[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
Good morning, everyone.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
We have a busy morning this morning.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
We have four cases set for argument.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
Our first case is Spec Technologies Inc.

[00:00:22] Speaker 02:
versus WE, case number 20-1283.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
Mr. Fincher?

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
You have reserved four minutes of your time for rebuttal, is that correct?

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
Okay, you may proceed please.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the Court.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
The Court should reverse summary judgment of non-infringement because the Court erred by concluding that no jury could resolve the fact question of whether the block diagrams identified at 4643 through 4659 are

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
equivalent to the corresponding structure of the interface control device, or ICD, in Specs' favor.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
The court should also reverse the finding that the means for providing element is indefinite because the 802 specification clearly links structure, namely the memory section 612A, to the recited function.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
I'll start with the summary judgment of non-infringement.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
The means for mediating has a corresponding structure of the ICD interface control device.

[00:01:37] Speaker 01:
This is circuitry within the peripheral device for connecting a host, encryption or security and target interfaces such that the data must pass through encryption before being stored on the target.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
For each of the accused products, Dr. Ryan identified the overall structures depicted in the color coded block diagrams

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
at 4643 through 4659 of the appendix.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Comparing those to the color-coded version of ICD 910 as shown in figure 9B, this is at the appendix 4665, there can be no serious question that there is sufficient evidence to support a jury conclusion that those are equivalent.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
WD, in its red brief, does not seriously contend whether it's a fact question, but rather whether Ryan identified those overall structures as the corresponding structure at all.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
In your honors, he did.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
So, starting at 3189, paragraph 101, Dr. Ryan identifies the GANET SOC, that's the system on a chip, and at 102, at

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
3190, he says, interface control device 910 as shown above corresponds to figure one labeled block diagram on WD, and there's a base station for the GANET specification.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
That- Council, this is Judge Phil.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
I have some questions for you about this very issue.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
On the infringement issue, I understand that you're arguing that the structures are equivalent

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
Are you arguing that the structures are the same, or are you arguing that they're equivalent, or are you arguing both?

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
No, that they are equivalent, both for literal and for DOE.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
And then with respect to Dr. Ryan's testimony, where is it, when I read his testimony, I do see where he's identifying different elements in the Q-SYS genome

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
that perform certain functions or do certain things.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
But I don't see where he's done some sort of insubstantial differences analysis or any kind of function way results analysis in order to be able to show equivalence.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
I'm wondering what part of Dr. Ryan's testimony are you relying on for equivalence?

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
So he goes through for each product and first identifies

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
the block diagram, the overall structure that performs the identical function.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
And it's undisputed that those structures do perform the identical function.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
So for example, that's shown for the first product, the UltraStar HE10, at paragraph 101, where he says the GANET SOC is designed to perform the function.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
I have read that testimony.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
What I'm curious about is, so that's function.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
So what about weigh and result?

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
Where is that discussed?

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
So that's discussed for each of those products in paragraphs for that product.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
It's in paragraphs 102 through 124 where he goes through and identifies how the elements that he's identified as corresponding structure correspond to those in the ICD and that that

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
and how that does the function.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
And he does that for every one of them.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
I'm having a hard time seeing that.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
Go ahead, Judge Cleminger.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
I didn't mean to interrupt.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
Page 102, 104.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
What page in the joint appendix is that, please, sir?

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
So page 102 is at 3190.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
And then the structural equivalence is at paragraphs 102 through 124, which is at 3189 through 3196.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
That's for the first one.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
He does the same for, the next one starts at Paragraph 236, which is 3217.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And the equivalence analysis is at 3217 through 3221.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
For the next one, he identifies the overall block diagram at 3244.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
the paragraph.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
I'm not looking for the equivalence language.

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
Can you give me a line on any of those pages?

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
You've decided it's a whole mess of material.

