17] Speaker 01: They submitted an offer of proof with additional information on infringement. [00:27:21] Speaker 01: Again, that offer of proof was not accepted into evidence, and INBT never argues on appeal that that was an abuse of discretion. [00:27:32] Speaker 04: Were you planning to talk about the 590, or are you leaving that to your colleague, or what? [00:27:37] Speaker 01: If I had time, I was going to address it. [00:27:39] Speaker 01: If not, I'll leave it to my colleague, Your Honor. [00:27:41] Speaker 01: But as far as silicon graphics, Your Honor, I don't think it's applicable here, again, for the same reasons that IMD has not shown that performing the standard could ever result in infringement. [00:27:53] Speaker 01: So that undermines its theory that the mere capability of performing the LTE standard is sufficient to show infringement here. [00:28:01] Speaker 03: Just so I understand your position, that position sounds to me like even if a silicon graphics, this is a capability of claim, they have never actually put on the proof to show that [00:28:18] Speaker 03: that the standard as practiced by phones is reasonably capable of actually doing all these steps that are reciting the claim? [00:28:26] Speaker 01: That's precisely our position. [00:28:28] Speaker 01: OK. [00:28:28] Speaker 01: Even if. [00:28:30] Speaker 01: And again, with respect to silicon graphics, here, unlike in silicon graphics, it's clear from the evidence that the accused products are just not designed in accordance with the claim language. [00:28:41] Speaker 01: For example, the evidence shows that the LTE compliant accused products [00:28:46] Speaker 01: Are not designed to use the parameters that itself decided upon as reflected in the CQI report that is transmitted to the base station Rather they're designed to just to use the parameters specified by the base station as required by LTE and that's within the DCI message that is sent So I have one minute your honor I think I will say just a couple things about the 590 patch your honor unless you have any more questions about the 439 [00:29:13] Speaker 06: All right, let's hear from Mr.. McMahon. [00:29:17] Speaker 01: I'm trying to use my last minute for for the 590 pattern, please I Think I have a little bit more time Okay, I have 15 seconds that we'll hear from you [00:29:55] Speaker 05: Good afternoon, Your Honors. [00:29:57] Speaker 05: May it please the Court. [00:29:59] Speaker 05: I do plan to focus mostly on the 439 patent, but if you will, I'll begin briefly with the 590 patent with two points. [00:30:06] Speaker 05: The first is, Your Honor, I think, Mr. Judge Tronto, you were exactly right about the word of sign. [00:30:10] Speaker 05: It does come down to the word of sign. [00:30:12] Speaker 05: And the commission did not improperly read in a limitation, read in embodiment six. [00:30:18] Speaker 05: The commission focused on the word assign in the claim, looked at the spec as we should to understand the context for the claims, and saw that that was perfectly consistent with the notion of assign, meaning what we would expect it to mean, that you're assigning bits to specific digits. [00:30:34] Speaker 04: But you know, what you just said is obviously true because it's self-evidently circular. [00:30:42] Speaker 04: Of course, assign means consistent with the notion of assigning. [00:30:46] Speaker 04: The question is whether assigning in this line of work includes making it a factual input into the resulting bits, which does not require segregation of the resulting bits according to what the inputs are, the digits that are input. [00:31:10] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:31:11] Speaker 04: Right? [00:31:12] Speaker 04: It's apparently utterly normal from, you know, including what's it, the Reed-Muller coding, which goes back 60 years or something, that this is one way of assigning bits that you're trying to encode into resulting code words. [00:31:29] Speaker 05: But the difference in answering that question, which way should you go, is that there is evidence in the record and in the patent supporting the notion of assigning meaning [00:31:39] Speaker 05: the exclusive flavor of a signing. [00:31:42] Speaker 05: And there is no evidence to support, as Judge Chen said, the much more broader and ambiguous suggestion that a sign might not simply mean a fact. [00:31:51] Speaker 04: It is definitely broader, but why is it ambiguous? [00:31:55] Speaker 