[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
The next case is Apple versus Zip-it, appeal number 21-1760.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:00:04] Speaker 02:
Degnan, when you're ready.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
May I please record Lauren Degnan for Apple.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
The district court's error here was a legal one.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
It dismissed the case because it believes the red winged shoe line of cases required dismissal because Zip-it's contacts with California are all related to the attempted resolution of the status of the assertive patent.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
In other words, the district court applied a bright-line rule that none of the contacts it had found satisfied the minimum contact prongs of the analysis could support jurisdiction, even though when it went through the burgeoning factors, it also determined that Apple and California's interests are not clearly outweighed by its effects.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
But because Red Line 2 and its progeny did not establish such a bright-line rule,

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
the court made a legal error in dismissing the case.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
Under the proper legal test, this report had personal jurisdiction over Zip It, and this court should reverse.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Stegman, what role do you think the rationale in Red Wing should have?

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
You know, Red Wing stands for the idea that there's, I don't think it's patent specific, because there's other circuits that have endorsed the policy, which is that there are reasons to encourage notice letters.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
When a right holder reaches out with its notice letter,

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
that we wouldn't want to prevent somebody who's a right holder, discourage their reaching out to try to settle a dispute outside of the judicial system by saying that whenever you send a letter, you're going to be possibly called into court in that jurisdiction.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
So it is a policy, right?

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
But the question is, you're saying that you shouldn't be a per se rule.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
But do you think it has a place for us to consider, and for us to consider in personal jurisdiction?

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
So what I would say there is that it does have a place.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
And I believe Trimble, in fact, kind of recognized the place.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
Because although Trimble clarifies the scope of Red Wings II, it accepts this notion, which was, I think, part of the reasoning you're referencing, that the patentee should have some latitude in order to make a notification.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
And I think what we have in the wake of Trimble and looking at that policy, there's cases on one end of the spectrum where there's notification, a limited number of contacts.

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
On the other hand, as the spectrum is Trimble, where it goes well beyond, well beyond notifying your adversaries of their rights.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
And when you cross into, we're looking at the spectrum going

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
doing more than what was done in, for example, cases like Bregman's Shoe, which had a limited number of communications, I think you fall into the realm of personal jurisdiction.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
So to be precise on your question, it is a fact to be considered because substantial notions of fair play and substantial justice

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
have this idea that a single notice letter or as in Red Bank Shoe maybe three notice letters is not.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
What is it in your case that makes you think your case has quality and a quality of contacts with the forum that would make it so jurisdiction would not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
We have regular, repeated, and escalating contacts in terms of threats.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
I would say regular and repeated, there's at least 12 purposely directed contacts after the initial notice letter that was sent to Apple.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
They were roughly quarterly, if you're looking at the December 2013 through April 2016.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
If you look at the dates in the record at appendix 107 paragraph 4, 131, 141, 144, 146, and 150, I'd say they were regular, not sporadic.

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
And I would also say they include in-person, perfectly directed in-person visits to the jurisdiction, just like in Xilinx where there was personal

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
This is into the jurisdiction.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
I noticed that I wanted to ask you a question about one of those.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
I noticed that JA-144, there were some reps to purchase patents.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
Do you know anything about that?

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
The purchasing of the discussions about not just licensing, but maybe purchasing the fixed patents?

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
So I think in appendix 1.4, it's referring to the very first letter in the supplemental appendix where the last paragraph of that letter says we are open to discussing licensing or purchase.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
And so in terms of the substantive discussions about purchase, that is not in the record.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
But I think it follows up on the original letter that said licensing and purchasing were options.

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
I think there is a difference.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
As compared to other cases, do you think that somehow attempts to sell patents or purchase patents, that that is a more meaningful contact?

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, what I would say to that is that it is a more meaningful contact.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
I agree with that.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
And it's part of the overall, you want to look at the overall character and nature of the contact.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
Do you think that the notion of what is fair play and substantial justice could change over time?

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
Like especially looking at, for example, a defendant's burden.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
For example, a defendant's burden in 1982 to litigate in a foreign forum might be different than a defendant's burden now.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
So I think as an abstract question, if we're looking at a very long period of time, like the turn of the century, certainly it would be more burdensome than it would be today.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
But I think in terms of examining the timeframes that issue here, I don't think there's been a substantial change in what it means to have fair play and substantial justice.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
If I may, I was going to talk about the escalating nature of the threat, unless your donor has more questions on that point.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
So there is an escalating nature of the threat here, just like in Trimble.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
The original allegations were infringement, and then they became willful infringement and a threat of suit after the second in-person meeting that was occurred.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
And then the third thing that makes this case fall in the spectrum of personal jurisdiction is that the communications also involved

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
keeping Apple updated as to the progress of the IPR proceeding that was happening.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
There are communications both when sending the brief, it depends on 144,