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
I'm just looking for, in a particular paragraph, a particular line that would help me.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, the way this is structured is at paragraph 101, he identifies the

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
structure.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
At 102, he identifies the corresponding structure.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
And then at paragraphs 103 through 124, and he does this for each of the products, he goes through and shows the correspondence of the host to in the... Yeah, I understand that.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
But I mean, I'm coming back with more specificity to the question that Judge Stahl asked.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
So I'm looking for where Dr. Ryan is

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
giving us the equivalence view.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
So that word is key, so you can no doubt, if you can find it, you should point it out to me.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, so he does go through and identify that the host blocks within the accused product are equivalent to the

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
the host in paragraph 910.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
Pick a paragraph number and count the line and show me where it is, please.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
So at first he has the

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
So at paragraph 104, this is on page 3190, he identifies the PCMCI.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
This is in the GANET functionality.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
This is located in the host interface block.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
So he's saying that the host interface block is equivalent to the PCMCIA.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
Give me the line where he says that.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
That worry.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that he doesn't,

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
Not sure that he uses that word in this section.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
This is the way the appendix is put together.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
There's a means for security.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
The security means is up above, and he does identify those as being equivalent.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
The host means is shown as equivalent.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
I still see that identification as quote equivalent, close quote.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
Yeah, his analysis goes through and explains that it is doing the same functionality and he's showing the correspondence.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
He does not use the exact language equivalence, at least not that I'm seeing.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
I do think it's in here, Your Honor, but I'm not... Counsel, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
Does he use the words way or result or in some way talk about whether the differences are substantial or not?

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
Does he use those specific words, substantial or insubstantial differences?

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
Does he use the word way?

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
And does he use the word result anywhere?

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
I don't see it anywhere.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I don't think that it does.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
What he did is he showed that the PCMCI is the same as the host, that it does the same function, that it

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
and that it does it the same way.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
The analysis is to show the correspondence between the accused block diagram and the 910.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
So if you go to 4643.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
Tom, so can I ask you another question?

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
So he's saying that the accused serial host interface is the structure that is identified in the accused product

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
as being the infringing element for element 9, structure 910.

[00:10:56] Speaker 00:
Isn't that right?

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
And then he identifies specific things within that serial host interface and COOS product that correspond to other things inside interface 910, right?

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
Does he ever do any sort of overall analysis of why it is that the serial host interface in the accused product is equivalent to overall the product, the interface 910?

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
I think I'm identifying specific component parts and saying these correspond to this, but he never says anywhere

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
that despite, you know, there being apparent differences, because he's not arguing, they're the same.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
He never says those differences are insubstantial, right?

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
He explains why they're insubstantial, and if Your Honor will just compare 4643, just that one page, that color-coded page.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
What it shows is that the host, shown in blue, is connected to the encryption, shown in pink,

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
shown through green.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
And when you compare that to the ICD, which is what he does, that raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether that's equivalent to the ICD.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
And what he says at the end of each one of these sections is, after doing that analysis, he says if the GANET chip is found not to be equivalent of 9B.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
So he is doing that analysis.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
He's saying that the GANET chip

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
where the Goliath SOC is equivalent to the figure of 9B.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
And if it's not for literal infringement, it still infringes under the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I want to just touch briefly on the means for providing.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Raina.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
Be brief, because you're into your rebuttal time right now.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, the specification clearly links element 6-112A

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
to the corresponding function and I'll point your honors to column 7 at line 62 through 65, column 8 lines 9 through 14 and at column 8 line 15 and lines 40 through 45.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
All of this is supported.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
It says that the peripheral device can be implemented

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
By placing the peripheral identification data in 612A, Gomez's declaration at appendix 983 is unrebutted, which says to one of skill and the art that clearly links the corresponding structure.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
Unless your honor has any questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:13:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
Let's hear from Mr. Cote.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
Did I pronounce your name correctly, sir?

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
It's Mr. Cote, closing out, Your Honor.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
Cote, OK.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, there had a longer argument prepared to respond, but I think Judge Stoll hit the issue right on the head.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
At the end of the day, there is no evidence anywhere in the record of a comparison of an overall structure in the accused product against the corresponding structure identified in the patent.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Dorian.

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
So if we look at 3193, at paragraph 113, and there it says that if the Gannett chip is found not to be equivalent of figure 9B for the purposes of literal infringement, it says it still infringes under the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
So you're

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
Your friend on the other side was being asked, where do we find the words equivalence?

