[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
All right The next argued case is number 21 1689 plasma plasma cab Incorporated against CNC electronics LLC, Mr.. Rogers Please the court good morning I first want to thank you for the opportunity to participate at this oral argument in person and

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
I know you've been working through some difficult issues, including today.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
And I just want to let you know that I appreciate it, as well, to allow the parties to appear remotely.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
It's very much appreciated.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
So although the procedural history and the string of emails back and forth between the parties, which led to the district court compelling

[00:01:00] Speaker 00:
Appellants to sign a settlement agreement may be a bit convoluted

[00:01:06] Speaker 00:
But the primary basic.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
Counsel, I'd like for you to address a threshold issue about as threshold as you can get.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
And that's our jurisdiction and whether we have jurisdiction in this case.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
What can you point me to to show me that there is a final judgment that has been rendered by the court below that would permit us to even know what we're to review?

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
There was no separate final judgment, separate document as a final judgment issued by the district court.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
And that's why the appellants take the position that this is an interlocutory appeal.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
And the jurisdiction for this court is based upon the appellate jurisdiction for reviewing injunctions.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
There was affirmative relief in the court's order, compelling the defendants

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
to sign a settlement agreement.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
And that's injunctive relief.

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
And this court has appellate jurisdiction under Title 28 for reviewing an interlocutory decision, interlocutory appeal of an injunction.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
The appellate takes a different position.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
They view the orders issued by the court themselves as a final judgment.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
And they believe that it is an appeal from a final judgment.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
So we have two different positions as far as what the jurisdiction is.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
But either way, whichever way this comes down to, you do have jurisdiction.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
I can add that there has been further proceedings in the district court, which neither side has supplemented the record.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
But I can tell you it is in the record.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
There was a hearing.

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
a telephone hearing, like a status conference from the court.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
And the court ended up closing its records, right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
Closed the case?

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
The court administratively had closed the case long before.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
But when there was this two separate positions taken by the parties at the outset of this appeal in our docketing statement, I believe, the appellee

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
filed what they were supposed to have filed long ago, a motion to dismiss pursuant to the settlement agreement.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
So the district court did not rule on that motion to dismiss.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
The district court had a status conference, telephone conference.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
And there is a record of it if the court wants to review that.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
But basically, what happened on that conference was that the district court expressed its view that it had

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
Issued a final judgment that its orders were intended to be a final judgment as the appellants I don't believe there is a final judgment, but I can tell you that the order You have jurisdiction to review as an interlocutory appeal the injunction So regardless of which side

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
it goes, whether it's a final judgment and that's how you have jurisdiction or an interlocutory appeal, you still have jurisdiction.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
And the relief that the appellants are requesting in either case, whether it's remanding for the district court to be ordered to have the parties correct the definition of covered products in the settlement agreement that the court compelled the appellants to sign,

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
or our alternative request that the court vacate the order compelling the appellants to sign a settlement agreement to which they did not agree and remanding for trial.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you about the merits here.

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
I think you've got a strong argument that the parties in January of 2020 agreed on the language for covered products and that that's contrary to what the district court did.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
What concerns me

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
is that even though the parties may have agreed on the language, I'm not sure that they agreed on the meaning of that language.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
And if we were to rule your way and say, that's the language that ought to be included in the agreement, aren't we just opening the door to future disputes here about what that language means?

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
Because I don't think you agree on what it means.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
If you're talking about that, we certainly agree on a mutual release that the issue, the dispute issue was covered product.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
I don't think that's it.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
I think you do agree on it.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
I'm talking about the covenant not to sue.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
So the covenant not to sue, if the result is a remand with a correction of that definition to be the one that the appellants assert, we thought was resolved January 21st.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
I don't I'm actually I would ask you what is there a particular part of that that that maybe that the parties don't agree on because I don't think we had a follow-up I don't know that we had a follow-up dispute on the meaning of the definition of covered products that we that we agreed to in January 21 well it may be that there's a dispute continuing dispute between the parties as to the coverage of

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
future products under that language.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
You taking one view of that language and the other side taking another view of that language.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
Well, I thought the January 21st resolution, the final version of the version of January 21st that we believe was the final version, I don't know that there is any dispute over that, that it's future products.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
regardless of what they are any future products so if I'm reading that too broadly maybe there is a dispute I'm sorry it does not surprise me that you're taking that position yes I'm not sure your opposing counsel would take the same position

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Well, maybe not.