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
asking Apple to look at them and then reporting on what had happened.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
And in some ways, that's similar, although not exactly the same, to the types of communications electronics for imaging and the parental animal hospital where the patent chief is keeping his adversary apprised of the status of the patent application.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
And so, again, I would say in the spectrum of things like Red Wing Shoe, even Max Chief

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Some of these cases that have very limited, you know, one, two, three sort of written communications, almost never an in-person visit, unlike in Xilinx.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
When you're looking at that spectrum, our case falls on the personal jurisdiction side, well beyond what was insufficient in Bedwing Shoe and well beyond what would be needed to notify the adversary of the right.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
When Zip-Aid filed a suit in Georgia,

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
Did it file a complaint on Apple in California?

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
It did serve Apple in California.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
How do you respond to the argument that the contacts in California went stale, if you will, because they were so long ago, and so it would be unfair to expect them to be subject to California's jurisdiction

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
So we're talking about specific personal jurisdiction, which has to arise out of the context.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
And so in this situation, specific jurisdiction doesn't expire.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
And so to the extent that the students become stale, there's other doctrines that would, such as chasing controversy, that would kick in to address sort of the passage of time.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
But here, we gotta remember, we're not talking general jurisdiction, we're talking specific jurisdiction that already requires the suit to arise out of those contexts, which it clearly does here.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
The court's so bound that supported ampli by the record is not even really challenged by the bit.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
All right, if the court doesn't have questions, I am happy to reserve more of my time.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Dignan.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
We'll hear from your friends on the other side.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
Mr. Alexander?

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
The district court correctly decided this case in granting Zippitt's motion to dismiss.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
ZipIt had no reason to foresee being hailed into court when it had contact with Apple in California, and that's a very important point under Supreme Court precedent.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
The Burger King case says that by requiring that individuals have a fair warning that a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, the due process clause gives a degree of predictability to the legal system

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
Why do you think that ZipIt had no thought that it could be called into court in California?

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
Because I think even under Apple's description of the law, at the time these contacts were going on between 2013 and 2016,

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
I don't think there's any dispute that the Federal Circuit President at that time, like Breckenridge, for example, stated that a defendant may not be subjected to personal jurisdiction if its only additional activities in the forum state involve unsuccessful attempts to license the patent there.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
Breckenridge also states that where all of the patentees' contacts were for the purpose of warning against infringement or negotiating license agreements and the lack of binding obligation in the forum,

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
relating to patent enforcement, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the patentee would be unconstitutional.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
So you're saying because of the timing of those contacts that your client, I guess, was relying on federal circuit law to say that it wouldn't be held into court in California.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
But what about Supreme Court case law?

[00:11:14] Speaker 00:
There's a number of Supreme Court cases that say

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
that there should be no mechanical rules when it comes to personal jurisdiction, looking at the hurricane factors, that it needs to be more of a holistic exercise.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, if you look at Apple's brief, I think the cases that it cites, in particular the Quill case from 1992, that's a case that dealt with whether or not a state has the authority to

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
past laws forcing an out-of-state retailer shipping products into the state to collect sales tax or use tax.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
And so Apple argues that, I guess, that if it

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
should have read that.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
I don't know that you're answering my question.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
My question is, how am I supposed to read Red Ring Shoe in our earlier precedent and why do Supreme Court cases that make it very clear that there should be no mechanical test?

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
I don't know why you're telling me about the Quill case in response to my very basic question.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
OK, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
I think the answer is that the Supreme Court cases are

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
warning in particular about patent-specific policies, and that's not what we have here.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
Why is this a patent-specific policy?

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
Why are you reading Red Wing as a patent-specific policy?

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
We have a number of cases that were mentioned in the Trimble case, for example, that show that this is not patent-specific.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
that in fact it is relates to any notice letters.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
There's the Halliburton case, the Calder case, the genetic implant case, the Beacon Enterprises case.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
Among the cases where other circuits have said it's an important policy to think about the rights of a party that's sending a notice letter.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:13:08] Speaker 03:
I agree with you.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
I don't think the Red Wing

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
line of cases is a patent-specific policy, and therefore, I don't think it violates the Supreme Court's warnings against this policy.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
But why should this policy that you both, you and I, agreed on, trump all the other considerations that we are supposed to require under BIRD?

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Because it is unreasonable under the

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
burger king factors like the basically the social interest and public policy factors to hail somebody into court when they're just trying to settle a dispute.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
And that's what I mean.

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
Are there any cases?

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
I mean, are there any Supreme Court cases that say that that say there should be a bright line rule like that?

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
I'm not aware of any Supreme Court cases, Your Honor, but I am aware of binding federal circuit cases that say that.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
And so

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Zippett's position is that that is the current law of the Federal Circuit and- So your view is that Tremble, what is your view about Tremble?