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
And an actual statement of whether there's equivalence or not.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
Why doesn't this suffice for that purpose?

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Well, I think there's a couple of things, John.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
First, I think Judge Stowell was correct when she identified that there's no references to the result in weigh test actually performed.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
But more importantly, the fundamental issue is you have to first identify

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
what the overall structure is.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
And then once you have done that, then you can perform the insubstantial differences test with respect to the elements that are within the overall structure of the Q's products.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
And that analysis is the same, regardless of whether or not we're talking about literal infringement or the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
Do you still have to do that?

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
But do you have to do that in terms of summary judgment?

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
If you're just trying to show that there's

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
there's genuine dispute over material facts, is it not enough?

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
And I'm asking, is it not enough simply to point to the different elements that compose or comprise the entire structure?

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
Well, it's not enough, Your Honor, because what they haven't actually done is point to all of the elements that allegedly comprise the structure.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
If, for example, let's take an example and make this a little bit more concrete if we like.

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
So if you were to turn to page 21 of the blue brief, for example, you will see a couple of figures that are identified by opposing counsel.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
And in those figures, they circle a red box.

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
And the red box includes a number of different elements within it.

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
Some of them are colored in, some of them are not.

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
What page are we on?

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Page 21 of the blue brief, Your Honor.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
OK, I got it.

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
And you can see that there are some elements here that are colored and some that are not colored.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
Had Dr. Ryan actually identified an overall structure as represented by Spex's counsel, that he would then have the course finally perform

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
a insubstantial differences analysis with respect to the elements that he ignores there that are not colored in.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
That never occurs.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
There is no record citations by specs on that, and there are no record evidence in the expert report or testimony of Dr. Ryan on those issues.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
So we never actually get to the operative legal test.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
which is a comparison between the overall structure that is identified and the in the key products, excuse me, and the corresponding structure interface control device 910.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
We're talking about summary judgment.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
To what extent do you have to actually prove the infringement?

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
Is it enough to raise an initial material fact

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
Well, it has to be a genuine dispute of material factor.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
There's two things that are here.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
Number one, to be a genuine dispute, it has to be raised on actual evidence and not just conclusory statements and allegations that are made by opposing counsel and argument.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
And number two, it has to actually be a genuine dispute of material fact.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
And for it to be a material fact, you actually have to address the operative legal test.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
There is no dispute in this case that the operative legal test requires a comparison of the overall structure in the accused product against the corresponding structure in the asserted patent.

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
And what Specs is asking and urging the court to do is basically to adopt a standard that would ignore the force

[00:19:07] Speaker 04:
and focus instead solely on a scattered group of trees within the forest.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
And what you get in the... Counsel, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
Also, doesn't this legal analysis have to use the proper legal test, including functionally result test or insubstantial differences test, and actually address those types of tests and evidentiary burdens?

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
I could not see it better myself, Judge Stoll.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
I would like to ask some questions about the second issue, if it's OK to turn to that now.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Of course.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
I want to ask about indefiniteness.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
The patent specification pretty clearly says that the peripheral can assume the identity of the target functionality.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
And it also pretty clearly says that the peripheral device has a memory section called 12A that stores the type of the peripheral device.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
So my question for you is this.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
If a POSA reading this specification, what would a POSA, Percent Ordinary Scaling Art, reading specification think was stored in memory 612A in the embodiment where the peripheral wants to identify itself as the target functionality to the host computer?

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
So that is generally described, Your Honor,

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
in the 802 patent and give you one moment to find the proper citation.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
It's in Column 7 and 8 probably.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
Yes, you are correct.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
So I'm looking right now at Column 7 starting at about Line 17.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
That is the general way that the device would identify itself.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
There would be peripheral device information

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
that would be stored in 612A, and it would then identify itself as the peripheral device.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
That is the normal course that was in and known in the prior art already.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
And then in column seven, lines 39 through 40 says that the peripheral device can assume the identity of the target functionality.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
So why wouldn't the target functionality be stored in memory 612A?

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, what that statement is about is a goal.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
It is not the result.

[00:21:39] Speaker 04:
So that's a goal or the function that's being described.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
But what the patent actually has to disclose is the structure for performing that.

