[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Nex Earth or Nex RF versus Plastica et al.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
And Nex RF versus Aristocrat International et al.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
2021, 2147, and 2219.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
Mr. LaDawn.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, the district court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12B6,

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
finding the patent's in-suit invalid under 35 U.S.C.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
101 is called as a matter of law.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
Four reasons support this conclusion.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
First, patent eligibility is an affirmative defense to an action for infringement.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
And Ninth Circuit law makes clear that affirmative defenses are not appropriate on the motion to be submitted unless the complaint itself establishes the affirmative defense.

[00:00:57] Speaker ?:
Moreover, Section 282

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
B2 of the statute makes clear that all defenses of the patent infringement shall be pleaded.

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
That's it.

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
Council, we rendered a lot of decisions on 12, 12B6.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
But let me ask you.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
These claims deal with accessing a database, storing images,

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
generating a game outcome, determining prizes.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Are those all done by software?

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
It's a combination of software and hardware, your honor.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
And are some of these actions new in this field, or are they all just

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
computerizing what has been done in the past?

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
Some of the elements are new, Your Honor, referring to the 229 patent.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
And that's Appendix 46.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
pay table module that's associated with centralized gaming server is something that's new.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
And also, if you go to the 407 patent, which is appendix.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
We have the claims.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
We have them.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you, sir.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
That's the 107.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
The transactional system is new.

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
And the complaint makes that clear, Your Honor.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
If I could refer to appendix 136, paragraphs five through seven of the complaint talk about the invented concepts of the patents were unconventional.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
I'm in paragraph five now.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
So you're saying even if we find the claims abstract, they have something extra inventive

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
as the Supreme Court has told us to look for?

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
And that is best memorized in paragraphs five through seven of Nexar's complaint.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
Notably, all of paragraph five, which I won't read, but the last sentence of paragraph five talks about how the unconventional centralized server-based elements

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
allowed for a stable, secure, flexible, engaging, multiplayer-compatible online gaming experience for the user while minimizing the hardware storage and network burns and requirements of the user's device.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
And then paragraph six and seven talk about the paint table module, and seven talks about the transaction system.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
And this first argument that I'm making is that the district court was required to accept these pleadings and these factual allegations and these pleadings as true.

[00:04:32] Speaker ?:
And the district court didn't do that.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
The district court didn't even address them in the underlying opinion.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
We have a number of opinions where if the patent itself says something that's directly plainly inconsistent or clashes with the assertions made in the complaint, then we follow the intrinsic evidence of the patent.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
Yes, sure, I'm aware of that.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
But there's nothing on the face of the patents themselves that talk about

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
that last sentence of paragraph five that I've just read into the record.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
And also, I would disagree with the defendant's position that each of the elements aren't that taught or admitted as prior art in each of the patents.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
Most notably, I'd like to talk about the paid table module that we refer to in claim one of the 229 patents.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
which is also present in the independent claims in all of the other PACs, maybe using some different verbiage.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
But that paint table module is a unique inventive advancement in and of itself over the prior art.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
And there are three reasons that would support that, Your Honor.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
The prior art, you have to understand, it's 2001.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
And the way these games were played, there was a one-on-one relationship between a physical slot machine and a player.

[00:06:11] Speaker 02:
So if you had 10 physical slot machines, you had 10 players.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
Kerr comes along, 2001, some 20 years ago, when bandwidth was very limited, right?

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
And he says, I'm going to scale this up so I can have one centralized remote server, right?

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
And I can have 100,000 people play.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
And there were advancements in the technology for Kerr to achieve that, one of which was the pay table module.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
And notably, in those prior art machines, those individuals plot machines, they had individual pay tables, where the pay table module of Kerr's patents allows for functionality for multiple machines.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
Another point is the prior art pay tables

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
they resided on a physical machine.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
And Kerr's pay table module resides on a virtual machine that's associated with the centralized or remote servers.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And the last point is that the pay table module associates the game outcome and prize with images that have to be transmitted to a remote user device.