04: Any system in which digits affect a particular bit would count. [00:32:04] Speaker 04: How is that ambiguous? [00:32:05] Speaker 05: There's no evidence to support that that is the suggestion of what was meant by the word assign. [00:32:11] Speaker 05: There are certainly more clear ways to recite that the bits are affected by it, if that's what the patentee intended. [00:32:18] Speaker 05: They use the word assign, which is a more definite word. [00:32:20] Speaker 04: So that actually, what you're saying now, has zero to do with ambiguity. [00:32:25] Speaker 05: No, and I apologize. [00:32:26] Speaker 05: I didn't mean to suggest that the claims are ambiguous. [00:32:30] Speaker 05: I was suggesting that if you read the claims, if you read a sign to mean affected by, as IMBT suggests, picking up on what Judge Shen said, that's a very ambiguous, amorphous [00:32:42] Speaker 05: interpretation. [00:32:43] Speaker 05: The claims themselves are perfectly clear, especially when read in the terms of the specification as the Commission did to suggest assigning to different code words. [00:32:52] Speaker 05: And to be clear, the Commission did not limit the claims to Embodiment 6. [00:32:57] Speaker 05: The Commission specifically acknowledged that there was an argument that there's another embodiment, another way to do this beyond Claim 6. [00:33:05] Speaker 05: diagonal block coding, which would be covered by the patents. [00:33:08] Speaker 05: Now, I do want to make a point about diagonal block coding, which is that, yes, that would result in a code word dedicated to the most significant digit and a code word dedicated at least significant digit, and they can be concatenated to result in one combined code word. [00:33:23] Speaker 05: That is not what 3G does. [00:33:25] Speaker 05: as INBT suggests, because it's not true block coding. [00:33:29] Speaker 05: It has blended rates, and both LTE and 3G both use 20-bit code words that are driven by both the most significant and least significant bits. [00:33:40] Speaker 05: The other point I did want to make, just because nobody has mentioned it, is the question of mootness as to the 590 patent. [00:33:46] Speaker 05: As the commission notified the court in a letter just several weeks ago, the 590 patent is set to expire in March. [00:33:53] Speaker 05: And as a practical matter, it seems unclear that if the court were to reverse and send this back to the commission for proceedings to reach a remedy, [00:34:04] Speaker 05: whether that could be accomplished before the 590 patent expires. [00:34:09] Speaker 04: So I just wanted to bring that to the question. [00:34:10] Speaker 04: Can I ask one practical question, not specifically about moodness. [00:34:15] Speaker 04: Do all or most of the devices that are sought to be excluded include both 3G and LTE? [00:34:23] Speaker 04: Or more importantly, I guess, do all of them include the 3G capability? [00:34:29] Speaker 05: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm prepared to address that. [00:34:32] Speaker 04: The phones are segregated by the LTE phones and the 3G phones, right? [00:34:36] Speaker 05: Typically LTE products are backwards compatible with 3G standards, but I can't speak to the entire record of products in this case. [00:34:43] Speaker 04: No, I'm trying to gauge how much the other side would win if it wins on its 3G argument, 3G only argument. [00:34:52] Speaker 05: Yeah, I do want to be clear. [00:34:54] Speaker 05: That is not diagonal block coding. [00:34:56] Speaker 05: I know, I got that. [00:34:57] Speaker 05: On the 439 pat. [00:34:59] Speaker 03: Can we stay on the 5, blah, blah, blah? [00:35:02] Speaker 03: 590 pat. [00:35:03] Speaker 03: 590 pat. [00:35:04] Speaker 03: So the 3G model, where the last five bits are clearly devoted, dedicated to the upper digit, why is it wrong to say that, therefore, more bits are clearly assigned to the upper digit? [00:35:26] Speaker 03: We've got five bits that are uniquely associated with the upper digit, unlike any other digit of the CQI in that case. [00:35:37] Speaker 05: But those five digits do not stand alone. [00:35:39] Speaker 05: Those five digits are part of a 20-bit code. [00:35:41] Speaker 05: And those five digits by themselves don't tell you anything. [00:35:44] Speaker 05: about the most significant bit. [00:35:45] Speaker 05: To understand what the most significant digit is, you still have to look to the entire 20 bits. [00:35:51] Speaker 05: So with respect to the commission's claim construction of mathematically segregated, they're not mathematically segregated. [00:35:57] Speaker 05: The 20-bit code word represents both of the digits, represents the entire CQI value altogether. [00:36:07] Speaker 04: Well, I guess one way to put it, I think this is the same point. [00:36:11] Speaker 04: If we're just reading the plain language of this claim element and using the term assign to mean assign exclusively, then the question is, is the upper digit assigned a larger number of bits that is assigned exclusively a larger number of bits than the lower digit? [00:36:29] Speaker 04: Answer for the lower digit, zero. [00:36:31] Speaker 04: Answer for the upper digit, five. [00:36:35] Speaker 05: With respect, Your Honor, that's not true. [00:36:38] Speaker 05: It's a 20-bit code word. [00:36:40] Speaker 05: You can't isolate those five bits. [00:36:42] Speaker 04: The claim language doesn't say you have to take account of all the bits in the code word. [00:36:48] Speaker 05: Right, Your Honor. [00:36:49] Speaker 05: I'm sorry. [00:36:49] Speaker 05: I'm distinguishing what you said about the products. [00:36:52] Speaker 05: The products don't have five bits for the most significant digits. [00:36:56] Speaker 05: The products have 20 bits for the most significant digits. [00:37:00] Speaker 04: So it's... Their 3G point is that this provision requires [00:37:09] Speaker 04: even if you take assign to mean assign exclusively, no more than that there be a larger number of bits exclusively assigned to the upper digit, exclusively, that's five, than there are to the lower digit, that's zero. [00:37:30] Speaker 05: So maybe I'm not understanding the question, but there are not five bits that are the most significant digit is not represented by just five bits. [00:37:39] Speaker 05: It's represented by 20. [00:37:40] Speaker 04: So why does the claim doesn't say that it doesn't require anything about the totality of bits affected by the digit? [00:37:51] Speaker 04: In fact, now we've dropped the affected interpretation, and we're talking about assigned exclusively, which is your interpretation. [00:38:01] Speaker 04: And on that and the 3G, there are five bits that are assigned exclusively to the upper digit and no bits assigned exclusively to the lower digit. [00:38:11] Speaker 05: I do understand your question, Your Honor. [00:38:13] Speaker 05: I think that's why the claim is speaking to how many bits are assigned to a particular digit. [00:38:22] Speaker 05: And in both 3G and LTE, 20 bits are assigned to the upper digit. [00:38:27] Speaker 04: So then assigned doesn't mean assigned exclusively, does it? [00:38:31] Speaker 04: If you're talking about the other 15 bits, the only way they're assigned is if assigned means non-exclusively. [00:38:38] Speaker 05: I think that assigned by itself is perfectly clear. [00:38:41] Speaker 05: I don't think that it needs to be assigned exclusively. [00:38:43] Speaker 05: And I think that's consistent with what the commission said. [00:38:46] Speaker 05: Again, the commission's construction was mathematically segregated, looking at just as the patent teaches, us having two separate code words, one for each of the two digits that are then concatenated. [00:38:58] Speaker 03: So that is? [00:39:00] Speaker 05: Reducing the claim to just the embodiment Well not necessarily because there's the alternative of using diagonal block coding which is not embodiment six, but would result in the same Code word and therefore meet the claim I I'm way over time your honors, but I can I make one point about the four three nine pattern I [00:39:23] Speaker 03: I'd like to hear about the 439 patent, just briefly. [00:39:29] Speaker 05: So with respect to the assignment, I'm going to step past the question of capability. [00:39:36] Speaker 05: I agree with your honor, Judge Toronto, that [00:39:38] Speaker 05: The gerund form is the typical approach to capability. [00:39:43] Speaker 05: But stepping past that, because it is dispositive here, it is impossible. [00:39:47] Speaker 05: And I want to just clarify what the evidence shows here. [00:39:49] Speaker 05: IMBT would have this be an apples to apples comparison between DCI [00:39:54] Speaker 05: And CQI, they're not. [00:39:56] Speaker 05: It's apples and oranges. [00:39:57] Speaker 05: So the phone picks a CQI value and reports that to the base station. [00:40:02] Speaker 04: Channel quality