[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
internal technology versus film.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
How do I say your name, Council?

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. Cooper?

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Please proceed.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, this case is up here on appeal from a denial of a motion for new trial in a patent infringement case involving video game technology.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
What the court did wrong is it misapplied its established and existing claim constructions and improperly imported

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
the construction of a term from the second step, 1B is what it's called, of the claim, into the third step, 1C, which is the storing step.

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
The 1B is the providing step.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
And that importation was improper because the two

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Steps were construed to have, well, one was construed to have an entirely different claim construction than the one that the court imported into it.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
Step 1B did not even, the issue was,

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
What is the perspective of the light data, the light image data, that is viewed in order to do a rendering process?

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
And step one B, the providing step, did not provide for a perspective.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
It just said what lighting image data is.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
But it did say, the claim didn't say, but the court construed it as viewed from the perspective of the light source.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Step 1C, the storing step, said that when you store the rendered data, you store it in the observer's image.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
And those are two different images.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
One is looking at the plate.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
So it seems to me that your argument is a claim construction argument, and yet you didn't raise it at claim construction, and you didn't even really raise it at trial.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
Well, it was raised in claim construction.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
In fact, the parties agreed

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
to the in the observer image construction.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
Right, but they didn't agree that that meant the perspective was from the observer as opposed to the light source.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
The court said that in several claim constructions, this is not the first case, the court in the Electronic Arts case and then later in the Microsoft case, I'm talking about the same judge, not just the same court, but the same judge had ruled that in the observer image

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
and from the observer's perspective are essentially the same thing.

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
And Sony didn't dispute that.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
They agreed that... Did the judge say in any case that the light accumulation buffer was storing light from the observer perspective?

[00:02:41] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
I know the EA case, we cited that.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
I don't have a... Did it happen in this case that's in front of us today?

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
The parties agreed to that construction.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
So the court didn't opine on it because the parties agreed, specifically and expressly agreed, that the storing step was storing the light image data that gets accumulated

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
in the observer's view.

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
And that language came from the Electronic Arts case when the court said observer's view means the observer's image.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
And no one disputes that.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
The two are synonymous.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
And so there isn't a question about whether in the observer's view

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
means anything different than in the observer's perspective.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
And that is required because in order to finalize the process of this rendering process, you have to generate what the eye sees, what the player sees.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
It's a video game, and so what you do is you generate for display on the screen the light that is seen or not seen from the

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
perspective of the observer.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
That's the essence of the invention and everyone agrees that's the whole point of this process is to generate what the observer sees.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
That's only relevant, that's why you generate just that on the display screen.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
No one cares what it looks like from the sun's perspective and so therefore the entire invention was directed to ultimately

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
combining the observer data with the light image data that's accumulated and producing a rendered view with lighting and shadows from the observer's perspective.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
And the court's construction, when they imported it, I should say construction, but when they misapplied the construction,

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
He imported from the viewpoint of the light source into the step that said the lighting data must be stored in the observer's view.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
And you couldn't do both.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
Those are inconsistent.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
There's no way to reconcile those two.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
And that was the error of his ways.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
And I think, I'm speculating here, he didn't say why that happened, but he saw

[00:04:54] Speaker 04:
I thought the rule was that once a term is interpreted in one limitation in a claim or in one part of the limitation in one way, it has the same meaning when it's repeated again.

[00:05:08] Speaker 04:
That's generally the... Just for a second.

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
I think that that rule is pretty ironclad unless there is a very clear indication

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
in the pattern of that there should be a different meaning for that same term when it's used in a different place in the pattern.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
Well, there are two answers to that issue.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
That's generally the rule, but in this case you had two things going on.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
One is that the definition of light image data in step 1b, the providing step, had really two prongs to it, two aspects to it.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
What is image, light image data?

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
It defined that as 2D data and the rest of the definitions.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
But the perspective issue is a different thing.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
I agree with that.

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
But that's been agreed.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
Why it's been agreed, I don't quite know.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
But it was agreed by the public that it's from the light's perspective.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
Well, the providing step was from the light source's perspective.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
But the parties expressly agreed

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
in 1C that the storing had to be done in the observer's perspective.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
So that is the difference in the claim language and in the construction of that language that makes the, if they said it this way once, it applies equally no matter what.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
No, the difference is that the perspective differs from 1B to 1C.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
light image data is the same throughout the claim.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
And so we were not contending that the term light image data should be construed differently, because there was no reason to differentiate between step one B, the providing step, and step one C, the storing step.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
But the parties expressly agreed.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
With your interpretation, once I got to the combining step,

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
in the claim, under your interpretation, I would be in the combining step combining observer data with observer data.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
No, no.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
It's light image data.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
It's just viewed from the observer's viewpoint, as opposed to observed from the light source viewpoint.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
Because it doesn't, the combining stage, combining at least a portion of said light, accumulation buffer.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
And then you've said that's going to be light from the observer perspective.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
in the light buffer.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
You see what I'm saying?