[00:07:24] Speaker ?:
And the statement by the vendors that that is taught

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
or admitted to on the basis of patents, not correct.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
Counsel, are these patents expired?

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
So when I go back to appendix 136 in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, there's nothing in these paragraphs that contradict these statements in the patent.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
to address the prior question, that if there's a disconnect or a disagreement, you're going to rely on the intrinsic evidence of the patents.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
And I would also note that the transaction system is considered invented as well.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
So for that reason alone, that's my first argument, the district court didn't give these allegations their due, didn't accept them as true, as they were required to.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
that the court was required to do.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
And if the court would have done that, the motion to dismiss would have been denied on that basis alone, Your Honor.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
The second point I want to make is, or the second argument I want to make is, I also believe that the district court substantively analyzed the patents under both the first and second steps of Alice.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
Let's just talk about the first step briefly.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
Under ALICE Step 1, the question was, are the claims as a whole directed to an abstract idea?

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
The district board concluded that the claims were all directed to the abstract idea of remotely playing a slot machine on a server.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
And that definition in and of itself is an error because the specification of the patents made clear that the games may include a plurality of different games and game types, and that's not restrictive of the invention.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
And for that, I'm referring to points 43, column 9, lines 59 through 61.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
So the ALICE Step 1 analysis stands in error for that reason alone.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
And then moving forward to the ALICE Step 2 analysis, it's the same argument that I just made before.

[00:09:48] Speaker ?:
I'm not going to rehash it with you.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
But if you look at paragraphs five, six, and seven of the complaint, again, which have to be accepted as true, and they don't contradict the teachings of the specification, there is an embedded concept here in these programs and its order combinations that are sufficient to allow to satisfy the second step of ALICE.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
And we cite these cases in our brief.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
We rely on BASCOM.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
We rely on COSMOTE.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
And our case stands on all four with those two cases.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
The third argument I wanted to make, Your Honor, talks about the district court's analysis of only two claims.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
That is, claim one of the 229 patent, claim one of the 407 patent, as being representative of all of the claims.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
the district court violated the patent statute, in my opinion.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
One of the touchstones of this analysis is on Appendix 410, footnote 10, where NEXRF in its brief, in a footnote, it said, NEXRF does not oppose treating the 229 patent

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
as representative of the 454 and 406 patents for purposes of this 101 analysis.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
It is true that NEXRF made that representation, but let's look at what it doesn't say.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
In that footnote, NEXRF never agreed that claim one of the 229 patent is representative of all of the claims of the 229 patent.

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
NEXRF never agreed that

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
claim one of the 229 patent is representative of all the claims of the 454-406 patents.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
And importantly, with respect to the 407 patent, NexRF never agreed that claim one of the 407 patent is representative of all the remaining claims of the 407 patent.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
So there's no basis to say that NexRF conceded to this representative claim analysis by the district court, and importantly,

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
As we cite in our brief, Section 282A provides that each claim of a patent shall be presumed valid and independently of the validity of the other claims.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
And in Section 288, the statute talks about how whenever one claim of a patent is invalid, an action may be maintained for infringement of a claim of a patent which may be valid.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
Counsel, you're all into your rebuttal time.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
You can continue or save it.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
I'm going to just continue for a minute to finish my comments on this point, and then I'll save my time, Your Honor.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
So the defendants, even if NEXRF even didn't oppose this motion to dismiss, the district court cannot have invalidated all of these claims unless it's found in Bolivia on a clean by clean basis.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
And we cite the more pure case in the Martinez case in our briefs.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
And so I will rest there for now, and I'll save the rest of my time from the battle.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
Fine.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
Honor, you may take off your mask unless you don't wish to.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, I would love to.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
Almost afternoon.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, may it please the court.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
This case is a straightforward example of patents that issued prior to 2012 that cannot withstand scrutiny after Mayo and Alice.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
And regarding the substantive analysis of 101, I think that the arguments NexRF has made here today reveal everything you need to know, which is at Alice step one, they say the district court got it wrong because their abstract idea was too narrow.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
And that rather than being limited to slot machines on a server, it should cover any types of games on a server.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
What about the pay table module and the transactional system?