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
What would you say about Tremble?

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
I believe I agree with Apple in the sense that I don't think Tremble changed the law.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
And so Red Wing is still binding Federal Circuit law.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Your view is that there is a per se rule.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
I believe that there is a rule that settlement efforts alone, unsuccessful licensing efforts like Breckinridge said, are not sufficient to make jurisdiction reasonable.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
In other words, if that's all you have, which is the case here, jurisdiction is unreasonable.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
I believe that's what Breckinridge said.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
I believe that remains the law.

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
I don't think there's any Supreme Court case that has overruled Red Wing.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
So we're the federal circuit to

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
Once over rule Red Wing, I believe the appropriate procedure is for that to be done on bulk.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
What about for, there are situations where the Supreme Court can have case law that clarifies, for example, that there shouldn't be a bright line rule, that there are multi-factor analysis that should be occurring for personal jurisdiction.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
And so therefore, the court can reconsider its cases in light of intervening case law as subsequent panel can and explain that an earlier panel was not creating a bright line rule.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
Why wouldn't that be appropriate?

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
Well, because I think in this case, I don't believe that Apple has provided, nor do I think Trimble identified any Supreme Court cases so on point to this issue that it effectively forces the Federal Circuit to revisit its, to change its Federal Circuit law in a panel opinion.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
I believe that your honor in, I believe it was the Jack Henry case, provided additional views asking the question, is it time for the federal circuit to revisit wet

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
And in that sense, I think I agree with that, that there is a procedure in place.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
So I'm sorry, you had another question.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
Okay, so I wanted to ask you some other questions.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
One is, did ZipIt serve Apple with the complaint in California after filing in Georgia?

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
Agree with opposing counsel that ZipIt did?

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
I will, I'm sorry, trying to look that up when my time came, Your Honor.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
I am looking at it right now.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
That was no, Your Honor, ZipIt served Apple care of CTE Corporation System registered agent at 289 South Culver Street in Lawrenceville, Georgia.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
And I have another question, which is why did ZipIt wait four years between the last communication with Apple in California and filing state of Georgia?

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
I'm just trying to understand.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
Well, ZipIt has had other matters, Your Honor, and it's a small company.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
So it only has so many resources to devote to enforcing its intellectual property rights.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
And one last question, which is, why did ZipIt dismiss the George case without prejudice to accept your filing?

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
So Your Honor, that is not an issue that's of record.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
Apple didn't really, Apple mentioned the fact of, obviously, the Georgia complaint and its dismissal, but that was not an issue that Apple relied on at the district court in arguing the reasonableness of jurisdiction.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing in the record about the reasonableness.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
Is it your view that, I mean, I could take judicial notice of that, though.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
We certainly could, I would think.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
Could you address my question?

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
I did it.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
I'd have to waive attorney-client.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
I don't have the authority to waive attorney-client.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
I understand that.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
you know, what is a purposeful contact in a foreign state and whether that, I guess more importantly, the notions of fair play and substantial justice could change over time, not talking about the amount of time in this case, just over time generally, those concepts could change.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
And to strap my head around it because it's a quite nebulous test.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I do not disagree as a general matter that those sort of considerations can change over time.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
I will note that in this case with some of the issues, like I believe you asked Apple's counsel about the burden on, say, in the case of South Carolina Company and Litigating in California, could that change over time?

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, Apple regularly comes to this court

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
To dispute the convenience of litigating in places like Texas.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
I know you're not going to get anywhere with me on this one because I see the convenience and the compelling reasons why jurisdiction would be unfair.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
Those are really different in terms of the level of proof required.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
I'll accept your honor's position.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
I think, nonetheless... There's Supreme Court cases, for example, that say, hey, there might be personal jurisdiction in particular the forum, but then there might be a change of venue.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
Fair enough.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
So in this case, let me speak to the facts of this case.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
Zip-it is a real operating company.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
It's not a patent assertion entity.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
It's 14 employees, all based in South Carolina.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
The inventors of the patent suit are the CEO and the vice president of business development.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
So the witnesses are critical.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
And to litigate in California for trial would be very burdensome on ZipIt.

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
And the difference between 2010 and 2022 hasn't changed that.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
But aren't those arguments for venue, not for personal jurisdiction?

[00:20:43] Speaker 02:
If there's personal jurisdiction because of the contacts and the like, which the district court seemed to find and would have found but for its reading that we have a per se rule, then the argument you're making about a small business with all of its employees located in South Carolina where the witnesses are seems to me an awful like that you would argue for a change of venues for convenience purposes.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
That's a completely different question that the district court could address and may agree with you.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
Well, I do believe that the issue of the burden on a company and litigating in the foreign state is relevant to the reasonableness factor.

