[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Please be seated.

[00:00:21] Speaker ?:
Our first case for argument today is 22-1526, Canoe v. Samson.

[00:00:27] Speaker ?:
Mr. Goldberg, please proceed.

[00:00:36] Speaker 08:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:39] Speaker 08:
Thank you for indulging me with my cap.

[00:00:41] Speaker 08:
I appreciate that.

[00:00:44] Speaker 08:
Patent owners, like my client, Canoe, have constitutionally protected patent rights that are entitled to due process protection.

[00:00:54] Speaker 08:
There were systemic problems here and decisions that were peculiar to this case that denied my client those protections.

[00:01:05] Speaker 08:
One of the issues here is that the board invalidated some of the claims of Canoes patents based on the Perlman reference that had already been considered in the original prosecution and the original prosecutor or original examiner had concluded that Perlman did not anticipate those claims.

[00:01:25] Speaker 08:
The board, the patent office was bound

[00:01:29] Speaker 08:
by that decision under issued preclusion principles and should not have revisited.

[00:01:33] Speaker 07:
Are you saying the board is bound by the examiner?

[00:01:37] Speaker 08:
From the original prosecution.

[00:01:39] Speaker 07:
That's not the law.

[00:01:40] Speaker 07:
That's never been the law.

[00:01:41] Speaker 07:
We get cases all the time where an examiner is issued a patent and then in IPR, the board looks at the same differences and comes to a different conclusion.

[00:01:51] Speaker 07:
The board, there's no principle of issued preclusion that binds

[00:01:56] Speaker 07:
the PTAB to an examiner.

[00:01:59] Speaker 07:
Do you have a case for that?

[00:02:01] Speaker 08:
Well, we cited Amarola versus Napolitano, 710 F3rd, 568.

[00:02:07] Speaker 07:
Well, I'm going to guess that that's not a patent case given who Napolitano was.

[00:02:13] Speaker 08:
That's correct, yeah.

[00:02:14] Speaker 08:
The ruling in that case was that it

[00:02:16] Speaker 08:
federal agencies barred from entering a ruling inconsistent with the agency's prior ruling where no change of law was shown.

[00:02:22] Speaker 07:
Well, that might be the case if you had a prior PTAB ruling and its subsequent PTAB changed it without explanation.

[00:02:31] Speaker 07:
That's not the same level here.

[00:02:33] Speaker 08:
Well, we're raising this, Your Honor, as a due process issue because there were many issues here where

[00:02:41] Speaker 08:
the process was really tilted against Canoe.

[00:02:43] Speaker 08:
So, for example, the petitioner, Samsung, in their petition said Perlman had not been considered in the original prosecution.

[00:02:50] Speaker 08:
That was false.

[00:02:51] Speaker 08:
They later relented on that and agreed it had been considered.

[00:03:01] Speaker 08:
There's a problem, we think, Your Honor, if a

[00:03:07] Speaker 08:
Patent owner is essentially subject to double jeopardy and the process of having the same issues litigated, essentially argued in one proceeding, in one process, and then having to re-litigate that.

[00:03:23] Speaker 07:
But that's the AIA and the whole system and the PTAB.

[00:03:26] Speaker 07:
I did not read your read was making a constitutional facial challenge to the AIA.

[00:03:33] Speaker 07:
And if it did, it would be miraculous because we've had a number of these constitutional challenges and we've rejected them all.

[00:03:39] Speaker 07:
And the Supreme Court has found the AIA unconstitutional.

[00:03:44] Speaker 08:
Well, one of the issues here, Your Honor, specifically with respect to the AIA is that it's supposed to be a standard of at least a new question.

[00:03:54] Speaker 08:
So the standard had been there had to be a new question of patentability and the standard was elevated.

[00:04:00] Speaker 08:
in connection with the AIA, it wasn't reduced.

[00:04:03] Speaker 07:
So if there's not a new issue being presented... In order for the board to institute, it has to determine whether there's a new question of hability.

[00:04:12] Speaker 07:
Right, these... Would you know if that decision also is unreviewable by us, as held by us and affirmed by the Supreme Court?

[00:04:21] Speaker 08:
I understand that, Your Honor, and we're not challenging the institution decision.

[00:04:24] Speaker 08:
We're saying that this process denied canoe

[00:04:28] Speaker 08:
due process because of many different reasons.