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
If we agree that there was no agreement, no mutual understanding, then we go back to whether there's infringement, right?

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
Then you get to have an infringement suit.

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
And that's the result of our alternative argument.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
And I can tell you, even though it's this phrase as an alternative argument,

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
I think that's probably where we should end up, is sitting it back down.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
Wasn't there a concession that the claims were being practiced?

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
No, we've always disputed infringement.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
The stage of this case when we reached what we thought was a settlement agreement, December 20th of 2019, the negotiations right at that point that led to, you know, what kicks things off that people finally, you know,

[00:08:31] Speaker 00:
have a settlement in the middle of the case.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
The point in that case was the plaintiff's deadline to submit documents on claim construction issues.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
So that's where we were.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
You're telling us there was no agreement.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
There was no settlement.

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
Nothing was signed.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
It's over.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
That's our alternative argument is that there is no, well,

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Our argument is that the courts, the version of the document, the settlement agreement that the court compelled the appellants to sign, we never, absolutely never agreed to that.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
Our primary argument is that there was a settlement December 20, 2019, just that email.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
But if it turns out, if there's some ambiguity in there, if that's not a binding settlement agreement,

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
then yes, we asked that this case be returned for remanded for trial.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
And we go back to where we were in December 20th.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
There's no meeting of the minds.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
There's no agreement.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
So we have to, in order to even remand for whatever reason, we have to say there was no meeting of the minds.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
So there was no agreement.

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
So there was no settlement.

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
So we're going to sue you for infringement.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
That's where we'd end back up, and we'd pick back up on our deadlines where we left off on December 20th, and we'd move forward with the case with claim construction, claim interpretation, our non-infringement defenses, our invalidity defenses, back to where we were.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
And the appellants are fine with that.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
How does that help your client?

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
You come away with nothing.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
We would defend the case, and likely invalidate the patent.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
intend for this to go, or went on our non-infringement defenses.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
But my folks are comfortable with going back down to where we were December 20th of 2019 and getting back on the scheduling order and moving forward with the case.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
In a way, that's really a question for the other side as well.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
Well, I think we can pause.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
We'll save you rebuttal time.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
Okay, so we can see, Ms.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
Rodgers.

[00:11:01] Speaker 03:
Okay, can you hear us, Ms.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
Rodgers?

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
Spath, yes, Your Honor, I can.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
Okay, all right, then please proceed.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
CNC would have this Court determine that PlasmaCam accepted merely $50,000 not only to settle this case, but to give CNC

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
I'm having difficulty in understanding how you can take the position that the parties didn't agree on the language in January of 2020, when your client specifically said, we're OK with the definition in your revised draft.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
In January, when Glass and McCann made that proposal,

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
We said that we would concede on the definition of covered products if, and contingent on, them conceding on the scope of the release.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
They rejected that proposal.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
Where is that language, please?

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
Show me where that language, making it contingent, is.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
I don't see it in the record.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
Where is the language?

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
And as the district court also found.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
But yeah, let me find that for you.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
So it is docket number 69, the appendix, Your Honor, at... Appendix page 10 is our argument where we quoted.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
And what we're quoting on is... Show me the document.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Docket number 69.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
Exhibit six page page in the appendix, please Appendix 10 if you PX 10 Yes, where's the document where's the document that makes this reservation?

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
It is the January 20, 2020 email from the... Where is the document in the record?

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
Hang on one second.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
The language we're looking for is... You're supposed to be familiar with the record in the case.

[00:13:47] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
I had a different...

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
Okay, so Your Honor, if you would look at, actually, I know where it is.

[00:13:57] Speaker 04:
I do have it in my notes, sorry.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
If we look at the appendix at 766 is my email to Tom,

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
Or I say, and that happens to be an exhibit, but that's fine.

[00:14:36] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
So January 17th, 2020, I say, I spoke with Jason and we're willing to make one additional compromise.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
That's a little bit later.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
I need to go back a little bit more.

[00:14:46] Speaker 04:
Sorry about that, Your Honor.