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
So that is actually their second problem, which is when asked for an inventive concept, he said, yes, there is one.

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Look at the complaint.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
And the arguments that you just heard from him all focus on the complaint.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
And he said specifically to this court that there is nothing, to the question that was asked, there is nothing in the patents about the sentence that he read.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
Stable, secure, flexible, engaging, multiplayer, compatible, online.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
That sentence in Appendix 136 in the complaint, he couldn't point you to where in the patent it actually explains that that happened.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
So what he did was, in answer to your question, he talked about specific claim components to argue that those, at least at the Rule 12 stage, have to be believed as being unconventional because the complaint has those words in it.

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
Is that required, that the statements in the complaint, assertions in the complaint have to be supported by statements in the specification?

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
It is not required that everyone maps directly to the specification, but under the ICBAL-TWOMBLY framework, the first thing the court does is look at

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
what statements in the complaint or even in the opposition here could be dismissed or ignored because they are either conclusory or contradicted by the specification.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
So if they contradict something in the specification or are conclusory, they can be ignored.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
And that's why I was pointing that out before.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
And that's why I'm wondering, is there in fact something that's contradictory to what they said?

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
And I can go element by element for the ones that he listed for you, if I could.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
I'll start with, you asked about the pay table module, which they cite as one of the things as being unconventional.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
They do that both in the complaint at Appendix 13637 and in their opposition below at 410 and 413 in the appendix.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
What they don't do is cite to anything in the patent that explains how the pay table module in the claims is unconventional.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
They cite to three places in the specification.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
that all describe the same functionality performed by the pay table that is also described in column two.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
And so that I would say is a contradiction because in column two, the patent describes prior art gaming systems that used a mapping, a predetermined table where a random number is pulled, it's mapped to the result in a table and also to an image and that image is presented.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
In column two, the patents tell you that is in the prior art.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
And when they tell you now that somehow calling it a centralized gaming server or a centralized pay table module is somehow different, there is nothing there.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
And instead, they cite columns four, 10, and 13 in the patent that all describe that exact same pay table functionality, mapping the remote or the random number to a result and an image.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
The patent does not say anything about that being any kind of new or different

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
functionality and in fact it contradicts the opposition at 413 where the

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
Patent owner has argued that it gives that ability to change the games.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
You can change one pay table and it'll go out to all the terminals and isn't that something?

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
Again, not in the patent, just in the complaint, but that contradicts its own opposition where it admitted that some networked electronic games could be reprogrammed over the network in the past.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
So there are specific contradictions in the patent itself and even in their own opposition that show that this so-called unconventional pay table module was nothing than

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
functionality the patents admit was known before.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
Similarly, for the unconventional quote unquote transactional system that credits funds to a user account, this is also described in the patent in column nine.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
It says that transaction data is protected by known cryptography and that player credits are stored on the network so players don't have to carry money around.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
So to the extent there's something there in the transaction system,

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
The patent itself says what it's doing is making it more convenient for the player.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
That is directly contradictory to something that the patent owner said in their opposition.

[00:18:26] Speaker 01:
They tried to say that, no, no, the transactional system increases security so bad actors cannot steal credits.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
Presumably that's where they're going when they say secure and stable is this new thing.

[00:18:38] Speaker 01:
But that's not what the patent says.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
It says nothing about stopping people from stealing credits.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
It says making it easier so your players

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
don't have to carry money around the casino.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
On the central gaming server, that really centralization and server are really the two things that they say are different than all of the gaming functionality that's admitted as being known in the patents.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
They say in their complaint, again, and in their opposition, they don't have anything to point to in the patent that says that the server does anything other than generic computer functionality or that the centralization is somehow new.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
Centralized gaming

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
WOM predates computers, if you think about a bingo hall where you have a single operator who is pulling the random numbers out of the spinny basket that cards all the players to make sure they verify that they're old enough to play, that calls out the results, maps the results, and pays out the winnings.