[00:04:32] Speaker 08:
This is one of those reasons.

[00:04:34] Speaker 08:
So we're not hanging our head on that.

[00:04:37] Speaker 08:
This is one of the issues, but we think that that sort of sets the table, sets the tone.

[00:04:41] Speaker 08:
It's supposed to be a new issue that's decided.

[00:04:43] Speaker 08:
Canoe was put, you know, had to run the gauntlet here on something that had already been decided once.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Let's get to the meat of the case and the claim limitations.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
You're arguing that it could be limited to displaying only four of the recited positions.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
But yet that argument seems to be relied by the specification in which different arrangements and embodiments are created.

[00:05:12] Speaker 08:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:13] Speaker 08:
With respect to the other embodiments in the specification, that's not what's claimed by claim one of either of the two patents, 393 or 354 patents.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
Those patents in claim one... Your argument is that the claims are limited to just claim only.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
So, by your own words, the specification is contrary to that argument.

[00:05:39] Speaker 08:
Well, the specification is entirely consistent and supportive of our argument with respect to the embodiment that was claimed in Claim 1 that relates to the joystick that has an up, down, left, right configuration.

[00:06:00] Speaker 08:
there are limitations in those claims that specifically are limited to four positions.

[00:06:09] Speaker 08:
So there's the initial placement of item identifiers.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
So in addressing your question, to see if the claim is limited in the fashion that you argue, we look at the specification and there is where we find other arrangements.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
Other matters are displayed.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
So there's not just one.

[00:06:36] Speaker 08:
Right.

[00:06:36] Speaker 08:
And we've cited case law explaining that the patent owner during prosecution can have claims that are limited to particular embodiments and that that's a normal manner of claiming the invention.

[00:06:49] Speaker 08:
Different claims can refer to different embodiments.

[00:06:52] Speaker 08:
We think it's clear that claim one of each of the patents is referring to the embodiment

[00:06:58] Speaker 08:
for essentially a joystick type situation where you're talking about using up, down, left, right.

[00:07:10] Speaker 08:
Well, that's essentially correct, Your Honor, but there's also the limitation about where do you place the highest ranked of the item identifiers.

[00:07:20] Speaker 08:
So even if you're not limited to only four positions, specifically the highest ranked

[00:07:27] Speaker 08:
of the item identifiers must be in one of four positions.

[00:07:30] Speaker 08:
That is in one of the limitations in the 3-5-4 pattern.

[00:07:36] Speaker 08:
There's also the issue about claim differentiation.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
Did you argue that in your blue brief?

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
I recall she had this argument of hierarchy.

[00:07:47] Speaker 08:
I think, no, yes, we did argue that, Your Honor.

[00:07:49] Speaker 08:
Yes.

[00:07:51] Speaker 08:
There's also the issue of claim differentiation because some of the limitations talk about positioning,

[00:07:57] Speaker 08:
in up, down, left, right, and others talk about at least in up, down, left, right.

[00:08:03] Speaker 08:
So where at least is used, that needs to be given meaning.

[00:08:08] Speaker 08:
So if it's at least up, down, left, right, that has to mean something more than just saying up, down, left, right.

[00:08:15] Speaker 08:
So our position is that limitations that don't say at least are limited to those four positions.

[00:08:25] Speaker 08:
And your honor, with your indulgence, I would like to go back to the due process.

[00:08:29] Speaker 08:
I think I started off on perhaps maybe the weakest of the key issues there, but we do think that there are important due process concerns.

[00:08:38] Speaker 08:
So we think, for example, the board should have drawn an adverse inference on the Nexus issue because we have shown that Samsung had access to can use technology.

[00:08:51] Speaker 08:
Samsung was they praised it.

[00:08:54] Speaker 08:
The board said that, quote, we agree with patent owner that petitioner could have been work for coming and producing internal documents that are certainly relevant to patent owner secondary considerations, contentions.

[00:09:08] Speaker 08:
This is a discovery issue, right?

[00:09:12] Speaker 08:
It could be framed that way, yeah.

[00:09:13] Speaker 07:
So there's... Well, then why is it a due process issue?

[00:09:16] Speaker 07:
I mean, if you think that the board improperly denied the discovery or failed to draw an adverse inference because of Samsung's discovery failures, to do something worth failures, then that's a discovery issue, not a due process issue.