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
I think it's on page 790, Your Honor.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
I'm getting there.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
But I believe it's 790 where I make that proposal and I make it contingent upon them accepting the release.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
Here it is.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
It is appendix 777.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
And my email to Tom says, we'll agree to your change in paragraph 2.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
However, after much discussion and review of the email correspondence and notes of settlement,

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
We're confident that it was never the intention to release your client from claims that are unrelated to the claims pending in this case.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
And if I go on to say the more you push for this release, the more that we believe that it's your intention to produce more products in the future that will be a problem.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
PlasmaCam does not have any of your client's products in its possession and does not know if the current product infringed the claims of its other patents.

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
So what I'm saying in that email, which is at Pending 777, is we'll accept your definition of public products if you accept our release, our version of the release.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
What language in the email makes the agreement about paragraph two contingent upon agreement about the release?

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
The word, however, is immediately following my statement that we would accept that change.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
I say, however, we cannot accept your other change.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
So we're in a settlement discussion.

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
And in that settlement discussion, we say, we'll take that.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
But however, we cannot accept your others.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
And his response is actually to say no to that.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
specifically rejects that in response.

[00:16:55] Speaker 02:
And you eventually agreed on the language for the release, right?

[00:17:00] Speaker 04:
Well, yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
I think we don't agree before the court gets involved.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
But once the court gets involved, we each individually brief these questions.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
And when we each individually brief these questions,

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
We determine that both parties take the approach that if we simply say that we're releasing the claims that were brought or should have been brought in this case, then we could both live with that.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
And the district court notes, oh, OK, well, both parties, independent briefs, both say that they both could live with the language of releasing the claims in this case that should have been brought in this case, which, again, is the products at issue in this case.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
come to an agreement in the briefing we are coming to an agreement based upon the understanding of both parties that we will limit the release to this claim in this case which is what that these products infringe this patent and your honor all the covenant not to sue was was an extension of that release into the future not to future products but to future claims so

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
Not only would we release you for past conduct, but we would release you from future conduct.

[00:18:17] Speaker 04:
In the future, if you continue to infringe this patent with this product, we won't sue you for it.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
It looks to me as though having agreed to the definition of covered products, you're now trying to get out of that.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
We never agreed to that definition in a vacuum, Your Honor.

[00:18:38] Speaker 04:
As the district court found, which I believe is reviewed by clear error,

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
As the district court found, that was a negotiated proposal that we made as part of a proposal to accept our version of the release that we wanted at that time, which they rejected.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, the reason Rule 408 exists is it's not particularly good public policy to tell people that if they make proposals in the settlement context, that those proposals can be used against them.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what's happening here.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. Warden and CNC is arguing that we should be stuck with a proposal that we made early on in the negotiation, but that proposal was rejected.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
Do you agree that this covered products language that was in this January discussion applies to future products?

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure what time frame you're talking about.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
If you mean in my email to Tom where I said,

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Yeah, we would accept that change.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, at that time, I was referring to that change that we would have accepted if they, at that time, would have accepted the rest of our proposal.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
So that change would apply to future products.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
At that time, we were willing to accept that in conjunction with our overall proposal that we were making, which also, Your Honor, was

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
Well over, you know, was many, many months before we actually spent all the money briefing this issue.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
So we're trying to avoid getting in front of the court.

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
We're trying to avoid getting the court involved.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
So we made a concession, again, contingent upon them accepting another concession or another proposal.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
They reject it.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
And then later on, after we've spent all the money, after we've fully briefed this issue, then they come back and say, oh, you accepted that proposal back then.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
No, we accepted that as part of a bigger picture.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
And things had very much changed later on.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
And Your Honor, I also would like, if I could, to address the issue of whether or not there was a meeting of the minds.

[00:20:49] Speaker 04:
There absolutely was a meeting of the minds.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
Both parties agreed on December 20, 2019, that they were settling this lawsuit.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
It's undisputed that they were settling this very lawsuit.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
And again, the district court agreed.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
And that determination is reviewed for error.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
The standard of review would be plain error.