[00:21:49] Speaker 04:
In order to get there, I think it's important to note that during the prosecution of this patent,

[00:21:56] Speaker 04:
Specsys Council acknowledged that the reason why this patent was granted was the means for providing limitation.

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
So it's an acknowledgement that this was already something that was not known in the art, and that's the reason why this claim was granted.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
So if that is the case, it makes no sense for a person of already skill in the art reading the patent to understand on their own accord

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
how it could be that the structure is identified in the pattern.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
If the pattern itself... Do you agree with me that column eight lines, let me see, I think it's like 13 through 15 says the memory section 612A, and it's the peripheral device stores the peripheral device identification data?

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
It says the peripheral device identification data, but does not say the target identification data.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
Well, then the very next sentence says the peripheral device can be implemented.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
It says that the peripheral device assumes the identity of the target functionality.

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
Again, that is the goal, Your Honor, but it doesn't identify the structure that is required for it.

[00:23:03] Speaker 04:
And in this case, we don't have to guess.

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
Judge Clevenger, could I interrupt, please?

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
Of course, Your Honor.

[00:23:12] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:13] Speaker 03:
The elephant in the room here for you, I'm sorry to tell you, is Gomez, Mr. Gomez's testimony on behalf of one of Ordinary Skill in the Art.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
And you don't, you didn't put an expert in to counteract what he said.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
And I would refer you to our binding precedent in the All Voice case, which is at 504 Fed 3rd 1236.

[00:23:40] Speaker 03:
in particular at 1246, where in a case that's essentially on all fours with this, we held that in a situation like this, where there is post of testimony supporting the patentee and there's no counter testimony, the patentee wins.

[00:24:02] Speaker 03:
So I don't see how you can get past Gomez.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
And so let me give you... What you've been talking to Judge Stoll about is your attorney view of what a postal would think, but you're not qualified to testify to that effect.

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
So what do you have to say about going... So two things, Your Honor.

[00:24:33] Speaker 04:
First, Pearl Williamson and Omega Engineering, there's no question

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
But the testimony of one of ordinary skill in the art cannot supplant the total absence of structure from the specification.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
That is a quote from Williamson.

[00:24:47] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what SPEC is trying to do in this case.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
Well, so what happens if we disagree with you on the total absence point and we say we think there is some evidence at least in the SPEC of structure corresponding to the means limitation?

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
then you're on all fours with all voice.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
And I think from my perspective, you lose.

[00:25:13] Speaker 04:
So if you give me one second, Your Honor, and I recall that one of the cases that's actually cited here in the briefing was specifically a case in which an expert was provided by the plaintiff's counsel

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
And the court found, in fact, this is a different sort of artifact, that that expert's testimony did not overcome the fact that the patent did not describe the structure that it needed to describe.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
So give me one moment, if you would.

[00:25:50] Speaker 02:
Get out of the basis.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
Let's create a genuine.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
And the other point that I would raise before I find that case, Your Honor, is that without a basis in the specification, an expert's testimony cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
Counsel, can I ask you another question, which is I believe you've admitted that the disclosure in the 135 patent is sufficient for disclosing the corresponding structure.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
And the only dispute there is, you know, which is a pretty big dispute, is about incorporation by reference, right?

[00:26:35] Speaker 04:
That is correct, Dorada.

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
If you go and look at the 135 pad, you'll see that in order to transfer the target information data into 612A, you have to use a couple of processors that are found in different parts of the circuitry, including within the target means, in order to make that happen.

[00:26:56] Speaker 03:
I don't, can you show us, I have the 135 disclosure in front of me and I'm comparing it to the 802 and they're verbatim quite a ways down in terms of the expectation.

[00:27:10] Speaker 03:
I'm looking to see where there's daylight between the two.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
Can you point to me in the 135 where there's language that you believe is satisfactory that it's absent in the 802?

[00:27:23] Speaker 04:
Yeah, give me one moment, your honor.

[00:27:32] Speaker 04:
So if you go to the 135 patent, and it's column 11, starting at line 16.

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
So line 16 through line 39.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
And what's described there is that upon application of power to the modular device, there's a startup program that runs.