[00:07:28] Speaker 04:
In terms of determining the claim, if I take the said light accumulation buffer, the way you have defined your second step, that's going to be observable.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
It is, because that's what the court said it is.

[00:07:42] Speaker 04:
So then I'm going to be combining observer data with observer data?

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
No, no.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
It's from the observer's perspective.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
The observer data is like color.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Observer data can be a number of things, but includes, for example, the color of something.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
That is not the perspective.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
There are two things going on here.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
There is the type of data, which is light image data.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
which can have, you can perceive that from a number of vantage points.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
So basically you're saying observer and information of some sort is different from observer data.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
The observer view is one thing.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
The observer data, just like light image data, has its own meaning, which wasn't disputed.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
Everyone agreed on what that was.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
And so it's not observer data and observer view are not the same thing.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
And what happens in this invention is that you have to understand from the light source's perspective

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
what the light is hitting.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
If there's a big building in the way of the sun or a tree, that has to be reflected in the ultimate output.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
But the most important output is what is lit versus not lit from the observer's view.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
That light source and the data generated by that light source doesn't change.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
It's the same light source, the same light, but how somebody sees it

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
the view, the perspective, is a different thing.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
And that distinction between perspective and type of data is where I think the judge made a mistake.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
And we're not trying to say the type of data changes.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
That remains the same.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
But whether you view it from the observer's view

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
or you view from the light sources view, that's the difference between the two steps.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
And it has to be that way, otherwise you can't combine observer data, which is... That just seemed to me that you were basically a key arguing that this

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
like data has two different meanings depending on which piece of the claim you're looking at.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
Not data.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
No, the data.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
How you're looking at it.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
The perspective.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
The viewpoint.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Yes, the viewpoint.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
The data is one thing.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
But that's part of claim construction.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
It seemed to me that those arguments should have been made earlier.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
And as I understand it, the way it worked here was that the jury was given the claim constructions

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
that had been agreed on.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
And the judge charged the jury to faithfully apply those.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
And there's a normal rule when one has one meaning in one thing and has another meaning in another.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
And so I would have thought the reasonable jurors would have done

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
My point is, it seemed to me that your complaint should have been registered as the case was going to the jury, as opposed to claim construction.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
No, because the claim construction was correct.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
The judge misapplied it by importing into step 1C the different construction for the viewpoint.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
That was part of his claim construction.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
Say what?

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
That was part of his claim construction.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, for 1B, but he imported into 1C

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
Yes, I know, the perspective.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
And that's not what he ruled when he construed these claims, but he mistakenly, I think, took the second.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
He now had in the back of his mind the general rule.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
But the general rule doesn't apply here, because he expressly construed the viewpoint as the viewpoint of the observer.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
So I'm not asking.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
He did?

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, in his claim construction.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
It says, in the observer's view.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
In its plain construction, light accumulation buffer means memory for storing the light image data for cumulative light falling on a region in the observer image, which is the same thing as... Well, that's your argument.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
The other side has an argument, which I'm sure they'll give us in response, which is you're just wrong in the way you're reading that.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
In the observer image is from the observer's perspective.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
There is no dispute about that.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say perspective.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
Yeah, perspective image view, you know, I wonder... Your claim construction argument is image is perspective, but you didn't raise that.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
Well, no, it's view.

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
It gets the top from the perspective the camera's looking at because that's what the camera's looking at to decide whether there is or to see the shadows in pixels.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
It's not the perspective of the user looking at the light.

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
At least that's your adversary's interpretation.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Well, that applies in step 1B, because it says in the construction from the viewpoint of the light source.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
But in 1C, regarding the storing step, it doesn't say from said viewpoint or something like that.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
It says in the observer's view.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
And it has to be that way.

[00:12:31] Speaker 01:
You're a bullet time viewer.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Well, unless there's any questions right now, I'll reserve the rest.

[00:12:35] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
Here's the heart of this case.

