[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
this morning is appeal number 22-1764 Broadcom Corporation versus Netflix Incorporated.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Young, you've reserved three minutes for rebuttal whenever you're ready.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Dan Young for Appellant Broadcom Corporation.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
There are four issues with respect to the board's final written decision which are at issue in this matter.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Take them in order.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
The first is the board's claim construction of the term drive server, which the board construed as a device that provides storage services to a video on-demand system.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
The effect of this construction is that it takes the term drive server and makes it impermissibly broad.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
And if you take the three components of that construction, the first is a device, which is a generic nonce word.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
It doesn't provide any structure.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
It's just a very generic term.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
Storage services.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
any storage device can provide storage services.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
So whether that's a memory buffer, floppy drive, thumb drive, those all can provide storage services.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
And then the last part of the construction is to a video-on-demand system.

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
And that's taking a limitation from the specification and reading it directly into the claim term, because the claim term has almost no structure to it without that.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
And the other proportions... It gives you the best intrinsic support that a drive server must be

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
a computer with server capabilities.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Can you just point me to your best support for that?

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
So the board relied on the Figure 2 disclosure as part of the anchor to its construction.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
But in that description of Figure 2, the patent specifically says, the present invention proposes bulk drives on capable servers.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
So you have a bulk drive, and it's on a server.

[00:01:56] Speaker 03:
But I guess when we look at figure two, there's something called disk library 104, which comprises one or more DVD drives and associated disks.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
And that box, 104, seems like the only box in figure two that could possibly correspond to the so-called drive server

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
And then that seems to be confirmed at column three, where it talks about, at line 26, the DVD drive server.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
And again, we're discussing figure two here, and the DVD drive server, quote unquote, would correspond to

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
disk library 104 where that box says DVD ROM drives and disks.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
So I guess what I see here is figure two telling me that the DVD drive server is a library of disks.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
What's wrong with that understanding of the intrinsic evidence?

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, I think what I would say is that a drive server can absolutely have

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
a number of disks and associated drives.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
In fact, all drive servers do.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
But not all collections of disks are necessarily a server.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
And that distinction shows up very clear in the prior art, which is the Baker reference, which solely is a collection of disks that are individually connected to the server.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
But if the spec equates the DVD drive server, quote unquote, with disk library 104,

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
then what that means is DVD drive server is essentially a disk library, comprising one or more DVD drives and associated disks.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, the patent uses the term disk library just twice, and it's the very beginning of the description of figure two.

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
It also uses the term DVD drive server, but just a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at those two terms

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
would be very clear that a disk library is not necessarily limited to DVDs, but then the DVD drive server is a type of server with a disk library, in that case would have DVD drives on it.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
So those terms that's on their face are not synonymous.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
And when a specification uses two different terms,

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
then the presumption is that they have different meanings.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
And clearly, disk library and DVD drive server will have different scopes.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
Okay, so then I guess it's your view that claim one excludes figure two?

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
If figure two is just, and what we said to the board is, if figure two just as written is only a collection of disks, not on a server, then the answer is yes.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
That does exclude figure two.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
If it's just

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
And let's assume that's what it is because that's what it describes at column two as disk library 104 being.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
Well, it's a disk library, but then in the rest of the specification, we'll say DVD drive server.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
So that disk library can absolutely be on a server.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
And so when the Patentee wrote claim one, they had a narrower scope

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
with respect to library versus server, but then also had a book.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
Is the term drive server a term of art?

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
Did you point to any kind of technical dictionary that defines the term drive server, quote unquote?

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
I'm not talking about server or drive, but I'm talking about the two words, write together, drive server.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
The term drive server, there's no evidence of any extrinsic dictionary definition saying that it's specifically a drive server.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
Now, obviously, in Netflix's own petition, they cite dictionary definitions with approval.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
Let's say a drive is short for disk drive or tape drive, and a server is a computer that provides services to another computer.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
Do you also agree that Figure 3 doesn't limit the drive server to a computer server?

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
Can you look at Figure 3 in the pen?