information. [00:40:04] Speaker 05: Yes, exactly. [00:40:05] Speaker 05: It's a very coarse estimate of the maximum throughput that the phone can receive on a given channel. [00:40:11] Speaker 05: Then the base station does something in the background, and none of us know what that is because INBT chose not to investigate the base station operation during discovery. [00:40:23] Speaker 05: But we do know what the standard says. [00:40:25] Speaker 05: And the standard says that the base station assigned sends a DCI message back down to the phone. [00:40:30] Speaker 04: And DCI stands for? [00:40:32] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:40:33] Speaker 05: Download channel information. [00:40:36] Speaker 05: It's assigning, it is the assignment that tells the handset, this is what I need you to do to send information back to me. [00:40:43] Speaker 05: These are the resource blocks I have allocated to you. [00:40:46] Speaker 05: This is the modulation scheme that I need you to use. [00:40:49] Speaker 05: And this is an index, and this is the critical part, an MCS index that you can use according to tables that are set forth in the standard to identify what your bit rate should be on the way back up. [00:41:01] Speaker 05: There are many more possible [00:41:04] Speaker 05: DCI values, MCS values. [00:41:07] Speaker 04: Like 3,000 or something. [00:41:08] Speaker 05: Yes, exactly. [00:41:09] Speaker 05: It's only 16 possibilities for CQI. [00:41:11] Speaker 05: There are thousands of possibilities of what the base station can assign. [00:41:16] Speaker 05: Why? [00:41:16] Speaker 05: Why don't they line up with CQI? [00:41:18] Speaker 05: Because LTE is a very complicated system in which the base station has tremendous discretion in assigning [00:41:25] Speaker 05: bandwidth to a number of different handsets, and it has to balance that across a broad spectrum. [00:41:32] Speaker 05: And so there are thousands of possibilities. [00:41:34] Speaker 05: Now, do any of those possibilities match any of the 16 CQI possibilities that the phone could have identified? [00:41:44] Speaker 05: The answer is no. [00:41:46] Speaker 05: How do we know that? [00:41:47] Speaker 05: Because every expert who was asked the question said, I don't know. [00:41:51] Speaker 05: I'm not aware of an instance. [00:41:52] Speaker 05: At no point did [00:41:55] Speaker 05: INBT ever identify two that match? [00:41:58] Speaker 05: And when pushed against the corner and forced to finally try to come up with a theory that could match two different coding rates, they submitted an offer of proof. [00:42:08] Speaker 05: It was not admitted into record, but even then the two numbers they presented did not match. [00:42:14] Speaker 05: So nobody has been able to identify a single instance where DCI matches CQI. [00:42:19] Speaker 05: And that is the basis for their infringement case. [00:42:22] Speaker 05: That is the basis for saying that it complies with the standard. [00:42:25] Speaker 05: The standard says, and the phone must do what the standard says, so the capability argument falls apart too because in order to make the phone do something different, the phone would have to be modified. [00:42:37] Speaker 04: Can I ask one question about the 439? [00:42:41] Speaker 04: How many independent arguments for affirmance on 439 do you have and what are they? [00:42:47] Speaker 05: There are three. [00:42:50] Speaker 05: So we've focused on the mismatch between CQI and DCI. [00:42:54] Speaker 05: That's the coding and modulation parameters. [00:42:57] Speaker 05: Second one we haven't even talked about is subband groups. [00:43:00] Speaker 05: Right. [00:43:01] Speaker 05: And then the third one is the final limitation of the claim, which the commission also found was not satisfied because INDT relied solely on the standard. [00:43:11] Speaker 03: Does the petitioner have two separate theories [00:43:14] Speaker 03: Get to infringement one through the standard and one through the accused product. [00:43:17] Speaker 05: They relied solely on the standard. [00:43:19] Speaker 03: The answer's no. [00:43:23] Speaker 06: Anything else? [00:43:25] Speaker 06: Anything else? [00:43:26] Speaker 03: I've had enough. [00:43:28] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:43:28] Speaker 03: Thank you for your indulgence. [00:43:42] Speaker 06: Here, Mr. Lincoln. [00:43:54] Speaker 02: Starting with the 590 again. [00:43:56] Speaker 02: There's nothing in the