[00:12:50] Speaker 03:
If the court applies the claim constructions that were agreed to below, there is no basis at all to disrupt the jury's verdict.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
I'd like to- You wouldn't have us reach the cross-appeal if that happens, right?

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
That's absolutely right, Your Honor.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
I'd like to- Am I correct in understanding that from his oral argument, he only addressed one of the claim constructions?

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
and not the order of steps, sequence of steps.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
That's my understanding as well, Your Honor.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
So if you don't address it, it's done.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
Keep going.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:19] Speaker 03:
I'd like to direct the court's attention to one statement that was made in the appellant's opening brief.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
And this is at page 34 and 35 of their brief.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
I think this gets to the heart of this issue.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
And I want to quote it because I think it really matters.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
They say that Hellen's interpretation, quote, precludes the possibility that the light image data stored in the light accumulation buffer is viewed from the light source's perspective.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
So their interpretation would preclude that possibility.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
And then if you turn to the agreed constructions in this case,

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
The agreed construction for light image data is that it is from the light sources perspective.

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
So those things are in conflict and you can't reconcile those two views.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
We're told that you agreed that the light accumulation buffer

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
is storing the image data from the perspective of the observer that you agreed expressly and I guess the Electronic Arts case and at least implicitly here.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
What do you say to that?

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, we definitely do not agree with that.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
And I would point to the claim construction itself of the light accumulation buffer.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
The claim construction of light accumulation buffer is, quote, memory for storing the light image data for cumulative light falling on a region in the observer image.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
corresponding to the modeled point.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Now there's two points to make about that construction, Your Honor.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
One is it expressly says light image data in that construction.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
And we already know what light image data is because the parties agreed and the court construed that term to mean that it's data viewed from the light sources perspective.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
And then the second point, Your Honor, it doesn't say anything about the observer perspective there.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
But his argument is that's the whole point.

[00:15:04] Speaker 04:
His argument is that when you refer to an observer image, it has to be that the light source, the light image data is from that perspective.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
I agree your honor and I think it should fall on that point because the construction itself does not say anything about the observer's perspective and the construction does say expressly that it includes light image data which the parties agreed is Viewed from the light sources your point is that the observer image is the thing that the camera is looking at and

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
picture, if it was, if you're trying to take a picture of this courtroom, that's the observer image and then falling on a region as the portion of it.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
Exactly, Your Honor, that's exactly right.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
So the context here is a video game and it's a scene in a video game.

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
And apparently at Clay Construction there was no discussion about the possibility of the observer

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
image in this language having the meaning that your adversary thinks it does.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
That's exactly right, Your Honor.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
I would think that if the parties intended to say from the observer's perspective there, that's certainly something that could have happened as part of claim construction.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
But it was not.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
Well, especially if that was the key from which you're going to deviate from the ordinary rule that light image data will have the same meaning as whatever shows up in the claims.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
I completely agree, Your Honor.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
I think that's exactly right.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
And so I'm sorry I'm still struggling with where I could look to know that you disagreed with the patentees interpretation of observer image because he just repeatedly says you agreed to it and it was agreed to in an earlier case and so obviously you agreed to it here.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
Yeah I think the best evidence for that your honor is the claim construction itself that was agreed.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
And the claim construction itself doesn't say anything about the observer perspective.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
And if I look at the Electronic Arts case, will I also find disagreement there, or are you familiar with that record?

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
I believe they were the same constructions in that case, Your Honor.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
That's my recollection.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
But I know for a fact, in this case, if you look at the agreed construction for the light accumulation buffer, that does not say observer perspective.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
Well, you're making your argument about what observer image means in your brief, correct?

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
What light image data means, your honor?

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
No, in the light accumulation buffer, the debate is whether the words observer image simply means a place, the thing the camera's looking at, the overall texture, or whether it means something like the light image data or the perspective from which

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
And there didn't seem to me to be any discussion about that in front of the judge at any point in time, that distinction.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
And you clearly make that argument in your brief.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
Yes, I think that's right, Your Honor.

[00:17:53] Speaker 04:
So I think that at trial, the way we were presenting it is the accused gained... Well, I should just start to be questioning about sort of where in the record are these points

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
cemented so we can look and see them in the record as opposed to things that weren't discussed that are basically being argued in the briefs here.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
And I think the best evidence, again, Your Honor, is the agreed claim constructions.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
And that's because the agreed claim construction for light image data expressly says that it's viewed from the light source's perspective.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
And the agreed claim construction for light accumulation buffer expressly says that it's a memory for storing the light image data.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
What about the gerrymandered proof?