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
So the idea of centralized gaming, and they're saying it has to be broader than slot machines, FAR predates computers and nothing in the patent specification explains

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
how those elements in the claims, how those provide any of these benefits that they argue are in that important sentence in the complaint.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
Isn't it just a simplistic idea to say that these complicated claims describe only the abstract idea of remotely playing a slot machine on a server?

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
They have specific limitations.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
They do have some words in them besides those that you just said.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
But certainly, if you look at other cases that this court has looked at, often there is an underlying abstract idea.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
And we have to look at the claims of the whole and what they are directed to.

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
And you look at the patent here tells you all of the gaming technology or all of the gaming functionality was known before, random number generators, pay tables.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
off-the-shelf encryption.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
They use known security.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
So the Supreme Court has gotten us away from claims into what used to be called the gist of the invention.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
Well, maybe somewhat.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
I mean, we are trying to follow the Alice and Mayo.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
Those were unanimous.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
And certainly, that's what we're following these days.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
But this court often looks at claims that have many steps, 10 or 12 steps, lots of words.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
And really, what is the overall abstract idea?

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
Would you say it's a point of novelty test?

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
Excuse me?

[00:21:08] Speaker 04:
Would you say it's a point of novelty test?

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think we have enough from the Supreme Court and this court to say that novelty and routine and conventional are different.

[00:21:16] Speaker 01:
102 is not 101.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
So I wouldn't say it's a point of novelty.

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
But in terms of figuring out what is the claim directed to?

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
So to figure out what the claim is directed to.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
Is that a point of novelty test?

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
I don't think so.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
I think it's not clear what it is.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
And when the court has found it difficult to say exactly what it is, then

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
the court often will turn to step two and look, because there you do have more of the routine and conventional, what is being added besides the abstract.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
Well, haven't we said that when we try to figure out what is the claim directed to, we look at what the purported claimed advances over the prior are?

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
Yes, I guess that's a way to look at it.

[00:21:54] Speaker 04:
And here- That's what we've said then, maybe.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
Rightly or wrongly, we've created a point of novelty inquiry for what is the claim directed to.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
In that case, they talk about the fact that in the patent, in the background, the patent is talking about making all of this known gaming functionality available in an open network.

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
They don't exactly say what that is, but that seems to be what they're getting at.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
Certainly, in their arguments, they're saying we added a centralized server and that changes everything.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
moving remote gaming to a server.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, the district court found remote slot machine on a server.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
I think if you look at some of the court's cases that have found eligibility, that in particular, Bascom and Cosmo Key, both of which were mentioned by the patent owner, I think those make clear what is missing here.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
And that is that there is nothing in the specification

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
at step one that explains a technical problem or a technical solution.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
This isn't like some of the things that have been patentable, like the filtering in VASCOM, where the problem was a technical problem that was caused by the involvement of computers.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
We don't have anything like that.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
Here the patents explain all of the prior art.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
They say networked interactive gaming was already known even on the internet.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
And they talk about prior art pay tables and all of the gaming functionality was there.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
What they are trying to argue now with very little support in this spec

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
is that somehow putting it on a server makes it work differently.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
But that's where I point you to CosmoKey because the reason they say that matters is that it makes it possible, it reduces the hardware requirements on the user device, on the game device.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
Well, there's nothing in the patent that says that user devices do anything other than be

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
conventional user devices, TVs and set-top boxes and phones.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
So they don't have anything in the specification that would explain why that somehow is a technical improvement, unlike the case in CosmoKey where the specifications specifically addressed the challenges of authenticating a transaction when a user has a limited mobile device.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
And they said there's a way we have figured out to reduce the burden on that device by performing these four specific steps

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
in the authentication process, and that allows for the mobile device to have less memory and less demand.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
That's what they're trying to say here, but there is nothing in the claims or specification that explains that link.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
And in CosmoKey, there were four specific steps in the claims that were discussed in the specification, and the specification gave the how, explained why those four steps resulted in the result of reducing the burden on the user device.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
They can't point to anything about that here for the user device.