[00:09:35] Speaker 08:
Your Honor, I would argue respectfully that

[00:09:39] Speaker 08:
the patent owner is entitled to notice an opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection.

[00:09:46] Speaker 08:
So here, the patent owner was not given the opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection.

[00:09:52] Speaker 08:
Samsung had a duty of candor.

[00:09:55] Speaker 07:
You knew of the combinations or the prior art that they were using to invalidate your patent, right?

[00:10:02] Speaker 07:
Yes.

[00:10:03] Speaker 07:
And so you could respond to those.

[00:10:07] Speaker 07:
And you were allowed to make all available arguments.

[00:10:10] Speaker 08:
You're absolutely right, Your Honor.

[00:10:12] Speaker 08:
We could respond as a legal matter, but as a factual matter in terms of the evidence.

[00:10:17] Speaker 08:
So Samsung had a duty of candor to the Patent Office.

[00:10:20] Speaker 08:
When they submitted their petition, they were required to submit the evidence they had bearing on secondary considerations.

[00:10:26] Speaker 08:
They said falsely that there was none.

[00:10:29] Speaker 08:
We then eventually were able to ferret out their internal documents that they produced in Korean.

[00:10:35] Speaker 08:
We had them translated.

[00:10:36] Speaker 08:
This was all at the last minute.

[00:10:39] Speaker 07:
So you have them.

[00:10:40] Speaker 08:
And so we had some of the documents regarding their evaluation of Canoe's technology.

[00:10:46] Speaker 08:
Then the next question is, did they, as we believe and as we think evidence is pretty clear, did they then take the technology and incorporate it into their products?

[00:10:57] Speaker 08:
And that includes back end type things that only they have the information for.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
Council, you've made a lot of arguments, and you've decided to focus on this one in an oral argument.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
And I'm just questioning your choice.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
Am I right in understanding that this is a case about anticipation, that that is what is at issue in front of us, is whether the board's finding the claim one of the 393 and claim one of the 354 are anticipated?

[00:11:26] Speaker 08:
There are also issues of obviousness with respect to dependent claim five, for example, is also before the court.

[00:11:37] Speaker 08:
And dependent claim five in each of the patents refers to what's going on under the hood using hierarchical trees.

[00:11:45] Speaker 08:
And this is the evidence that we specifically sought and that Samsung specifically withheld from us.

[00:11:51] Speaker 08:
The board should have drawn, versus our position is they were required to draw, adverse inference that that evidence would have shown.

[00:11:59] Speaker 08:
Samsung incorporated Canoe's technology into their products and therefore there was a nexus.

[00:12:05] Speaker 08:
The board drew no adverse inference.

[00:12:07] Speaker 08:
The board held it against Canoe that there was not evidence of nexus.

[00:12:12] Speaker 08:
The very evidence that Samsung intentionally repelled from Canoe.

[00:12:16] Speaker 08:
The board also shut down NewsAbility.

[00:12:19] Speaker 07:
That's an evidentiary issue, which we would be for abuse and discretion.

[00:12:24] Speaker 08:
Your Honor, we're saying this, we're raising this in the context of due process as to whether this entire process was fair.

[00:12:32] Speaker 07:
It's an evidence issue.

[00:12:34] Speaker 07:
Trying to frame it as a due process issue to make it into a legal issue, but it just isn't.

[00:12:39] Speaker 07:
So, I mean, if you want to raise it, raise it the right way and tell me why it was an abuse of discretion for the board not to order them to give over when we're discovering.

[00:12:48] Speaker 08:
In the context of making the argument, we have shown why it was an abuse of discretion, Your Honor.

[00:12:53] Speaker 08:
So certainly, we have raised the evidentiary issue.

[00:12:56] Speaker 08:
We think it's part of a bigger problem here and that each of these pieces, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[00:13:02] Speaker 08:
There also is an order from the board

[00:13:05] Speaker 08:
shutting down prematurely Canoe's ability to seek authorization for additional discovery.

[00:13:10] Speaker 08:
So when the board granted Canoe some discovery, it said that it will not authorize any follow-on discovery.

[00:13:16] Speaker 08:
So that enabled Symptom to shut down Canoe's efforts to obtain the information that was needed.