[00:18:34] Speaker 04:
Assume we're in favor of you on one limitation and not on the other.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
Does the case have to go back?

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
Not at all, Your Honor.

[00:18:41] Speaker 03:
Why not?

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
Because they have not demonstrated that there's an absence of evidence for the second point.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
The second point was a sequence of steps.

[00:18:48] Speaker 03:
And in order for the court to find that

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
If they don't agree with us on one point that they have to send it back, they would have to demonstrate.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
It's their burden to demonstrate in absence of any evidence to support the jury's finding that the order of steps was out of order in the accused's products, and they haven't done so.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
Was the jury marked a specific verdict that actually articulated that?

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
It was not, Your Honor.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
So how do we know that the jury rendered its verdict on that basis as opposed to the first basis?

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
So I think this case is like a case called SSL Services.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
And in that case, this court affirmed the construction of one term, destination address.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
And then they held that, quote, even if the district court erred in its construction of the other challenge limitations, the result the jury reached, the finding of non-infringement, would not change.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
And that's so too here.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
Okay, but I have no idea about the facts of that case.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
Maybe there was a specific verdict that called out those elements.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:19:44] Speaker 03:
There was not a specific verdict, but the point is here, Your Honor.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
Well, the claim construction issue may be a little different than what we have in front of us here, too.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
Yes, I understand, Your Honor.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
Because we have a uniform claim construction that runs across a number of claims.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
I mean, this is the problem.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
You all put these general verdicts before the jury, and then you come up on a case like this.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
And if you win on one but not the other, how do I know that the jury verdict is rendered on the one you won on and not on the basis of the one you lost on?

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, I understand, Your Honor.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
Those are vacates and remands, and you've got to start over.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
So you'd do better if you had specific verdicts.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
I understand, Your Honor, and thank you for the point.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
Here, light image data, the only way the court can get to the appellant's view on that is if they contradict what the appellant agreed with on claim construction below.

[00:20:31] Speaker 04:
Did you ask for a special verdict?

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, I don't believe so.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And on the second point, on the order of steps, it's their burden to demonstrate, it's an abusive discretion standard here, it's their burden to demonstrate an absence of any evidence on the order of steps.

[00:20:46] Speaker 03:
And they haven't done that.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
In fact, if you look at the record, our expert witness testified that the accused products do those steps out of order.

[00:20:54] Speaker 03:
Our fact witnesses testified that the accused products do those steps out of order.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
And then their expert witness testified that he was not sure whether or not the code he actually relied on was operational in the accused products.

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
And so the jury was in a position to weigh the credibility of that evidence, weigh the credibility of that testimony, and make a determination.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
So are you saying that he presented no contrary evidence if, say, I affirm your claim construction on order of steps, which I'm going to do.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
So assume that's the case.

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
Are you saying that there was no evidence under that claim construction that could have possibly led to anything other than the finding of non-infringement?

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
What I'm saying, Your Honor, is they need to show an absence of any evidence that supports the conclusion that the order of statutes is out of order.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
Your evidence was that in every instance, your system was doing the comparing and whatnot on the fly on every piece of information, and that there was no evidence of anyone in which it didn't.

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
And so you say, well, it doesn't really matter how many you're supposed to be doing, whether it's a plurality or whatever, because if they're trying to make an argument that there was a limited number that didn't

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
then they would prevail, and you're saying, no, in every instance.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, the reason for my hesitation, I was reluctant to say there's no evidence at all in the trial record that would support their side of the case.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
They definitely presented a case.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
It's just that their expert had to concede on cross-examination that he did not know whether or not the code he was relying on was operational in the accused products.

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
And then a witness from Sony explained that, in fact, it was not.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
And so all I'm saying is the jury was well-positioned to balance the credibility

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
the competing testimony and reach a conclusion.

[00:22:46] Speaker 03:
The final point, Your Honor, and again, we only get there if the court disagrees with us on both the light image data and on the order of steps.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
Possibly either one, but go ahead.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
And it's the question of an abstract idea.

[00:23:01] Speaker 03:
So we presented the step two of the Alice analysis to the jury And the jury agreed that there was nothing added to the claims on top of an abstract idea And so then post trial it was a little and I didn't be district court judge No, that's not right The district court concluded that step one was not satisfied your honor and

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
And so that was a pure question of law for the district court and.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
Well then what do you have to say about that.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
Do you have something to say about that?

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
So if you look at the district court's finding on that, Your Honor, he referenced three things.