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that's the issue, though.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
as a person of already skilled in the art would understand, is a computer.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
It has some processing capability.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
And in figure three, it uses the term DVD-ROM server.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
Well, ROM is, you have to have some processing capabilities in order to effectuate that server.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
So in figure three, it provides a list of sources of devices.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
It has satellite TV as an example, cable TV, that's all in the column that's described

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
in figure three, all of those can be source devices.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
But in the claim, the claim specifically said drive server, right?

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
So they just had a broader disclosure and they had a narrower term that they claimed is part of claim one.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And the ramifications of this is clear because when we, the

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
The board in its definition of claim construction of drive server said that a single DVD drive can be a drive server.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And then what that does is the term drive server, drive modifies server.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
And what you've done now is you've taken out the server piece and you just made it drive.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
So instead of saying, instead of claim one saying a drive server configured 2% of plurality of compressed devices, under the board's construction, it just says a drive.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
And that's impermissible because you want to give meaning to both terms, both words in the term drive server.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
You want to set it with a drive.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
I guess if it's an intrinsic, if the spec said, you know, there's this box 104 and box 104 is a video library.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
And then later in the spec, it said box 104, the drive server.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
Then, you know, in that way, the patent would have

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
informed us that when he uses the term drive server, it's talking about a video.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
Would that be fair to say?

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
This is a hypothetical, of course.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think what I'd say, if the specification in your hypothetical, the specification made it clear that a

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
disk library is the same as the drive server, then the answer would be yes.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
But that's not what is going on in the specification here.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
It uses different terms.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
I mean, the inventor clearly could have wrote down in claim one and said the disk library, right?

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
They could have used the term disk.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
They had it in the specification.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
They could have used it in the claim, but they used a different term.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
They used the term drive server.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
And they didn't use a DVD drive server or a DVD ROM server.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
In this case, they used a broader term, drive server.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
And in the patent itself, it shows that the inventors understood that drives are on servers, because it says bulk drives on capable servers.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
And in figure one, which is background, it shows a computer having, in that case, CD drives.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
Again, that's prior art.

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
But it shows drives on a server.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
And so if the... This patent has expired, right?

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
Is there only one pending litigation going on with this patent?

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
Do you want to talk about some other issues?

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
So regardless of the claim construction of the term drive server, there's three other issues within the board's final written decision that are, in our view, are in error.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
And the first is that the

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
The video library in Baker, which again, in contrast to a drive server, the video library in Baker is just that.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
It's a number of disks that are individually connected to video server 12.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
They're like a periphery, like a keyboard or a mouse.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
They're just directly connected.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
And all the functionality comes from the video server 12.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
And in fact, there's many instances, and they're all highlighted in the brief, where the

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
Baker Reference talks about the video server going and fetching, obtaining, receiving a single copy of the material for the video from the video library, and then taking it, replicating it in the network interface 18, and then distributing it to the various decoders.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
So, the claim one requires a

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
drive server configured to present a plurality of data streams and the video library in Baker doesn't do anything.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
It stores data and the video server 12 then takes the video from the video library and then puts it into its own internal memory and then distributes it.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
So the video library in Baker is not configured to present

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
a plurality of streams, because the other disclosure in Baker says that because of the IO, in order to save IO space, they only take one copy.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
Well, hypothetically, you could be pulling multiple different movies out of that Baker video library for multiple different viewers and do it at the same time, and in that way, the Baker video library would be presenting multiple streams, wouldn't it?

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
In that case, yes, but the rest of the limitations also then, as Netflix has construed it, they have said that the decoders that receive the streams from the video server, they say that it's all one description.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
It goes from the one copy, it goes from the video library to the server, the network interface then replicates it and sends it out to all the viewers on the subscriber list.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
what the subscribers are receiving is only generates from one copy on the video library.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
So the antecedent basis of the term compressed data stream as it flows through the claim would then preclude the reading that you're providing in your hypothetical.

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
And just very quickly, I know I'm getting into my rebuttal time.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Also what the decoders receive has to be from the video server.

[00:12:56] Speaker 01:
And so, or in this case, the control server.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
So in Baker, the... There's just one quick question before you sit down.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
The claim talks about a first portion of a data stream going to a first decoder and maybe a second portion of the data stream going to a second decoder.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
Can you give me an example of what's being accomplished in that claim?