[00:13:22] Speaker 08:
The board also entered a protective order.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
Mr. Goldberg, you're using your rebuttal time.

[00:13:28] Speaker 08:
Would you like to say any of it?

[00:13:29] Speaker 08:
Yes, I would like to say that.

[00:13:32] Speaker 08:
I will mention that there were the systemic issues that we've raised about not having the true three-judge panel, which was required by Section 6 of the Patent Act, because in effect the patent, the board, these decisions are decided by a single judge, and they're always rubber-skimped by the other two.

[00:13:55] Speaker 08:
That cannot happen.

[00:13:56] Speaker 08:
There's supposed to be three judges to provide due process to the patent owners.

[00:14:01] Speaker 08:
I'll save the rest of my time for a bottle.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
The Board correctly held that all of the claims at issue are anticipated or obvious, and the final written decision should be affirmed.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
Canoe says little in its reply brief about the substance of the Board decisions, and that's because the Board decisions are the product of careful and largely uncontested reasoning about the invalidity of the claims at issue.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
The only merits argument that Canoe makes in its briefs and here today is that the claims should be limited to a four-directional embodiment.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
And there is nothing in the claim language creating such a limitation, and the specification explicitly refutes it.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
They point to this idea that the embodiment claim one is limited to a joystick.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
It is not.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
Claim one is limited to an input directional controller, which is not limited to a joystick.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the specification describes other kinds of controllers, including touch screens, and specifically includes a 3 by 2 grid, which includes more than the four options that can you suggest the claim is limited to.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
They also point to the highest ranked language in the 354 patent.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
That suffers the same defect, which is if we look at the claim language, claim one of the 354 patent, it says that the highest ranked can be listed in the left, right, up, or down positions.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
It does not say that is the only positions in which they can be shown or displayed.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
And there's no basis as a matter of law for implying a limitation that does not exist within the claim language.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
And that's especially clear here when the specification explicitly talks about other places where the highest ranked indicators can be located.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
focuses on the procedural arguments.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
And if the court doesn't have any questions about the claim language, I'd be happy to speak about the procedural issues.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
They frame the procedural issues in terms of due process because, as Judge Hughes notes, otherwise they'd be subject to abuse of discretion review.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
And there is no abuse of discretion here.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
Due process requires notice.

[00:16:24] Speaker 07:
Was there a hearing in this case?

[00:16:26] Speaker 07:
There was a hearing, yes.

[00:16:27] Speaker 07:
How many judges participated in the hearing?

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
Three.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
So they had notice and opportunity to be heard.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
There's no reasonable dispute that they had such notice, they had such opportunity, and they were in fact heard.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
What they claim is that they wanted essentially two things.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
One, they wanted more discovery.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
But I think it's important to look at what the timeline here was.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
First, there was extensive being confirmed with Samsung, where they in fact received substantial discovery before filing their patent owner response.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
Then after filing that response, they filed a motion before the board asking for additional discovery.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
That motion was in substantial part granted.

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
They received an interrogatory response and a 30B6 deposition, which specifically discussed the issues that they wanted the deponent to discuss.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
Their complaint now sort of takes two forms.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
One, they claim that they wanted additional discovery after that, and the board did not allow that additional discovery.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
But the crucial point here is, not only did they not ask for that additional discovery, but they don't even tell this court what that additional discovery would concern.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
The reality is that all of this discovery dispute is a sideshow, because it has nothing to do with the actual basis for a decision here.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
First, the independent claims were invalidated on anticipation grounds.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
And as Chief Judge Moore's question suggested, anticipation is not impacted by secondary considerations.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
And so this entire question about the evidence is irrelevant to anticipation.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
They say that it is relevant to the dependent claims, some of which were invalidated on obviousness grounds.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
But it's important to note that you can search the blue brief in vain for a discussion of why the dependent claims are in fact valid.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
because there is no argument in the blue brief about why any dependent claims are valid, any discussion about the claim language of any of the dependent claims.

[00:18:23] Speaker 05:
So any discussion of any argument about the validity of the... Any suggestion that the dependent claims are the driver for the secondary considerations they allege?