record to suggest that the term assign in this field generally means uniquely and exclusively assigned. [00:44:04] Speaker 02: If you look at footnote 48, footnote 49 on page 49 of our brief, it really can't have that meaning. [00:44:10] Speaker 02: But even if one were to, I think Judge Toronto, you're absolutely right that that 3G standard with five final bits which are uniquely assigned to the upper digit, they are the upper digit repeated five times, that would be uniquely and exclusively assigned [00:44:25] Speaker 02: And that would mean that more dip bits are assigned to the upper digit. [00:44:29] Speaker 02: Five more bits. [00:44:31] Speaker 02: At least five more bits. [00:44:32] Speaker 02: But the same thing actually exists in 4G. [00:44:34] Speaker 02: I should point out that if you turn to the commission's brief on page 36... I'm sorry, it's 4G LTE? [00:44:41] Speaker 02: The LTE, yes. [00:44:42] Speaker 02: If you look at lines, excuse me, row 14 and row 19... I'm sorry, would you brief what page? [00:44:47] Speaker 02: The commission's brief on page 35. [00:44:51] Speaker 02: Look at the... [00:44:53] Speaker 02: In this instance, the most significant digit is on the far left. [00:44:56] Speaker 02: And you only have four bits. [00:44:57] Speaker 02: It's a four-bit system. [00:44:59] Speaker 02: Rows 14 and rows 19 are 1, 0, 0, 0. [00:45:04] Speaker 02: So row 14, the 14th bit, and 19. [00:45:07] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, row 14, which would be the 15th bit, and row 19, which would be the 20th bit, will exclusively represent the upper digit. [00:45:15] Speaker 02: They will not reflect the lower digit. [00:45:16] Speaker 02: It will be the upper digit repeated in row 14, so bit 15. [00:45:20] Speaker 02: row 19 which is bit 15 or bit 20. [00:45:25] Speaker 02: I also wanted to turn really quickly to the Commission's concession about diagonal. [00:45:29] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, this is one in which A1 is the upper? [00:45:33] Speaker 02: Yes, A1, yes. [00:45:35] Speaker 02: Also M10 right there, yes. [00:45:37] Speaker 02: That's your upper digit, the blue one. [00:45:39] Speaker 02: And everything else is a less significant digit. [00:45:41] Speaker 02: You have 1-0-0-0 for row 14 and 1-0-0-0 for row 19. [00:45:47] Speaker 02: So your 20th bit and your 15th bit. [00:45:49] Speaker 02: And if you wanted to flip the page on the far right, you have the same thing turned sideways. [00:45:55] Speaker 02: But if you have the very last column, that one's all 1-0-0-0 again. [00:46:01] Speaker 03: Sorry, I'm lost on your point. [00:46:04] Speaker 03: Like the 19th bit on page 35. [00:46:08] Speaker 03: Yes, there's only... There's a 1, but then... And that 1 reflects the most significant digit. [00:46:13] Speaker 02: Right. [00:46:13] Speaker 03: Then there's a 000, but then there's a couple more 1s in that row. [00:46:17] Speaker 02: Right. [00:46:17] Speaker 02: And there's only 4 digits. [00:46:19] Speaker 02: So you stop at the green one. [00:46:21] Speaker 02: There's nothing more after that. [00:46:23] Speaker 02: So you're the only ones that count to the first 4. [00:46:26] Speaker 02: So that's why you end up with 1000. [00:46:28] Speaker 02: All the pink all the pink columns to the right of the green are are not actually being Used at all in this encoding they cease to be important the only use for it's because it's a use the input is a four-bit code And the output is a 20-bit this is representing the LTE. [00:46:43] Speaker 02: That's LTE On page 64 we have our diagonal block code. [00:46:49] Speaker 02: I Think this is where the Commission actually effectively conceives its case the Commission's view is a 64 of the appendix I'm sorry [00:46:58] Speaker 02: The commission's view is that if you have a zero in one of the columns, that results in assignment. [00:47:05] Speaker 02: And therefore, you have everything assigned. [00:47:07] Speaker 02: Well, if that were true, every one of the digits here would be assigned to 10 bits, because you have an 8 by 10 matrix. [00:47:16] Speaker 02: So that can't be right. [00:47:20] Speaker 02: When you have a zero there, that precludes assignment. [00:47:23] Speaker 02: And you have things uniquely and exclusively assigned by not having the zeros. [00:47:28] Speaker 02: Finally, turning to the 439, there's two arguments that were raised. [00:47:36] Speaker 02: The first is that appendix 126 says that there is