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
What is the advantage of this?

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
If you're sending all portions of a data stream to one decoder and all portions of that data stream to another decoder because both of those users attached to those two decoders want to watch the same movie.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
Am I missing something about how that limitation operates?

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
What you're referring to is the wherein limitation at the very end of the query.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
And there it says, again, the antecedent basis is the data stream, and it's a portion of a single stream.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
And that's where Baker doesn't disclose that, because what he discloses is replicating streams.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
And every decoder is receiving a copy of the original stream.

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
And so the portion limitation is

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
it's directed to the functionality of the control server.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
So like one stream of the movie Top Gun, only one portion of it is going to get chopped off and sent to one user's decoder, and then a second separate portion is going to be chopped off and sent to

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
a second user's decoder.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Neither user is going to get all portions of Top Gun.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
I know, Your Honor.

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
Obviously, you don't have to claim every aspect of the functionality of a system.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
I just want to understand this aspect.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
So this aspect, then, in this particular aspect of this claim... What I just described, is that your understanding of what the claim calls for?

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
Single stream of Top Gun.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
One portion gets chopped off, gets sent to decoder A. A separate portion gets chopped off and gets sent to decoder user B. That's what the claim calls for.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
Right, but portions can be an audio portion and a video portion.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
Let's put that to the side.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
That's not part of this claim.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
The audio-video components are not portions.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
The patent specifically talks about portions.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
Let's put that to the side.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
Now we're left with this other kind of

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
strangely fangled claim where we're chopping up portions of one stream of popcorn and sending off different portions to different users.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
I don't think that's what the claim anticipates, your honor.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
Okay, what does the claim call for?

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
Well, the claim, the only mention of portions in the specification talk about a portion of a stream being an audio portion and a video portion.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
And those will go to an audio decoder and a video decoder.

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
And the MPEG-2, which is mentioned, that standard is mentioned in the specification, specifically talks about two different decoders, one for audio and one for video.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
So I believe that's what the claim is referring to.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
Okay, thanks.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
Next up, one quick question.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
Yep.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
Why doesn't figure 6B at Baker disclose the different portions of the data streams being sent to multiple users?

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, and the same problem with figure 6B is the same problem with figure 5.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
Those are copies.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
So every stream, every user, every decoder is getting a separate stream that's replicated, that's by the network interface 18 in Baker.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
They take the single copy from the video library, it goes to the memory of the video server 12, it goes to the network interface, and then it's replicated.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
And their expert had said, they're getting the same content

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
but it's a different stream, so it's not portions of the same single stream.

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
They see the whole movie, not just part of it, is that what you're saying?

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
In Baker.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
In Baker, I'm sorry.

[00:16:58] Speaker 01:
In Baker, they watch the whole movie.

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
They watch a copy, and every user watches the entire movie, but it's a copy, and it's not the single stream.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
They're watching the same movie.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor, and that's what Netflix's expert admitted.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
It's the same content, it's a different stream.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Harper Batts on behalf of Appellee Netflix.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start with the claim construction issues first about Drive Server.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
I think it's clear that both the intrinsic record and the extrinsic record support the board's construction of Drive Server.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
That includes the claims.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
Every embodiment, so there's three embodiments of the 375 patent, figures two, three, and five.

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
Also the file history.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
as well as the inconsistent claim construction positions by Broadcom previously that we noted, and lastly, the extrinsic record and some of those dictionary definitions that you referenced, Judge, and I'm going to touch on those.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
So I don't want to repeat too much the discussion of Figure 2, but I just want to note that Figure 2 is a preferred embodiment.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
In the final written decision at page 13, the final written decision noted that counsel for appellant at the hearing stated that figure two was not embodying.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
So here it seemed like there was some uncertainty as whether it was embodying or not embodying in their contention here, but below they said that was not an embodiment covered by the claims.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
And as Judge Chen noted,

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
The column two discussion makes clear that disk library, there's three components to this election to mention.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
The control server, the decoder devices, and then the drive server.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
And it's clear that the disk library is the example of a drive server.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
So I think Council mentioned whether disk library and drive server are synonymous.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
That is not the question here.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
It's whether disk library is an example of a drive server.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the column three discussion that Judge Ten pointed out, I believe is in lines 24 to 26, makes clear that it's talking about a drive server in the context of disk library of figure two.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
On Figure 5, I just note that...