[00:28:17] Speaker 04:
And with that startup program running, it has to call upon the microprocessor in the target means, which is 620.

[00:28:33] Speaker 04:
to access memory section 617 and transfer target device information from memory 617 through input-output interfaces 614 and 618 until finally making its way back into 612A.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
All of that circuitry is required in order to

[00:29:02] Speaker 04:
respond to requests for peripheral device information and provide not peripheral.

[00:29:10] Speaker 03:
Is that the only difference between the 135 and the other one?

[00:29:16] Speaker 04:
That is the primary difference with respect to the structural identification, Your Honor.

[00:29:22] Speaker 03:
That's where you hang your hat to say that there's a difference between the two.

[00:29:26] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:29:28] Speaker 02:
Okay, I believe I heard the tone, but I want to ask my colleagues if they have any other questions before we move on.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
I have one more question.

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:38] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:29:39] Speaker 00:
I just want to know if this is what you argued to the court below.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
If you argued to the court below that the corresponding structure in patent 135

[00:29:52] Speaker 00:
is all of these different elements you've identified today, including the interface 618, the module 610.

[00:29:59] Speaker 00:
Did you argue that to the district court?

[00:30:01] Speaker 04:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:30:03] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:30:03] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:30:07] Speaker 02:
Judge Clemender, do you have any other questions?

[00:30:09] Speaker 03:
No, thank you.

[00:30:11] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:30:12] Speaker 02:
Then let's hear from Mr. Finster.

[00:30:15] Speaker 02:
And Mr. Finster, you have four minutes.

[00:30:17] Speaker 02:
I'm going to restore your four-minute rebuttal.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:22] Speaker 01:
I'll start with the means for providing.

[00:30:25] Speaker 01:
If Your Honors have any questions, the all-voice case is directly on point.

[00:30:31] Speaker 01:
They don't have a response to Mr. Gomez.

[00:30:33] Speaker 01:
Mr. Cote's referral, I think he was referring to the default proof credit card case where there was an expert that could not supplant where there is no evidence or zero structure and here,

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
as Judge Stoll pointed out, and as we pointed out, there is corresponding structure in the 802, which is that memory section 612A.

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
Unless your honors have any other questions, I'd like to respond on the means for mediating.

[00:31:05] Speaker 01:
So with respect to the means for mediating, and I apologize I didn't have this before, I do want to point your honors to paragraphs 95, 97,

[00:31:17] Speaker 01:
for the equivalence analysis between, for example, the host functionality.

[00:31:27] Speaker 01:
It's at 3187 for paragraph 95.

[00:31:29] Speaker 01:
97 is at 3188.

[00:31:31] Speaker 01:
And then it refers to equivalent structures at paragraph 112 on 3192.

[00:31:42] Speaker 01:
and again at 113, at 3193.

[00:31:46] Speaker 01:
Now, the analysis, I acknowledge that he didn't use the precise language of function way result.

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
However, the substance of Dr. Ryan's analysis is to show that it's performing the identical function the same way to achieve the same result.

[00:32:07] Speaker 01:
that it's the substance of the analysis and not whether he uses magic words that the court should be looking at.

[00:32:13] Speaker 01:
And the paragraphs that we've cited in our briefing and throughout each of these paragraphs after he identifies them.

[00:32:20] Speaker 02:
I think that we're dealing here with more than just magic words.

[00:32:25] Speaker 02:
We're talking about a legal test.

[00:32:29] Speaker 02:
And unless the test is accurately set out and stated, then how do we know that the test has been met or not?

[00:32:38] Speaker 01:
So he does set forth, and it's not, so there are multiple means plus function elements that were not challenged in the briefing.

[00:32:51] Speaker 01:
And in his expert report, and I apologize, I'm not gonna be able to give you the insight right now, he does go through that structure analysis, the function way result analysis for each of those means plus function.

[00:33:05] Speaker 01:
By the time we get to 1F, which is the last of these means plus function elements, at that point he's doing, you know, he is doing some shorthand and he's saying this is the overall structure that corresponds.

[00:33:16] Speaker 01:
Then he gives the paragraphs and shows how it corresponds.

