[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Procon Analytics versus Spirion. [00:00:05] Speaker 00: Mr. Bloom, please proceed. [00:00:08] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:09] Speaker 03: May it please the Court? [00:00:10] Speaker 03: The claims of the 598 patent are not directed to an abstract idea, and so they are eligible under Section 101. [00:00:17] Speaker 03: They are directed to a practical application that improves computing and network technology. [00:00:21] Speaker 03: In particular, the method claims improve conventional vehicles with a location device, [00:00:26] Speaker 03: and they recite specific steps that result in the location device being reusable and interchangeable between different vehicles, improving the location device itself. [00:00:34] Speaker 03: Because they don't simply use computers as a tool, but instead improve the tool, they are eligible under this court's precedent. [00:00:43] Speaker 03: I believe that the district court here erred by overgeneralizing the claims. [00:00:48] Speaker 03: In fact, the claims are oversimplified all the way to the preamble of managing a vehicle inventory, which this court has repeatedly warned against in cases such as TLI Communications and FISH. [00:01:01] Speaker 03: In fact, the TechSec case is a good one to look at, 978F3D at 1295. [00:01:05] Speaker 03: There, though, the claims, according to the defendant, were directed at multiple levels of encryption. [00:01:13] Speaker 03: But this court criticized that characterization because it ignored the elements of the claims, particularly the claims recited, the use of a key manager and the use of labeling that was used in determining the encryption. [00:01:31] Speaker 03: Well, here the district court ignored, also ignored elements of the claims including the recited location device as well as all the steps. [00:01:38] Speaker 03: that are recited as part of a registration process. [00:01:42] Speaker 03: The claims don't just computerize inventory management. [00:01:45] Speaker 03: They aren't just directed at collecting and analyzing information. [00:01:49] Speaker 03: If we look at the actual limitations in the recited steps of claim one, you'll see that they are reciting an improvement to the location device itself, making it reusable and interchangeable. [00:02:04] Speaker 03: Looking at claim one, which is appendix 49, [00:02:07] Speaker 03: The very first step is while the location device is not commutatively coupled with the vehicle that the location device is associated with the dealer's group of available devices. [00:02:19] Speaker 03: Next in the steps is the location device is commutatively coupled with the vehicle and in response it sends a connection notice [00:02:27] Speaker 03: the computer receives that connection notice and then in response to that receipt by the computer, more steps are performed including associating the location device identifier with the vehicle and then disassociating that location device from the dealer's group of available location devices. [00:02:43] Speaker 03: So this is a registration process. [00:02:45] Speaker 03: Claim 3 is then, dependent claim 3 is then further directed to the opposite, the deregistration process. [00:02:52] Speaker 03: And these steps allow that location device to be [00:02:57] Speaker 03: It's a pairing process between the computer and the location device, and it allows the location device to be reusable and interchangeable between different vehicles. [00:03:08] Speaker 03: This is actually fairly analogous to the Uniloc VLG case, which is 957F3D1303. [00:03:15] Speaker 03: In that case, the [00:03:21] Speaker 03: claims were directed to a Bluetooth-like system where you had a primary station and a secondary station that could be something like a wireless keyboard. [00:03:30] Speaker 03: The primary station would send an inquiry message, which was acknowledged to be conventional in the art. [00:03:40] Speaker 03: But what the invention did was add a new data field that was used for pulling the secondary station. [00:03:46] Speaker 03: And so it communicated this extra data [00:03:49] Speaker 03: And yet that was found to be sufficient to make the claims eligible under Section 101 because what that extra data being communicated did was actually improve the technology and improve the secondary stations by reducing the latency. [00:04:05] Speaker 03: In the present claims, you have communications going back and forth between the location device and the computer, which also improve the technology by making that location device reusable and interchangeable between different vehicles. [00:04:27] Speaker 00: improvement articulated in the specification. [00:04:31] Speaker 00: In the cases you cited where there was a new packet of data, it reduced the time to transmit. [00:04:39] Speaker 00: In other cases, like fish, it reduced the amount of memory needed to store. [00:04:45] Speaker 00: There were very specific and concrete improvements to the device itself that could be identified and that were articulated in the spec. [00:04:54] Speaker 00: Where is that for this case? [00:04:57] Speaker 03: Well, Your Honor, the specification describes the registration or pairing process. [00:05:04] Speaker 03: At column 15, it starts, well, the most relevant part would be around 63 and through the end of that column and into the next column where it describes how the registration