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
But I would also agree with you, Your Honor, that our primary argument is the Red Wing Shoe and Breckenridge settlement efforts aren't sufficient.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
And before my time expires, I would like to address the Trimble case because

[00:21:40] Speaker 03:
even if Trimble changed the law or clarified the law in light of Supreme Court precedent or the like, Trimble says that Red Wing was decided correctly on its facts based on the sporadic nature of the contacts.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
And Apple tries to magnify the contacts here, but there really were only a handful of contacts.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
There were, of record, two emails and a letter, I believe,

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
the two in-person visits and a handful of phone calls.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
And I don't believe the record reflects who initiated those phone calls.

[00:22:14] Speaker 03:
So, and those contacts took place over the course of, you know, between 2013 and 2016.

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
So, you know, Apple said that worked out to about roughly one and a quarter.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure it's quite that frequently, but whatever.

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
It is, I don't know what you call that other than sporadic.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
And then when you combine the fact that four years went by before,

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
Apple suit being filed from Zibbit's perspective, that is quite sporadic.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
And therefore, just like Trimble's Red Wing was decided correctly on its facts, the same would be true here.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
Anything else, Mr. Alexander?

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
No, if the court has no more questions, I'll conclude.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
Deggen, do you have some time for us all?

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
First and foremost, I want to apologize.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
I misread the note I got last night on service.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
It was Georgia.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
Please accept my sincerest apologies.

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
I did not mean to mislead the court.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
I want to start with this notion of fair warning that counsel mentioned in terms of why they had fair warning given this court's decision.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to start with that they went well beyond what was done in Red Wing's shoot.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
First and foremost.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
Second, in terms of the other Supreme Court cases they should have been aware of, you know, as Xilinx highlighted, Walden, which came out in 2014 before the second visit that ZipIt made to California as part of their efforts.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And then Walden emphasized and noted the significance of in-person visits.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
And that's, of course, something that Xilinx relied upon when it noted that something more under Red Wing could include in-person visits.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
When it comes to Breckenridge, I think it's important to think about and look at Breckenridge as what it's done.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
It said it was summarizing law as of that time.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
But this fact, with respect to the personal jurisdiction and the cease and desist letters, were, in fact, pretty limited.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
In Breckenridge, there were three letters to customers in the forum, sort of the first batch of letters to customers in the forum.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
And then it turned on something else.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
And when you look at the cases that came before Breckenridge, that it was noted, again, it's extremely limited, much less significant than what we have in this case.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
But again, if you look at the actual dates of the person purposely directed contact of the forum, in this case, after the initial letter in Q2 2013 that Zipbit sent, again, there were almost quarterly, sometimes more than once a quarter, calls or visits or meetings.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
And in fact, we counted up as,

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
There's two in person, there's two calls.

[00:25:18] Speaker 01:
I agree, the record doesn't say who made them, but again, it is zip its burden to prove that exercise of jurisdiction here is compellingly unreasonable.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
There are four emails or letters after the first one, including on Appendix 144, a series of emails that we're going to follow that's the one that's mentioned there, and another discussion of an unknown format.

[00:25:41] Speaker 01:
So we're looking at at least 12, depending on your count,

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
the ones on the same day, more perfectly directed contacts, including true visits.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
That makes this case factually much more, had much more in terms of number, in terms of regularity than what we saw in Red Wing Shoe and some of the other cases in this court.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
And also, I would think in addition to number of contacts, frequency of contacts, you would talk about maybe the depth of the contacts.

[00:26:16] Speaker 00:
I think there were maybe claim charts and different things.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
I don't know if it matters, but do you think it matters how long the contacts are?

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
I mean, a contact that says, hey, send me an email might be different than a contact that has claim charts for example.

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
I would agree that the character of the individual context do matter.

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
And what we have here is, again, there was claim charts sent.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
There were entire briefs from the IPRs sent, the decisions from the IPRs.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
These meetings had presentations where they talked about the merits in detail.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
And so looking at the character of the context, certainly this record has these facts put us on the side of the spectrum where there are substantial

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
substantive, perfectly directed contact that should matter and do matter in the personal jurisdiction analysis that would have, that would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction here in a way that comports with substantial justice and notions of fairness.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
The last thing I want to say is that the district court definitely made a mistake here.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
And so we think given what the facts are, this court can reverse.

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
To the extent the court would think that there would be a benefit to having additional weighing or analysis by the district court, an option is to vacate and send it back for that.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
Apple's position is, given the kinds of facts, the kinds of limited context that these court cases have said does not support specific personal jurisdiction, given those limited examples and our case

[00:27:53] Speaker 01:
Our case is far more like Trimble in cases where there has been sound jurisdiction for the reasons I've already stated.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
And so we would ask the court to reverse.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:28:04] Speaker 02:
Segnal.

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.