no proof that this actually happens. [00:47:41] Speaker 02: But the proof act, if you look at the ID's decision, the ID says, look, there's no evidence that it's likely or that it happens often. [00:47:50] Speaker 02: But that's not a finding that it would never happen. [00:47:52] Speaker 02: And even if it were, that it's not likely that it would happen, what matters here is capability. [00:47:58] Speaker 02: If the phone needs to be able to demodulate and decode based on the parameters it sent, because those are taken into account, and as I actually explained, there's a reason it sends them, those are gonna be the best. [00:48:10] Speaker 02: If it can't. [00:48:11] Speaker 02: Then the call is terminated, and it doesn't work. [00:48:13] Speaker 02: And that's just not a very good phone at all. [00:48:15] Speaker 02: Then finally, in terms of whether CQI and DCI are different animals, they are set by different means. [00:48:20] Speaker 02: CQI is a matrix of 16, 15. [00:48:24] Speaker 02: One of them is a call out of range. [00:48:26] Speaker 02: The DCI, you have to figure out modulation encoding by looking across a bunch of tables. [00:48:30] Speaker 02: But in the end, what our expert would have said, and that proffer, and isn't mentioned, [00:48:35] Speaker 02: But look, if you're going to look at that data, if you're going to look at it and say, gee, there's a not precise match, you would have said they're so close. [00:48:40] Speaker 02: They're so close that a skilled artisan would consider them to be one and the same. [00:48:46] Speaker 02: If there are no further questions, we ask that they judge. [00:48:51] Speaker 02: Mootness? [00:48:52] Speaker 02: Sure. [00:48:52] Speaker 02: So we have one patent that will expire in March. [00:48:57] Speaker 02: In the event there aren't circumstances that keep it alive along the lines of what happened in wrote in ITC versus [00:49:03] Speaker 02: Comcast and, excuse me, it would be Comcast, ITC, and Roe V, then we'll have to tell the court we need a Munsingware vacatur as opposed to the case being alive. [00:49:12] Speaker 02: But I think that's a ground that we cross when we get to it once we get to March and the patent expires. [00:49:17] Speaker 02: But it's also always possible, as was the case, I think, Judge Newman, it was your opinion for the court in, excuse me, it was Comcast, ITC, and Roe V. Sometimes there are circumstances that will keep a case alive notwithstanding the expiration of the patent. [00:49:31] Speaker 04: What is the specific expiration date? [00:49:33] Speaker 02: I don't know the exact one, but it is in March of next year. [00:49:37] Speaker 02: So given that the commission took 21 months to get through this and that it used a total of 128 days to file its opening brief in this court, understandably under the circumstances, I'll add, but given that amount of time, we would hope that the commission would act with alacrity in any remand. [00:49:54] Speaker 02: And I don't think that's an unreasonable hope. [00:49:56] Speaker 02: So what happens if we don't issue an opinion for half a year? [00:50:01] Speaker 02: Yeah, so if the patent expires in the interim and there's nothing else that keeps it alive, we'll probably be asking for, or keeps the dispute alive and not move. [00:50:10] Speaker 02: We'd probably ask for a Munzingware order, which is vacatur and remand. [00:50:14] Speaker 02: or remand with an audit with a request to vacate the decision in light of mootness. [00:50:20] Speaker 02: And that's just a traditional thing that happens when cases go up on moot on appeal. [00:50:24] Speaker 04: Including from the ITC, even though there's no stop-off, I mean, reclusive effect in district court cases? [00:50:31] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:50:32] Speaker 02: The problem is that it can have other effects in the ITC. [00:50:35] Speaker 02: And the general rule is that even in agency proceedings, you have Munzingware orders because you have the risk of collateral effects. [00:50:41] Speaker 02: And if the court's been denied its ability to review the case by virtue of the passage of time, which might happen here, then you get a Monsignor order in order to clear the way for relitigation, whether at the ITC or in some other form. [00:50:55] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:50:58] Speaker 06: Thank you. [00:51:00] Speaker 06: Thanks to all counsel. [00:51:01] Speaker 06: The case is taken under submission.