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
that counsel, there's no addressing of that figure.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
We addressed it in our briefing.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
Appellant's counsel never addressed that figure five as another embodiment that they claim is not covered, that would not be covered under the definition of drive server.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
So that stands under-budded.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
I do think, so the takeaway is there's supposed to be an extremely high threshold for excluding a preferred embodiment that this court has stated previously.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And the appellant has made no effort to overcome that high standard.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
And then I do want to touch the file history, because we addressed the file history on pages 45 and 46 of our brief.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
And there was two separate occasions in which the examiner did rejections on prior HART, the Sakim and the Durana references.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
And in both situations, the examiner pointed to mass storage devices for VOD services as being the drive circuit.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
So they've accused us of this litigation position about this claim term.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
But when you look back under Phillips, you look at the file history and what was discussed and how the examiner and the applicant understood the term.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
The examiner understood- The applicant never agreed with that on the record, right?

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I agree with that.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
And there's no disavowal here or something.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
This is a question of, is it reasonable to have a construction of Drive Server that would be a mass storage device?

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
And they're saying that's absolutely not reasonable at the time.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Nobody would think that.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
But the examiner themselves did two different rejections.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
And they didn't overcome those rejections.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
They could have easily overcome those rejections by simply saying, well, that's not what we mean by Drive Server.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
It's not just a mass storage device.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
It has to have this computer functionality.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
So while it's not a disclaimer, it's a vow.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
instructive as to what... What about on column four where it talks about book drives on servers?

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
It sort of suggests that maybe what we're talking about here is a server that is not quite the same thing as the book drives themselves.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
So it still has to have the three components, because if we go to that discussion on column four,

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
It says the present invention proposes bulk drives on capable servers with minimal cost in the remote decoders.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
So as Judge Giannetti noted in the final written decision, that's addressing the three components.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
The drive server component, which would be the drives, the bulk drives, and then a control server, and then the decoding devices.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
So I don't think that's inconsistent, and that doesn't resolve the remaining issues on the specification and how the specification should be read, including the other embodiments that were not addressed by Broadcom.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
And then I do also want to touch on extrinsic evidence, at least briefly, because your honor asked whether there are any dictionary definitions of drive server.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
And there were not any dictionary definitions of drive server submitted, but there were dictionary definitions of disk server submitted.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
And I do think those are telling in terms of, again, the circular argument that's raised by Appellant here is that the term server has to mean computer.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
Even though it's not in the specification and it's not in the extrinsic

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
They're saying a server has to mean computer.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
And if we look at, for example, the Microsoft Press computer dictionary at appendix page 1030 and 1035, the term was disk server, not drive server, but that term was defined as a node on a local area network that acts as a remote disk drive shared by network users.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
And then it goes on to distinguish a file server from a disk server and says a disk server

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
functions as a storage medium on which users can read and write files.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
There's no reference to computer functionality in that definition of disk server.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
And there's subsequent definitions, the IBM computing definition, IBM dictionary for computing on appendix 1043 and 1045, which also talks about a disk server as being a high capacity disk storage device that each personal computer on the network can access and use.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
So again, there's no computer functionality mentioned for the term disk server.

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
So this, I guess, tautological circular argument that server must mean computer is refuted by not only the specification itself and the preferred embodiments of specification, but also the extrinsic evidence.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
And if there's no other questions on DriveStore, I'd like to turn to the other arguments.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
Can you walk through Baker and how Baker maps onto this claim?

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
Sure, so there's the video library of Baker.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
This is the sticky part of your appeal.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
This is the sticky part.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
Exactly how Baker's disclosure maps onto the claims, even as construed by the board.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start with,

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
As a first point, I would note that this is supposed to be under substantial evidence, the remaining arguments that Helen contends.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
And really, what I heard here today was a debate about the evidence below, rather than whether there was substantial evidence for the findings made by the board.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
And if we look at Baker, and I think that the figures to really focus on are figures 5, 6A, 6B, and 7.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
And those were the ones discussed.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
There's a couple different arguments here.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
that you need to have multiple streams of the movie Top Gun being called from the video library that then get routed through the server and then end up to the individual decoders.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
And that's not what Baker does.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
Baker will get one copy of Top Gun from the video library.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
And then at something called the network interface, we'll make multiple copies of that one copy of Topcon and then send off those different copies of Topcon, different streams to different decoders.