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
Representative claims.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
Representative claims.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
They're appropriate.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
They're used regularly.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Here, not only did we rely or the district court rely on the admission that the patent owner mentioned, but also in the motions to dismiss, there were two of them, and they both explained specifically why

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
the claim that was described, claim one of the 229 or 407, why it was representative.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
The platica motion had a chart explaining why it represented and how substantially similar it was to the other claims.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
And then they also addressed all of the dependent claims.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
In their opposition, besides just that footnote, the patent owner did not argue against any of that explanation of why they were representative.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
They did not argue against any of the dependent claims.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
And where that has not been separately argued, it's appropriate to use that representative claim

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
Analysis, I would point to, for example, content extraction where 242 claims across four patents were invalidated when they shared the same spec.

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
The claims are substantially similar and linked to the same idea.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
If there are no further questions, let me just make sure the other elements that he mentioned.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
As for the secure stable allegations in the complaint, I would point you to the contradictory statements in the patent at columns one and two, where the patent describes specifically using traditional security methods and that security methods were known techniques, including the ones that the opposition points to, passwords, IDs, and biometrics.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
And as far as improved reliability, that contradicts column two, which explains that reliability in gaming systems came from known cryptography and digital certificates.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
So while the specification doesn't have to have everything to your question, Judge Tenet can't contradict what they are saying without any support.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
And with the ability to disregard those statements,

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
district court properly dismissed at Rule 12 by not, because anything they could argue wouldn't change the outcome on eligibility.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
I'm happy to answer any other questions.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
Honor, I think you have concluded.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
I have, unless there are questions.

[00:27:01] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
We'll bring Mr. Ladon back.

[00:27:14] Speaker 03:
Martin Center.

[00:27:20] Speaker 03:
Please proceed.

[00:27:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
First, I want to hit head on the statements by counsel that what was pled in the specification of paragraph five isn't supported by the spec.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
If you go back to appendix 136, it talks about a central gains assertive.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
That's in column 940, line 41 through 67 of the 229 act.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
and then talked about a verification system, server, excuse me.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
Column seven, line 19 through column nine, line 41.

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
Then talks about an image and or video delivery component.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
Column 10, line 21 through 45.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
Column four, line 64 through 67.

[00:28:07] Speaker 02:
Paragraph six, the pay table module.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
That is defined, column nine, 59 through 62.

[00:28:14] Speaker 02:
Column 10, 57 through 64.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
Column 13, four through eight.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
Column four, 61 through 62.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
Column 10, 11 through 13.

[00:28:28] Speaker 02:
Column 13, line 24 through 26.

[00:28:31] Speaker 02:
And in paragraph seven, the transactional system, column 10, line 65 through column 11, line nine.

[00:28:39] Speaker ?:
There's nothing in that passage

[00:28:43] Speaker 02:
of the complaint that isn't supported by the specification.

[00:28:48] Speaker 02:
And there's nothing in the case law that I'm aware of that requires the patents to explain why the concepts are invented.

[00:28:56] Speaker 02:
The patents needn't articulate all the benefits of the invention.

[00:29:01] Speaker 02:
The last point I want to make is, before my time is up, we think this case should be reversed and remanded.

[00:29:10] Speaker ?:
And let my client, NextRF, move forward with this case.

[00:29:14] Speaker 02:
And, but, but at a minimum, at a minimum, the district court, the district court also erred in denying that denying NECS are up to lead to amend this complaint.

[00:29:31] Speaker 02:
And, and that was based on a futility analysis.

[00:29:35] Speaker 02:
And I don't believe that was accurate here, you know,

[00:29:41] Speaker 02:
The NXRF was denied the benefit of this ruling to see the ability, whether there was an amendment necessary to determine the possible means of curing their deficiency.

[00:29:51] Speaker 02:
And for that reason alone, they should, at a minimum, be granted leave to file an amendment complaint.

[00:29:57] Speaker 02:
With that, Your Honors, I have no further comments, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

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

[00:30:03] Speaker 03:
The case will be taken under submission.