[00:33:19] Speaker 01:
And then he says to the extent this is not equivalent for literal infringement, it is equivalent for doctrine of equivalence.

[00:33:26] Speaker 01:
And then he goes through and explains why, for example, in paragraph

[00:33:29] Speaker 01:
He does that equivalence analysis again for the DOE, and he does that for each of the products.

[00:33:36] Speaker 02:
Well, it seems to me that he explains the components that you would use in order to show the how.

[00:33:45] Speaker 02:
But that argument isn't made.

[00:33:49] Speaker 02:
I mean, I don't see that the test is alive in this testimony.

[00:33:56] Speaker 01:
I understand, Your Honor, but here, because the structures that he's pointing to really are almost identical and they're equivalent.

[00:34:07] Speaker 01:
I'm not saying they're identical, but they are very close to the structures in ICD.

[00:34:13] Speaker 01:
And comparing those that we have in the color coded and that Mr. Cote pointed out at pages 20 and 21 of the blue brief,

[00:34:23] Speaker 01:
really does show that it is connected exactly the same way, and that evidence is sufficient itself to support a jury determination, even if he didn't say function well.

[00:34:37] Speaker 03:
Mr. Finster, Judge Clifford, it seems to me that the problem is that in addition to the specific structure that you pointed out in the circuits, there's a lot of other things happening in the electrical circuits.

[00:34:50] Speaker 03:
that may or may not affect the function where result of the pieces of the function that you pointed out.

[00:34:57] Speaker 03:
So by not having identified a single structure, we don't know.

[00:35:01] Speaker 03:
We just have to assume that all the other electrical activity that's going on related to the structure you point out, we have to assume that that's not having any effect on the function where it results.

[00:35:16] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, to identify the specific structure, you would be saying you would be arguing that there is no interactive effect from the other functions.

[00:35:27] Speaker 01:
Two points, Your Honor.

[00:35:28] Speaker 01:
First, the court held in IMS, Caterpillar, Cross Medical, Uniloc, and Odetics.

[00:35:35] Speaker 01:
In all of those cases, there were other structures that performed other functions, and those are not relevant to

[00:35:44] Speaker 01:
the analysis here.

[00:35:46] Speaker 01:
And at trial, we would develop that testimony that those elements have nothing to do with the performed structure.

[00:35:53] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Cote identified the stuff in the red box.

[00:35:57] Speaker 01:
That does correspond exactly to the parts of those chips that Dr. Ryan identified in the subsequent paragraph.

[00:36:06] Speaker 01:
So these really are demonstrative of his analysis, and it's the comparison of those

[00:36:13] Speaker 01:
that gives rise to a genuine issue of fact that a jury could find, even though they are structurally different, even though they are different and additional components, it's still a question of fact that this court has held on in each of those cases that we cited.

[00:36:28] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:36:30] Speaker 02:
I think I heard the bell, or the tone rather.

[00:36:33] Speaker 02:
Do my colleagues have any other questions?

[00:36:38] Speaker 02:
No?

[00:36:39] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:36:39] Speaker 02:
Mr. Fisher, I think we've got your argument.

[00:36:43] Speaker 02:
If you want to have a short conclusion, a one or two line, that's fine with me.

[00:36:49] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:36:50] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we would ask that the court reverse the summary judgment of non-imprisonment because when you look at the totality of that evidence,

[00:36:58] Speaker 01:
There is sufficient evidence to support a jury analysis of structural equivalence and importantly the court should reverse the summary judgment that means for providing is indefinite because the specification in the 802 clearly links memory section 612A

[00:37:18] Speaker 01:
to the recited function.

[00:37:23] Speaker 01:
And the 135 is properly incorporated as a separate alternative independent basis for reversal.

[00:37:31] Speaker 01:
And I'll point, Your Honors, to the auto block case, which specifically so held.

[00:37:36] Speaker 01:
This incorporation by analysis, incorporation by reference is perfectly in line with section 1.57 and auto block.

[00:37:45] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:37:45] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:37:46] Speaker 02:
We got it.

[00:37:47] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:37:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:37:47] Speaker 02:
This case is now taken in.

[00:37:48] Speaker 02:
and submission.