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
And so if that's how Baker works, then there's a few different points in there

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
that Broadcom is making that says, OK, that kind of disclosure does not line up with the claims in terms of requiring multiple streams to be presented by the video library, to have the server for the decoder to receive those multiple streams from the server, and then ultimately having portions of a single stream

[00:25:42] Speaker 03:
running off to different decoders.

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
Yeah, and I'd like to turn to figure five in the synchronization group discussion of bakers.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
I think that's the most instructive portion for your question here.

[00:25:51] Speaker 00:
If you look at figure five, you see that it identifies separate streams.

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
So you have the streams one through four and then basically an N at the bottom.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
And then the discussion continues on figure six A and six B, which show then the synchronization groups for a particular stream.

[00:26:07] Speaker 00:
So what you see in figure six B at time period one,

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
you have a single stream that is being conveyed, so I want to say, I believe Top Gun was your analogy, so an example, so in figure 6B, you have a single stream being conveyed for the time period one users to users R1, two, three, four, five, and eight, while you have a second stream of Top Gun for time period two, with users six and seven, and then a third time period with other users, and so on and so on.

[00:26:38] Speaker 00:
And what Baker teaches is that you can fall out of these different synchronization groups.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
So if you fast forward or if you pause, you can move from one synchronization group to another.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
But what is clear is that there are multiple streams of Top Gun.

[00:26:51] Speaker 00:
Each of those synchronization groups is a separate stream.

[00:26:54] Speaker 00:
And that was a finding by the board supported by the evidence below.

[00:26:57] Speaker 00:
And then within a single synchronization group, so let's say the T1 synchronization group as an example, you have a single stream that is being sent to those users.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
And that's consistent with what is shown

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
Is it a single stream or is it the same content in the extent via individual streams?

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
It's a literal technical matter.

[00:27:17] Speaker 03:
I understand what the picture is showing you, but the picture is just a basic representation of what is actually happening at a technical level.

[00:27:26] Speaker 00:
Well, I guess I have to start with the teaching of Figure 5 of Baker.

[00:27:32] Speaker 00:
specifically identifies them as a single stream for a particular time period.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
So Baker is teaching it as what would be understood as a single stream.

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
And then we explained and as credited for our expert's explanation, you then have that single stream where then it goes through the interface that's shown in Figure 7.

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
And then you have copies of that stream, but it's still the same stream.

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
And you have the copies of the stream.

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
And the board credited the explanation of our expert

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
on the copies of that stream that are occurring from figure seven.

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
And in terms of the interface device that you are asking for, I would note, I just want to go to that real quick.

[00:28:24] Speaker 00:
So the board noted on page 28 of its final written decision

[00:28:28] Speaker 00:
and held that the network interface device is a subsystem that operates under the control of the video server.

[00:28:34] Speaker 00:
So that was a factual finding made by the board, and it was supported by, actually, it cited to patent owner's position about what the interface device was, as well as the expert testimony and Baker itself.

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
So it's operating under substantial evidence there.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
So it's not a question of whether it was a correct, they're basically asking whether

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
The board correctly decided the arguments versus whether substantial evidence supports those arguments.

[00:28:58] Speaker 00:
And there's been no argument in their briefing or here today that there isn't substantial evidence to support that finding.

[00:29:06] Speaker 02:
Can you briefly touch on the inconsistent position on the claim construction that you have flagged when you have started your argument?

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
So in the Amazon litigation, Broadcom took an extremely, Appellant took an extremely broad view of the term drive server.

[00:29:32] Speaker 00:
And we outlined that on pages 36, 37, and 40 of our brief.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
And continually said that drive server would encompass a large number of devices.

[00:29:40] Speaker 00:
And I want to go to appendix pages 10, 19, and 10, 20 for that, just to address them with you together.

