[00:00:04] Speaker 02: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session. [00:00:08] Speaker 02: God save the United States and its honorable court. [00:00:14] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:00:14] Speaker 01: We have two argued cases today. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: The first is number 20-1058, Unaloc 2017 LLC versus Apple Inc. [00:00:24] Speaker 01: Mr. Stevens. [00:00:29] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:33] Speaker 02: Uh, this is Jeffrey Stevens, uh, with the Etheridge Law Group representing, uh, Uniloc 2017 LLC. [00:00:42] Speaker 02: And if I may begin your honors with just pointing to a key section of the board's decision, um, relating specifically to claim six, which, um, Uniloc is arguing as representative of the challenge claims six through eight, 15, 16, and 19. [00:01:00] Speaker 02: On page 32 of the board's decision, that appendix 32, towards the bottom of the page, the last paragraph, the board states accordingly, we find that, quote, last step recognized, and this is referring to in the Fabio reference, refers to the current step, K, because both K and K minus one are recognized steps, and between them, [00:01:29] Speaker 02: K was the last step that was recognized. [00:01:34] Speaker 02: This is sort of highlights the main error that the board made in its decision as to this group of claims that were challenging on appeal. [00:01:46] Speaker 02: The board here is sort of, they're assuming the answer to the question that they're [00:01:55] Speaker 02: Reportedly trying to determine based on the arguments that that Uniloc presented so Uniloc The argument presented to the board was that the phrase last step recognized in the Fabio reference was referring to the the previous step that essentially the way Fabio Looks and to try to determine whether some step-like motion is [00:02:25] Speaker 02: is validated and should be counted as a step, Fabio is essentially as the sort of the step data comes in, what Fabio does is it looks backwards and tries to determine whether [00:02:57] Speaker 02: And, well, I should back up just a little bit and say this relates specifically to the board's construction of a cadence window. [00:03:05] Speaker 02: And what the board construed that term to mean was a window of time since the last step was counted that is looked at to detect a new step. [00:03:16] Speaker 02: So the way the board was reading Fabio is to say, okay, well, you have a step [00:03:27] Speaker 02: that is detected and then you look to validate it and you're looking back in this window of time. [00:03:34] Speaker 02: When in actuality, as Uniloc has presented in its brief, the way Fabio works is that a step is not validated until the next step happens. [00:03:55] Speaker 02: And at that point, [00:03:57] Speaker 02: It's retroactively determining, okay, does the previous step, is that going to now be counted because there was a further step that came that was within a window that it's looking at. [00:04:12] Speaker 02: So I think what the board, and going back to the passage on page 32 of the board's decision, what we're focusing on here is that the board, [00:04:23] Speaker 02: is looking at the language and saying, well, these are both recognized steps. [00:04:27] Speaker 02: One of them was the last step recognized. [00:04:28] Speaker 01: And our point is that the board made a factual determination in the meaning of Fabio. [00:04:37] Speaker 01: It relied on the Fabio reference itself. [00:04:40] Speaker 01: It relied on expert testimony. [00:04:43] Speaker 01: How is that something that we can set aside on appeal? [00:04:50] Speaker 02: Well, it's factual determination [00:04:53] Speaker 02: we submit your honor was based on this, I would say misstep in logic on page 32 of the board's decision. [00:05:03] Speaker 02: It's saying that this last step recognized that they're trying to determine the meaning of that by presupposing what it means. [00:05:13] Speaker 02: They really haven't dealt with Unilock's argument that that last step refers to the [00:05:21] Speaker 02: previous step and not the current step that's being looked at. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: So it's, it's the evidence, all of the evidence that the board purported to rely on really is tied back to, you know, the board was looking at it through this lens of, you know, what that last step recognized means. [00:05:41] Speaker 02: And their only explanation they give is that both of those steps are recognized steps. [00:05:47] Speaker 02: They don't recognize the, [00:05:50] Speaker 02: the argument that, you know, I've put forth as to the last step referring to the previously, um, recognized step. [00:05:59] Speaker 02: So it's, it's a situation, I think, your honor, where the, where yes, the standard is substantial evidence, but where the board is purporting to make a determination based on the evidence, but has this, what we would submit is circular reasoning, essentially assuming the answer to the question. [00:06:20] Speaker 02: in going about, you know, reviewing that evidence. [00:06:25] Speaker 02: And so we really, everything hinges on what that term means and the board never provides an explanation beyond, you know, both steps are recognized and this was the last one. [00:06:39] Speaker 02: There's no recognition of the other meaning of that phrase that, you know, presented to the board. [00:06:52] Speaker 02: I will go ahead and move on to the additional arguments that were made as to the 508 patent. [00:07:12] Speaker 02: So as to claim one, for example, which Unalak is arguing as representative 1 to 11 and 12 and also 14. [00:07:24] Speaker 02: These claims require both continuously determining an orientation of the inertial sensor and assigning a dominant axis. [00:07:37] Speaker 02: And then the claims further recite updating the dominant axis as the orientation of the inertial sensor changes. [00:07:46] Speaker 02: And what the board bought into here was petitioners [00:07:52] Speaker 02: lumping together of these two recited steps in the claim. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: Although the steps may perhaps be overlapping to some degree, there are still two steps recited in the claim. [00:08:12] Speaker 02: Essentially, what petitioners did in the petition and what the board did in this decision was say, well, [00:08:22] Speaker 02: Again, sort of in circular fashion, you're looking at what the axis is that's being most affected by gravity and you're assigning that the dominant axis and it's related to. [00:08:40] Speaker 02: I mean, at most what the board's decision boils down to is that's related to orientation and that's good enough. [00:08:45] Speaker 02: But the claim really resides determining that orientation of the sensor. [00:08:52] Speaker 02: and then later, you know, updating the dominant axis as that orientation of the sensor changes, which itself suggests that, you know, what is already recited in the claim, that that orientation is determined and that the dominant axis is updated based on that determination. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: So I mean, those are really the two main points brought out in Unilock's briefing. [00:09:36] Speaker 02: And I'm happy to help the court further as the court may have any questions on that. [00:09:45] Speaker 02: We think they're clear in terms of the board sort of [00:09:53] Speaker 02: doing a little hand waving in terms of we agree with petitioner on this and that and not taking seriously really Unilox arguments and explaining in an understandable way why the board is rejecting those arguments on both of those points for both claims six and claim one and it's grouping. [00:10:25] Speaker 02: We submit that the board erred in finding those claims unpatentable and urge the court to reverse those determinations along with the other points raised in our briefs. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: OK, thank you. [00:10:48] Speaker 01: We'll hear from Mr. Mannes. [00:10:52] Speaker 00: Thank you, and good morning. [00:10:54] Speaker 00: May it please the court? [00:10:55] Speaker 00: All that is at issue is whether the board's final written decisions are supported by substantial evidence, and they are, so this court should affirm. [00:11:03] Speaker 00: I'd like to just briefly address the cadence window argument that the opposing counsel just mentioned and then briefly turn to that for some orientation limitations. [00:11:15] Speaker 00: On cadence window, as Judge Dyke correctly noted, the board found, based on Fabio's disclosure and expert testimony, [00:11:23] Speaker 00: that the last step recognized refers to the current step, not the immediately proceeding step under the retrospective theory that Uniloc has offered. [00:11:33] Speaker 00: And just to briefly address this contention that the board didn't consider Uniloc's usage or was somehow being circular in its logic, in Appendix 31 at the bottom of the page, the board expressly said that it understood patent owner's interpretation to be based on this idea that last step recognized refers [00:11:53] Speaker 00: to the immediately proceeding step K minus 1. [00:11:56] Speaker 00: And then it went on to reject that usage based on the disclosures in Fabio and the expert testimony that Jeff Steck noted. [00:12:08] Speaker 00: So I'll pause there in case there's any questions on the cadence window limitation. [00:12:14] Speaker 00: So on the remaining limitations, these are the access and orientation limitations. [00:12:19] Speaker 00: Notably, Uniloc doesn't even [00:12:21] Speaker 00: addressed them in its reply brief, but substantial evidence supports the board's finding that Pasolini's tri-axis accelerometer discloses these limitations. [00:12:32] Speaker 00: UNLX Council mentioned that the steps have to be separate, and that's precisely what the board found at Appendix 24. [00:12:40] Speaker 00: It said that Pasolini's first determined an orientation by identifying which of its three axes is most aligned with gravity. [00:12:47] Speaker 00: And then afterward, Pasqualea finds that access is the main vertical access for use in measuring acceleration samples. [00:12:54] Speaker 00: And moreover, in any event, the steps are not required to be separate under the claim language. [00:12:59] Speaker 00: So this finding is supported by substantial evidence, but the position that Unilog's argument is based on isn't even well-grounded in the claim language. [00:13:09] Speaker 00: And so with that, Your Honors, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. [00:13:16] Speaker 00: Thank you for your time. [00:13:17] Speaker 00: We ask that you affirm. [00:13:19] Speaker 01: OK. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: Thank you, Mr. Manhas. [00:13:21] Speaker 01: Mr. Stevens, you have a couple of minutes here for revival. [00:13:27] Speaker 02: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. [00:13:31] Speaker 02: I would like to dispute that the board's analysis on page 31 [00:13:42] Speaker 02: and going into the top of page 32 of its decision, you know, provides anything beyond what, you know, what I addressed as the, as the circular reasoning of the board. [00:13:52] Speaker 02: I mean, the, what all of that analysis where the board is, is talking about, um, you know, quoting, quoting the section of, of Fabio relied on where it says the last step recognized and, um, [00:14:09] Speaker 02: mentions also a current step and an immediately preceding step. [00:14:13] Speaker 02: All of that analysis is premised on its conclusion that last step recognized actually refers to the current step instead of the previous step. [00:14:27] Speaker 02: And so that's our point is that when the board concludes at the bottom of page [00:14:37] Speaker 02: 32 of its decision that the last step does refer to the current step. [00:14:45] Speaker 02: It's not relying on any of the other sections of Fabio or its expert declaration. [00:14:54] Speaker 02: It's as a matter of language saying, well, this is the last step because it was recognized last and doesn't acknowledge even the [00:15:05] Speaker 02: you know, linguistically how that last step, as Unlock understands it, you know, would refer to the previous step under the meaning of last. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: So that's where I think it would be a mistake to look at the board's decision and say, well, there's all this evidence, and then they conclude that last step, that their reasoning is included in the final paragraph there on page 32 where they determine [00:15:34] Speaker 02: circularly, in our view, the answer to the question that they're purporting to answer. [00:15:39] Speaker 02: And that's where the reasoning of the board breaks down and it undermines any other citations to the record and the evidence is all premised on that misunderstanding. [00:15:55] Speaker 02: And I will [00:16:02] Speaker 02: rest with that explanation. [00:16:05] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:16:07] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:16:07] Speaker 01: Thank you, Mr. Stevens. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: Thank you, Mr. Mauthaus. [00:16:10] Speaker 01: The case is submitted.