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
And also, the defendants waived the argument that it was an enforceable settlement.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
They took exactly the opposite position below, that it was an enforceable settlement.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
And now they're saying, well, if we don't get our way, then it's not an enforceable settlement.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
So I think this court should not find that the district court would clearly err when they determined that there was an enforceable settlement.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
It is not good judicial policy for us to go back and start from square one.

[00:21:43] Speaker 04:
We had a resolution.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
We both agreed that there was a pending case, that that pending case was being resolved, that they were paying us money to do it.

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
And to go back and start over is, I don't actually think is what either party wants.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
But I believe that council is arguing that in the alternative.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
That's what they would accept.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
What is stunning to me, Your Honor, is that CNC is taking the position that by settling this case, they could go make any future product they wanted, anything that they wanted to do to infringe this patent.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
And there was no language anywhere in the December 2019 agreement that would have indicated that.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
And it is absolutely appropriate

[00:22:27] Speaker 04:
to look at a settlement of a case or any agreement in the context of what were the circumstances.

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
And the circumstances, again, were we resettling that case.

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
And now they want to go make other products that will infringe the 441 patent, even though that was never an issue in this case.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
And we spent a lot of time litigating the issue of the release being limited to what was brought in this case and what should have been brought in this case and nothing else.

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
And they knew all along that that was our position.

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
They never raised the issue.

[00:23:00] Speaker 04:
And then we raised it in our reply.

[00:23:01] Speaker 04:
And in the oral argument, they told Judge Mazan that they thought we were all in agreement.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
And that was after we said in our reply that we believed the definitions covered parts was current parts plus updates and bug fixes.

[00:23:20] Speaker 04:
I think this is a case where we settled and they paid, CNC paid for an inch and now wants to take a foot.

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
It's important to point out, Your Honor, that any agreement cannot be read in a vacuum.

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
Again, it was a part of a negotiated settlement.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
And the argument that CNC has made is, well, your email didn't specifically say it was

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
limited to covered parts.

[00:23:51] Speaker 04:
But releases are read very narrowly in the Fifth Circuit and in Texas, and should be read narrowly.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
And so if it didn't talk about anything except releasing this case, then it shouldn't be expanded to other products.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
And again, Your Honor, I know that you have concerns about whether our decision or our concession

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
was in a vacuum or not.

[00:24:19] Speaker 04:
And it wasn't.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
And I apologize that it took me a long time to find Appendix 777.

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
But I think if you read that email in context, you will see that our concession on that point was very much contingent upon them accepting our version of the release.

[00:24:35] Speaker 04:
And rightly so, because it was a big concession that we were making.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
And it was to try to avoid months of briefing, months of, you know,

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
Again, we settled for $50,000, Your Honor.

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
We spent more than that arguing about this at this point.

[00:24:50] Speaker 04:
It was such a bizarre situation that we were just simply trying to make peace and move on.

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
But they wouldn't accept our release.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
They continued to cross this money.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
They continued to argue the issue.

[00:25:04] Speaker 04:
Even after we made that concession, they wouldn't accept our concession.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
But they ultimately, by the way, ultimately accepted.

[00:25:13] Speaker 04:
Just continue to, even today in their opening brief, they continue to argue that they can make products that infringe other patents other than the patent and suit.

[00:25:21] Speaker 04:
They continue to push for how much can we squeeze out of this.

[00:25:26] Speaker 04:
That was never the intention of the settlement.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
I already covered that.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
I covered that.

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
If the release was indeed limited to the claims made in this case, how can the argument be that they could include products that didn't even exist at the time that we entered into the release?

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
The scope of the release must be limited by what was brought in this case and what could have been brought in this case.

[00:26:11] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, what should have been brought in this case.

[00:26:14] Speaker 04:
And that includes our definition of covered parts.

[00:26:18] Speaker 04:
And I see that I'm out of time.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
Okay, any more questions for Ms.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
Speth?

[00:26:24] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:26:25] Speaker 03:
Speth.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
The experts will disconnect.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
Okay, Mr. Rogers.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
I first do want to make one correction or clarification.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
And it goes to your question, Judge Stuyck, about whether there would be a dispute over the January 21 agreed definition of covered products.

[00:26:56] Speaker 00:
And I refer to that covenant not to sue in that form as covering all future products.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
Hearing the back and forth in the follow-up argument, I hear that there may be some concern

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
that it's an unlimited covenant not to sue, just completely unlimited.