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
Frames, real time, and limited computational capabilities.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
He said that these claims are not abstract because they include those concepts.

[00:23:52] Speaker 00:
Why isn't this claim directed to solving the technical problem of rendering shadows in a 3D world in real time?

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
Seems like that's a very specific technical problem, and it seems like exactly what this claim sought to overcome.

[00:24:03] Speaker 03:
Well, that's not what the district court found you.

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
I don't care.

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
It's a question of law.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
It seems to me, I can tell you, hands down, just in case you end up winning on step one and therefore we don't reach step two, I think there's no question this is not directed to an abstract idea.

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
I don't even think it's close.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
And I'm saying that for the record because you may not be infringing, but this is a patent that may be asserted in other contexts.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
Not close.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
There's no abstract idea here.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
This is the least directed to the technical problem of rendering shadows in three group worlds in real time.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
Is your cross-appeal conditional?

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, it is, Your Honor.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
So are you in essence saying that you are withdrawing your cross-appeal in the event that we ruin your favor on the other issue?

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:50] Speaker 04:
So would it be improper for us to reach the one-on-one issue if we wanted to?

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
Is this pattern expired?

[00:25:01] Speaker 03:
Yes, the pattern is expired.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
I think you could reach the question if you wanted to, but the way we presented it, Your Honor.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
I mean, your cross-appeal presents the issue.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:25:12] Speaker 04:
And if you're withdrawing your cross-appeal, you're in essence saying your cross-appeal is moot, if we were in favor of you.

[00:25:21] Speaker 04:
I just wondered whether the court has the authority, and that might be viewed as a rather

[00:25:26] Speaker 04:
Aggressive act to reach out to the side of the issue that the party is taking away from us You certainly do not need to reach the question your honor I don't know the answer to that question

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
The SSL case involved a situation where it was undisputed that the second theory of liability failed.

[00:26:02] Speaker 01:
It couldn't exist.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
It couldn't survive.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
And because as a matter of law, the second theory of liability

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
was not available as a choice for the jury to make.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
The court found that in that case the general verdict rule didn't apply because there wasn't the possibility that they agreed with one but disagreed with the other and disagreed with it on a not on a valid basis.

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
Here there is no matter of law preclusion at all regarding the sequence of steps issue.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
We submitted evidence and it's cited in our brief

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
substantial evidence of the absence of showing that they did the comparing steps before the combining step began.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
There is an absence of that evidence.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
And we did not concede anything.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
They then produced source code to us.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
We went to trial on that source code.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
It was produced as operative code.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
But during the trial, they had a witness slip in that, oh,

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
It's not operative.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
I don't have any documents to prove that.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
I don't have any substantiation to prove that.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
But it's not operative.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
We didn't concede that.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
Did you ask for a specific verdict sheet?

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
No, we didn't, Your Honor.

[00:27:15] Speaker 02:
No, we didn't.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
So both sides agreed to the general verdict.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
But the fact of the matter here is that this court doesn't know which way the jury actually found.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
The jury could have found for us on sequence of steps, but didn't find for us on

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
on the the the storing of the if we were to see both issues as plain construction issues and we thought the district court got them right then we don't have to worry about this.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Well the district court got them right.

[00:27:41] Speaker 01:
He just misapplied them.

[00:27:43] Speaker 01:
But yeah I got you.

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
I understand.

[00:27:47] Speaker 01:
These are not claim constructions.

[00:27:48] Speaker 02:
You don't think they're claim construction issues.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
They're not claim constructions, no, because we agreed with you.

[00:27:51] Speaker 02:
But if we did think they were, then we don't have to worry about the general verdict question, correct?

[00:27:56] Speaker 01:
I would say that's true because it's a question of law.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, I think that's true.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
And then the second thing is that, once again, I think it's vitally important for the Court to recognize, as the District Court did in its claim construction, that light image data was given to

[00:28:13] Speaker 01:
Uh, that, that, that construction had two aspects to it.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
One was what, what is light image data?

[00:28:19] Speaker 01:
It's 2D data representing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:28:22] Speaker 01:
That's what it is.

[00:28:23] Speaker 01:
Just like what is observer data.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
But then when it comes from, to the perspective of that data, that is an entirely different thing.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
And the claim language in 1C, as well as the claim construction, specify that it be in the observer's view.

[00:28:41] Speaker 01:
And any contention that observer view and observer perspective is different is just false.

[00:28:48] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Robert.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
Case over.

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
Thank you.