[00:29:50] Speaker 00:
And I guess I would first note that

[00:29:52] Speaker 00:
Broadcom's briefing didn't address this at all, so we raised this.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
And even in the reply brief, there was no response to our arguments on this.

[00:29:59] Speaker 00:
But if you look on starting on appendix page 1001 and then 1018 and 1019 and 1020, what we see is on the top of 1019, when Broadcom's position that contrary to Amazon's assertions, the specification does not consistently describe

[00:30:17] Speaker 00:
or limit the present invention to DVD drives, rather than referring to DVD drives, only the specification employs more generic terms like source, device, or server.

[00:30:26] Speaker 00:
So they were arguing for a very broad construction, and then below that they say, as such, the specification's use of the present invention does not consistently limit the drive server to DVD drives, as Amazon asserts, but instead expressly teaches that sources other than DVD drives may be used.

[00:30:40] Speaker 00:
So they had a very expansive view previously as to the term drive server,

[00:30:45] Speaker 00:
Versus now they're arguing that it should have a narrowing view.

[00:30:48] Speaker 00:
So that's been our view of why it's in this position.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
If there's no further questions, thank you.

[00:30:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:03] Speaker 03:
Mr. Young?

[00:31:09] Speaker 03:
Yeah, two minutes.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
I'll try to deal with these as quickly as possible.

[00:31:21] Speaker 01:
The first is the term disk server.

[00:31:24] Speaker 01:
And in that description of disk server, it talks about a node.

[00:31:29] Speaker 01:
A node is a computer.

[00:31:30] Speaker 01:
And if you look at our expert's testimony, that even if you have a node on a network, there has to be some processing capability.

[00:31:36] Speaker 01:
So that is consistent with our position.

[00:31:40] Speaker 01:
With respect to the figures 5 and 6A of the Baker reference, those are

[00:31:48] Speaker 01:
replicated, so it is different streams, it is the same content.

[00:31:55] Speaker 01:
And the idea that the network interface, it certainly operates under the control of the video server.

[00:32:01] Speaker 01:
There's no question that that's the case.

[00:32:03] Speaker 01:
But it is a separate component, and Netflix has mapped the control server to video server 12, not video server 12 and network interface 18.

[00:32:13] Speaker 01:
They are separate components.

[00:32:15] Speaker 01:
And all the streams that the various users get

[00:32:18] Speaker 01:
all come from the network interface.

[00:32:22] Speaker 01:
That's where they are generated, that's where they are created.

[00:32:29] Speaker 01:
Netflix Council mentioned this idea of figure five.

[00:32:32] Speaker 01:
Figure five also shows a example of what could be a drive server connected, so it's really no different than what was shown in figure three.

[00:32:45] Speaker 01:
And lastly,

[00:32:47] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, had raised the question about the inconsistent claim construction positions.

[00:32:51] Speaker 01:
The Board did not cite to that as part of its decision.

[00:32:56] Speaker 01:
So we didn't address it in the briefing.

[00:32:59] Speaker 01:
Appendix 699 shows the Court's construction of that term.

[00:33:05] Speaker 01:
And it makes clear, the Court says, the specification discloses embodiments in which the server provides content from sources other than DVD drives.

[00:33:14] Speaker 01:
The issue in that case was,

[00:33:16] Speaker 01:
DVD drives versus drive.

[00:33:20] Speaker 01:
And obviously, Broadcom took a position.

[00:33:22] Speaker 01:
Plane owner meaning drive doesn't just mean DVD drive.

[00:33:25] Speaker 01:
So it was a different issue.

[00:33:26] Speaker 01:
And our position today is consistent.

[00:33:29] Speaker 01:
So Your Honor, if there aren't any other questions.

[00:33:35] Speaker 03:
Some claims will survive this IPR, right?

[00:33:40] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:33:41] Speaker 01:
Some claims of this IPR.

[00:33:43] Speaker 01:
Not every claim was challenged.

[00:33:46] Speaker 03:
all the asserted claims in the copending litigation are part of this appeal?

[00:33:54] Speaker 01:
I'm not counsel for the underlying litigation, but yes, that's my understanding.

[00:33:57] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:33:58] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:33:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:33:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:34:01] Speaker 01:
Case is submitted.