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
Well, the agreed definition from January 21st is limited.

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
It's limited to the patent in suit.

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
So it is all future products, but there's still some limitation on it.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
So it's not completely unlimited and there shouldn't be that concern.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
The other points I want to raise is the,

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
The view from the statements from the appellee that the January 21, 2020 definition of covered products agreement was agreed as part of a bigger picture and that they should be allowed to go back on that.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
The appellants didn't view it that way.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
They viewed the process as the narrowing of the disputes.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
and what we were trying to do is narrow the disputes for what the court would end up having to resolve and Appellants believe that we succeeded in that we narrowed the issues down to the mutual release Nothing more we agreed to covered products and both sides went to the court and said We have a dispute.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
That's limited to the mutual release they didn't say our

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
Definition of covered products we yeah, we agreed to that, but it was contingent upon some other things or we reserved our rights That's not what they said they Presented to the district court what the appellants view was That all issues had been resolved other than the mutual release and that was all for the district court to decide so Ultimately then after then briefing then

[00:29:05] Speaker 00:
the appellee came back and submitted to the court the version of the mutual release that we proposed.

[00:29:13] Speaker 00:
And so yes, we ultimately then did, through the conclusion of the briefing, agreed on the mutual release.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
So there was nothing more really for the court to do other than maybe to rubber stamp the agreement on the mutual release.

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
And so in that case, that's our primary argument

[00:29:34] Speaker 00:
Our request for relief is that this court vacate the district courts, order compelling the appellants to sign an agreement they did not agree to, and order the district court to have the parties correct the agreement.

[00:29:49] Speaker 00:
And then the case would be over.

[00:29:51] Speaker 00:
With one caveat.

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
There is one caveat.

[00:29:54] Speaker 00:
Throughout this process, built into that December 20, 2019 email was a penalty provision if we paid late.

[00:30:03] Speaker 00:
And so we would ask as a part of if the remand goes along that line.

[00:30:08] Speaker 00:
So we get our penalty funds back because we weren't the one to blame for the delay in the payment.

[00:30:14] Speaker 00:
The parties, after we thought we had an agreement, there was continued dispute.

[00:30:19] Speaker 00:
And certainly, we weren't going to pay a settlement payment when the other side is backing down on what we thought they agreed to.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
And so, yes, we ended up

[00:30:31] Speaker 00:
with an order not only compelling us to sign an agreement and compelling us to pay settlement funds, we were also ordered to pay a penalty.

[00:30:40] Speaker 00:
And so we'd ask, under those conditions of a remand, we'd ask for those funds to be returned.

[00:30:47] Speaker 00:
The other issue I'd like to bring up is the value of this case.

[00:30:56] Speaker 00:
We hear repeatedly from the appellee,

[00:31:01] Speaker 00:
that this is a low value case.

[00:31:03] Speaker 00:
It's just $50,000.

[00:31:05] Speaker 00:
That's just not the case.

[00:31:07] Speaker 00:
If we end up with this agreement that we were compelled to sign that has a limitation we didn't agree to, to current products, and we're not allowed to freely make new products, we're subject to this amount that we paid for a settlement in cost of defense potentially unlimited for each new product that we come out with.

[00:31:29] Speaker 00:
And that is the piece that we thought we bought when we entered into that settlement agreement through the emails on December 20, 2019.

[00:31:39] Speaker 00:
And so I just have to say that the value in this case is very significant to our client.

[00:31:47] Speaker 00:
It's not what the appellee presents.

[00:31:49] Speaker 00:
And that goes back to my appreciation for allowing

[00:31:53] Speaker 00:
me to participate in person in this oral argument.

[00:31:57] Speaker 00:
And I think I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:32:00] Speaker 00:
I'll release the rest of my time unless there's any questions.

[00:32:06] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:32:06] Speaker 03:
Any more questions?

[00:32:07] Speaker 03:
Any more questions?

[00:32:09] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:32:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:32:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

[00:32:11] Speaker 03:
And our thanks to both counsel here and remotely, the cases taken under submission.

[00:32:18] Speaker 03:
And that concludes this panel's argued cases for

[00:32:24] Speaker 03:
going to stay this morning for today.