process works. [00:05:18] Speaker 03: and, you know, how that is done. [00:05:19] Speaker 03: And if you're asking where, you know, where exactly does the specification identify this as being, you know, this registration as being a problem, I think that would be an issue of fact, whether, you know, to the extent they're disputing whether that was actually a problem in the industry, that's something that, you know, could be identified through fact discovery and experts. [00:05:43] Speaker 00: Paul, I'm having trouble understanding your answer. [00:05:47] Speaker 00: In all of the cases where we have held that a claim amounted to a technological improvement of the system, it was really clear from the specification such that it couldn't be disputed. [00:06:00] Speaker 00: The specification alleged a concrete and specific improvement. [00:06:06] Speaker 00: Is there anything in the specification that tells us of a specific [00:06:11] Speaker 00: improvement like increased speed or decreased memory consumption or something that this invention and some particularly claimed component of it achieve? [00:06:24] Speaker 03: I think a person of ordinary skill in the art reading about this registration process and then the deregistration process that is disclosed in the specification would understand that that makes it [00:06:34] Speaker 03: reusable and interchangeable. [00:06:37] Speaker 03: But I think there's a problem with reversing the burden here. [00:06:41] Speaker 03: You know, patents are presumed valid and so there should be an opportunity to develop through expert testimony and through facts. [00:06:50] Speaker 03: You know, there is no requirement, you know, at the motion to dismiss stage, motion for judgment on the pleadings. [00:06:58] Speaker 03: to have, you know, an affirmative sentence should only be granted if the complaint actually pleads itself out of court. [00:07:05] Speaker 03: There is no duty to identify these facts at the pleading stage, particularly where this was a declaratory judgment case where eligibility was not even asserted in that initial declaratory judgment complaint. [00:07:19] Speaker 00: But when there's no evidence present in the actual specification that demonstrates a technological improvement, you're saying the court needs to nonetheless assume there is one and therefore would never be able in a Rule 12 case to actually rule on any of these things. [00:07:38] Speaker 00: So all of the many, many cases that have been decided under Rule 12 on Section 101 to date would be wrongly decided. [00:07:46] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor. [00:07:47] Speaker 03: I think when you look at cases where they were dismissed at the present stage, there was no improvement or even alleged improvement to the technology. [00:07:59] Speaker 03: What they did in those cases, it was usually just [00:08:01] Speaker 03: Data being received by computer and then processed and, you know, data being displayed. [00:08:07] Speaker 03: There's no alleged improvement to the underlying technology itself. [00:08:13] Speaker 03: You know, and here there isn't a, you know, we have alleged that it improves the location device by making it reusable and interchangeable. [00:08:22] Speaker 03: And moreover, you know, we've also alleged that it improves the conventional computer or conventional vehicles themselves [00:08:31] Speaker 03: by transforming them into a vehicle that can transfer their location data, which the specification describes the location devices being a unique device. [00:08:44] Speaker 03: But I think there should be an opportunity for there to be factual discovery to the extent that PROCON disputes any of this. [00:08:53] Speaker 03: That's an issue of fact. [00:08:54] Speaker 03: I think Rule 12C motion should only be granted that there's no set of facts that could be proved. [00:09:04] Speaker 01: This is Judge Toronto. [00:09:06] Speaker 01: Can I ask you, turning away from the merits of the 101 question, to your opening argument in your brief, page 21 to 25, about the district court exceeded its authority by invalidating unasserted claims, which is to say, claims not on the list in your infringement contentions of the claims that you were [00:09:32] Speaker 01: asserting to be infringed, and this is all tied to the fact that as pled, the 101 challenge was merely an affirmative defense and not a counterclaim. [00:09:45] Speaker 01: In the PROCONS 101 motion under 12C, it's explicit in going through every single claim as a patent. [00:09:55] Speaker 01: In your response, you never say, we object to this in part, [00:10:01] Speaker 01: because the request for 12C judgment is too broad. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: You never say that that request could only possibly be granted as to the asserted claims. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: And indeed, I thought at the end of your 12C response, you asked the court to decide that all the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: Why, why have you not forfeited any objection to the scope of the district court's 101 ruling? [00:10:43] Speaker 03: Your Honor, our argument is that because they were not asserted, there's no case of controversy over those claims, which is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that can neither be waived nor forfeited. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: We do acknowledge that. [00:11:00] Speaker 01: The other side could have filed had you put it on notice that there was a [00:11:08] Speaker 01: problem of that sort could have sought to amend its pleading to add a counterclaim to say what its affirmative defense said, but you didn't give them notice that they had to take that step. [00:11:24] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor, because there would be no [00:11:27] Speaker 03: subject matter jurisdiction to have added that counterclaim? [00:11:30] Speaker 01: Well, how do we know that? [00:11:32] Speaker 01: I thought your only point about subject matter jurisdiction, your only point was that you had merely asserted a subset of the claims. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: You didn't, as far as I can tell, ever say there's no case or controversy in the sense that ProCon could not possibly have the kind of interest that under MedImmune would give [00:11:57] Speaker 01: Article 3 jurisdiction to adjudicate all the claims. [00:12:02] Speaker 03: Well, I think under Med Immune and this court's precedent and strike, it is PROCON's duty to show that substantial controversy at all stages of the case. [00:12:14] Speaker 03: And here, we've asserted that there was no case or controversy. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: And so it was actually their burden to establish that jurisdiction, which they failed to do. [00:12:24] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:12:25] Speaker 01: Where did you assert that in the district court? [00:12:28] Speaker 03: No, we didn't assert that in the district court. [00:12:30] Speaker 03: We've asserted that on appeal and subject matter jurisdiction, you know, cannot be waived or forfeited. [00:12:35] Speaker 03: And so under metamune, it was their duty. [00:12:40] Speaker 03: I mean, here there's no evidence. [00:12:41] Speaker 03: There's nothing at all that those claims are ever going to be asserted, that there's any factual basis that they could be asserted, and PROCON has not asserted otherwise. [00:12:52] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:12:52] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:12:54] Speaker 00: Counsel, on that same point, didn't they actually file a counterclaim with regard to all of the claims, not limited to the ones that you limited your infringement contentious to, but didn't they put in issue, not a counterclaim, an original declaratory judgment request with regard to 102, 103, and 112 for all of the patent claims? [00:13:16] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor, they had a declaratory judgment claim with 102 and 103, not 101, but still it is their burden under MedImmune to establish that there is actually a case of controversy over the unasserted claims. [00:13:30] Speaker 03: You know, reasonable apprehension is not the standard anymore, but there's nothing in this case that indicates they had a reasonable apprehension or really any other reason for thinking that there's [00:13:40] Speaker 03: you know, an actual issue with those unasserted claims. [00:13:43] Speaker 00: Well, wouldn't one of the reasons be your opposition to their motion in which you ask the court to declare all the claims valid? [00:13:53] Speaker 00: Doesn't that give them the impression that you very much think all the claims are still subject to this controversy? [00:14:02] Speaker 03: Well, I mean, the same could be said for cases like Streck and Fox, but I mean, I think when we responded [00:14:09] Speaker 03: to the claims, I think they're in the argument, but the claims that we're focused on were claim one as well, some of the dependent claims. [00:14:16] Speaker 03: And of course, if claim one is found to be eligible, I think that's necessarily going to mean all the claims are eligible. [00:14:26] Speaker 03: Unless your honors have any further questions, I'll reserve the small amount of time I have left for rebuttal. [00:14:33] Speaker 00: Okay, no problem. [00:14:34] Speaker 00: Mr. Ogden, please proceed. [00:14:38] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:39] Speaker 02: May it please the Court. [00:14:41] Speaker 02: There's only one technological problem that is discussed in this patent, and that's that programming is hard and it takes time. [00:14:48] Speaker 02: And none of the claims address that technological problem, nor do they address any other technological problem or provide a technological solution. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: The only disclosure of location device hardware is the patent's disclosure of the prior art itself, an off-the-shelf location device. [00:15:06] Speaker 02: And the claims view no more than describe the functionality of that prior art location device. [00:15:11] Speaker 02: Now, recognizing this problem, Spirion is now trying to characterize the prior art device as something new. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: But that view is not supported, even in the light most favorable to Spirion. [00:15:23] Speaker 02: And so I just want to discuss the evidence put forth that shows the conventionality of the location device. [00:15:31] Speaker 02: So first, we have the statement in the patent. [00:15:33] Speaker 02: In an exemplary embodiment, a location device may be an off-the-shelf tracking device for a vehicle. [00:15:38] Speaker 02: For example, for use by an end user, for user-based insurance, for fleet management, for managing driver behavior, and or the like. [00:15:48] Speaker 02: And that's at appendix 39, at column 8, lines 23 to 27. [00:15:52] Speaker 02: Second, we have the broad construction of location device [00:15:57] Speaker 02: by the District Court as a device that can determine and transmit location information. [00:16:03] Speaker 02: The reasoning behind that can be found at Appendix 1699 to 1702. [00:16:07] Speaker 02: And the breadth of what a location device is as claimed is important because SPIRION has agreed in its opening brief at 48 that prior ART integrated devices existed. [00:16:21] Speaker 02: Those are the exact type of devices that would be captured by the claim language here. [00:16:28] Speaker 02: The patent explains, and this is at appendix 48, at columns 26, 19 to 21, that indeed, for the sake of brevity, conventional manufacturing, connection, preparation, and other functional aspects of the system may not be described in detail. [00:16:43] Speaker 02: And so this is the case for the location device. [00:16:46] Speaker 02: There is very little detail about the location device because it was available off the shelf. [00:16:52] Speaker 02: And so there's several pieces of evidence in the specification for the conventionality of the location device. [00:17:00] Speaker 02: And there's no contradictory evidence. [00:17:03] Speaker 02: Now, Spirion's counsel noted here that repeatedly said that Spirion had alleged certain improvements. [00:17:13] Speaker 02: But those allegations are not in the pleadings. [00:17:15] Speaker 02: And this was a motion for judgment on the pleadings. [00:17:18] Speaker 02: They are conclusory attorney arguments. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: And as we know from ATRIX, a court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit, such as the claims and the patent specification. [00:17:36] Speaker 02: We also know from, for example, CX Loyalty v. Moritz Holdings that [00:17:43] Speaker 02: Conclusory testimony should be given no weight. [00:17:45] Speaker 02: And in that case, it was dealing with expert testimony. [00:17:48] Speaker 02: Here, we're talking about attorney argument, which, again, should be given no weight. [00:17:53] Speaker 02: And so we have the conventionality of the location device. [00:17:57] Speaker 02: And then the other elements here that were kind of discussed were an improvement to the network itself. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: Well, the network also is conventional, and there's plenty of evidence for that. [00:18:08] Speaker 02: The server that may be used here can be any suitable server. [00:18:12] Speaker 02: For example, a Microsoft SQL server. [00:18:15] Speaker 02: We can see that at column 9, lines 29 to 45. [00:18:19] Speaker 02: The networks are conventional. [00:18:21] Speaker 02: There's discussed it can be radio, cellular, or Bluetooth. [00:18:24] Speaker 02: That's at column 7, lines 14 to 18. [00:18:27] Speaker 02: And among those cellular networks, it discusses brands that we're all familiar with, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T. [00:18:35] Speaker 02: That's at column 14, lines 14 to 17. [00:18:39] Speaker 02: And even for these location devices, for the transmitter element, it can be any suitable transmitter. [00:18:46] Speaker 02: That's at column seven, lines 12 to 14. [00:18:50] Speaker 02: And for managing the devices, it names branded software with the trademark symbol, Novatel software, at column eight, lines 10 to 14. [00:18:59] Speaker 02: And that's the software that can be used to manage and to the extent any other programming would be needed, the location devices. [00:19:08] Speaker 02: And then finally, one of the things that was hit on was reusability. [00:19:13] Speaker 02: And that's been some kind of improvement to the location device. [00:19:20] Speaker 02: Most of the claim, the portion of the claim that's relied on reusability, which is claim three, deals with obtaining ownership information and determining if the device is still owned by the dealer. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: But all of that occurs through conventional data management. [00:19:36] Speaker 02: And in fact, the patent explains in the specification that the ownership information can be obtained from a conventional dealer management system, which it terms the DMS. [00:19:48] Speaker 02: And that's at Column 1635 to Column 17, Line 2. [00:19:55] Speaker 02: And dealer management system is different than the inventory management system. [00:19:59] Speaker 02: This is a conventional already existing system at the dealer, just like you would think about where they maintain their records and that sort of thing. [00:20:07] Speaker 02: And so all that's happening here is data management. [00:20:11] Speaker 02: And I think one of the points that your honors hit on is very important here. [00:20:17] Speaker 02: All of the cases that Spirion relies on, I shouldn't say all, but the majority of the cases, and I think it is all, [00:20:25] Speaker 02: In those, this improvement that was focused on an oral argument or on an appeal was discussed in the specification. [00:20:34] Speaker 02: Here, none of these alleged improvements are discussed anywhere in the specification. [00:20:39] Speaker 02: There's simply no evidence that these are improvements or that these were even problems that existed in the art. [00:20:46] Speaker 02: And so, the first improvement that's discussed is the improvement to conventional vehicles. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: And so one of the, I believe it was stated, it turns a conventional vehicle into a constantly trackable node on a network. [00:21:04] Speaker 02: And so I would argue that this is no different than what we saw in the Chamberlain case, where there was a pre-existing movable barrier system, and all that was done was that movable barrier system was given the ability to wirelessly transmit status information. [00:21:23] Speaker 02: The same is true here. [00:21:25] Speaker 02: The location device is merely connected to the car to serve as, to provide a way to wirelessly transmit status information. [00:21:34] Speaker 02: And each of the claim limitations we see are only talking about the transmission of fairly generic status information, identifiers, ownership information, battery voltages is one that's discussed. [00:21:48] Speaker 02: So there is no improvement to the conventional vehicle. [00:21:52] Speaker 02: The conventional vehicle is operating the same way it always did. [00:21:55] Speaker 02: All that is happening is a transmission of status information. [00:22:00] Speaker 02: So then there's this other argument about the reusability that I touched on as an improvement to the location device. [00:22:07] Speaker 02: But the location device itself is not functioning any differently than it was before. [00:22:11] Speaker 02: And I want to call up a specific quote from Spurion's reply brief [00:22:19] Speaker 02: It's at 25, and they say, in response to the coupling, the rest of the method occurs through communications between the device and the computer. [00:22:28] Speaker 02: And this is very on agreeing that this is just data transmission. [00:22:34] Speaker 00: Counselor, would you please address the jurisdictional issue? [00:22:39] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor, I'd be happy to. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: So with regard to subject matter jurisdiction, there's three reasons that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. [00:22:47] Speaker 02: First, the pleadings asserted that claim one was representative and was not exhaustive. [00:22:54] Speaker 02: Second, the preliminary infringement contentions reserved the right to add claims, which was permitted as of right under the scheduling order. [00:23:03] Speaker 02: And third, and I think this was hit on earlier, the briefing before the district court addressed all the claims. [00:23:09] Speaker 02: It never mentioned that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. [00:23:14] Speaker 02: And in fact, a couple of the unasserted claims, Spurion notes in its reply brief at 16, that unasserted claims seven and eight were referenced during oral argument before the district court. [00:23:26] Speaker 02: And so they were being treated by Spurion as if there was a live case of controversy. [00:23:33] Speaker 02: And to the extent that Your Honors believe that it [00:23:39] Speaker 02: affects the outcome, it is correct that Procon alleged the invalidity of all the claims, and in doing so, in the pleadings, it was admitted by, in response to that, it was admitted by Spurion that there was a justiciable case or controversy. [00:23:59] Speaker 02: I think that all of those together are dispositive of the subject matter jurisdiction issue and the court probably had subject matter jurisdiction at the time. [00:24:08] Speaker 00: Counsel, does it matter if you admit there's jurisdiction if there's no subject matter jurisdiction? [00:24:15] Speaker 00: Well, the answer is actually no. [00:24:19] Speaker 02: No. [00:24:20] Speaker 00: No, there really isn't. [00:24:21] Speaker 00: a way to say that. [00:24:22] Speaker 00: On a different question but kind of related thing, you have to have subject matter jurisdiction at all times in a case. [00:24:30] Speaker 00: Once they have narrowed their infringement contention, do you still have subject matter jurisdiction over the other claims that are not part of the infringement contention? [00:24:45] Speaker 02: Based on the reading of the three cases that we have in front of us, it may be four, [00:24:50] Speaker 02: What I would say is that until those contentions are final, so long as there is a right to add claims that there is still a justiciable case of controversy. [00:25:02] Speaker 02: And so I believe that that is the case here. [00:25:05] Speaker 02: The two cases mainly relied on Fox and Streck. [00:25:10] Speaker 02: Those cases had reached all the way to summary judgment, and either final contentions had been filed [00:25:15] Speaker 02: or it was specified in the briefing at summary judgment what claims were at issue, and I think it was noted in at least one of those cases that the parties were on clear notice about which claims were at issue. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: Well, I mean, don't you think you're on clear notice about which claims are at issue in their infringement contentions? [00:25:33] Speaker 00: I mean, they expressly say 1 to 3, 5 to 6, 9 to 10, and then doesn't the district court's scheduling order pick up on the exact thing? [00:25:44] Speaker 02: Well, the district courts, just a comment on that, that came from the patent scheduling conference at which time we had already completed the initial contentions. [00:25:56] Speaker 02: I agree that that's what the initial contentions said, but because we weren't at final and they expressly on three occasions reserved the right to add claims and indeed were seeking discovery on these other claims. [00:26:08] Speaker 00: Where do they reserve the right to add claims? [00:26:12] Speaker 02: In their initial infringement contentions, Your Honor. [00:26:14] Speaker 00: Right. [00:26:15] Speaker 00: They say we reserve the right to supplement or alter these disclosures, right? [00:26:31] Speaker 02: Sorry, Your Honor. [00:26:31] Speaker 00: I'm just going to take a second to make sure that I... It's on 255 of the appendix, if that helps. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: That's great. [00:26:38] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:26:50] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:57] Speaker 02: In their footnote, they say they reserve the right to amend these contentions as necessary. [00:27:02] Speaker 02: They're on Appendix 255 and an amendment certainly encompasses the ability to add claims. [00:27:11] Speaker 00: But wouldn't they have to have asked the court for permission to add claims after this point? [00:27:17] Speaker 02: No, because they had as of right they had until the final contentions to add that under the we adopted the Western District of Tennessee's patent local patent rules and we had not reached the point of final contentions so they could have added any claims they wanted Are those rules? [00:27:37] Speaker 01: Have you given us those rules? [00:27:40] Speaker 02: We know your honor they were not in [00:27:44] Speaker 02: in the record. [00:27:46] Speaker 02: We did provide a site and I don't have it off the top of my head to where they were referenced that was in the record. [00:27:53] Speaker 00: If counsel, I don't know if you can address this. [00:27:55] Speaker 00: My law clerk sitting here says he's read the rules and they absolutely do not say you have a right to add claims as a matter of right. [00:28:02] Speaker 00: So are you familiar enough to say that's not correct? [00:28:06] Speaker 02: They don't expressly say that. [00:28:09] Speaker 02: But as far as the practice that we've done in the Western District, [00:28:14] Speaker 02: There's no need to seek leave of court in order to add claims at the final contention stage. [00:28:22] Speaker 00: So the rules might not say it, but it's your understanding of practice generally in the district to allow it? [00:28:28] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:28:29] Speaker 02: That's correct. [00:28:30] Speaker 01: Can I ask this question to suppose, just for purposes of this question, that we conclude [00:28:37] Speaker 01: that all of the asserted claims, as to all the asserted claims, the ineligibility ruling of the district court was correct, but that on this record, there should not have been included any of the unasserted claims. [00:28:58] Speaker 01: At that point, the case is not over. [00:29:04] Speaker 01: I think, is that right, as to even the unasserted claims, because you have pending affirmative claims of your own from, I think, the original DJ action of invalidity under 102, 103, and 112 of all the claims in the patent. [00:29:24] Speaker 01: Is that right? [00:29:27] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:29:28] Speaker 02: I think that that is correct, that as of now, [00:29:33] Speaker 02: That is how that would work. [00:29:35] Speaker 02: We would be surprised, you know, in practical matters, it would be surprising, I think, for Spirion to press the other claims if this court did affirm the finding as to the asserted claims, but they could well do that if that's what they would like to do. [00:29:49] Speaker 02: And certainly, we would continue to press the validity of those claims. [00:29:53] Speaker 02: And I think I just heard my time is up, and I'm happy to answer any other questions. [00:30:04] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:30:19] Speaker 00: Mr. Blum, rebuttal. [00:30:21] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:30:23] Speaker 03: I'd like to quickly discuss step two. [00:30:26] Speaker 03: At this motion, at the pleading stage, it cannot be assumed that the ordered steps within the claims or the location device itself are conventional. [00:30:36] Speaker 03: The cell spin case is actually helpful in this respect. [00:30:40] Speaker 03: I mean, there you had technology that was [00:30:44] Speaker 03: photographs going from a camera to a phone to a website and the court found that it couldn't be assumed that that two step two device structure was conventional. [00:30:54] Speaker 03: The claims here have a similar two step two device structure when you have vehicle identifier information going from the vehicle to the location device to the computer. [00:31:03] Speaker 03: In cell spin the court also found that the fact that you had to establish a paired connection before there are any transmissions [00:31:11] Speaker 03: cannot be presumed to be unconventional. [00:31:14] Speaker 03: And again, the claims here have a similar registration process before the transmission. [00:31:19] Speaker 03: Unless the court has any further questions, I believe my time is up. [00:31:25] Speaker 00: Hearing none, I thank both counsel, and this case is taken under submission. [00:31:31] Speaker 03: The Honorable Court is adjourned.