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
No, and in fact what the board said was there was no nexus between any secondary considerations

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
and the claims at issue.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the board noted that Canoe's own expert did not even attempt to show that there was a nexus between the claims and Samsung products being accused or Canoe's own products.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
And so what we're left with is, and I think this is an important point, because Canoe's counsel said here that they wish they'd had an adverse inference on nexus.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
But that conflates to very distinct issues.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
What they actually asked for an adverse inference for was just adverse inference of copying.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
Obviously, Samsung strongly disputes any copying, but the important point here is that what the board said was that there was no nexus, regardless of whether or not there was alleged copying.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
There was no nexus between any alleged copying and the claims at issue.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
And if there's no nexus, then the secondary considerations are entirely irrelevant.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
This whole discovery dispute is entirely irrelevant and certainly does not rise to the level of a due process violation.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
The last point that I'll respond to that Kenu made today is that they discussed that the PTAB should be bound by the examiner decision.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
As suggested by Judge Hughes' question, that would require a revolution in the law, a revolution in the law that has no basis in law.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
There has to be some legal grounds to require it.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Obviously, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the board must be bound by the patent examiner decision.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the statute that suggests the board should be bound by patent examiner's decision.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
And so this idea that due process requires it is entirely without legal basis.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
If the panel doesn't have any other questions, I'll leave it to my colleague from the Department of Justice.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
Mr. Salzman.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, Joshua Salzman for USPTO.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
We've only intervened on the orthorex 2 issue.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
I haven't heard that reference unless the panel has any questions for me.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to see my time.

[00:20:46] Speaker 07:
Mr Goldberg, the last thing you said to us was that this was only decided by one board judge and the other two just rubber stamps this decision.

[00:20:57] Speaker 07:
Do you have any good basis to say that about the board?

[00:21:04] Speaker 08:
It's an excellent question, Your Honor.

[00:21:05] Speaker 08:
So we did identify in our brief the basis for for stating that.

[00:21:12] Speaker 08:
So this has to do with the fact that

[00:21:15] Speaker 08:
We have reviewed the decisions.

[00:21:19] Speaker 08:
We reviewed a whole bunch of decisions from the PTAB that were reviewed by this court and that were reversed by this court.

[00:21:27] Speaker 08:
And none of those, was there any dissent?

[00:21:30] Speaker 08:
SAMHSAIN itself has been involved that we pointed out in our blue brief.

[00:21:33] Speaker 07:
What difference does it make if there's a dissent or not?

[00:21:36] Speaker 07:
They've all got it wrong, they all got it wrong, and they all got it right.

[00:21:40] Speaker 07:
I don't do that lightly, Your Honor.

[00:22:02] Speaker 08:
I'm not suggesting bad faith either.

[00:22:04] Speaker 08:
What I'm suggesting is that the process discourages dissent, and we did cite to

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
external authority talking about how dissent is discouraged, and there's actually... What did you argue, counsel, was one judge decided this and the other two rubber stamped it?

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
Those were your words.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
So you're saying these two judges have not faithfully executed their oath of office?

[00:22:28] Speaker 04:
These two judges have done nothing to evaluate the merits of this case and merely rubber stamped it?

[00:22:34] Speaker 08:
Well, Your Honor, if it's the case, as we had pointed out in our opening brief, we're not aware of a single case in which there has been dissent at the PTAB.

[00:22:43] Speaker 07:
That's just wrong.

[00:22:45] Speaker 07:
We've all seen cases with dissents at the PTAB.

[00:22:48] Speaker 07:
The fact that there are very few doesn't mean that they're rubber-stamping it.

[00:22:52] Speaker 07:
It may mean that if they disagree, they determine that it's not worth writing a dissent.

[00:22:58] Speaker 07:
I do that all the time if I disagree with my colleagues.

[00:23:01] Speaker 07:
If I think it's a closed case, they disagree with me.

[00:23:04] Speaker 07:
I'm not of the view that I need to litter the pages of F4 with my writing.

[00:23:09] Speaker 07:
Other judges disagree.

[00:23:11] Speaker 07:
But the fact that there's no dissent says nothing about whether they're rubber stamping or not.

[00:23:15] Speaker 07:
And again, we've seen multiple cases.

[00:23:19] Speaker 07:
I think you should be very careful about making these types of arguments in the future that won't blind administrative judges like the PTAB.

[00:23:28] Speaker 08:
I appreciate that, Your Honor, and I do not mean to malign, but there is also an issue about appearances as well.

[00:23:37] Speaker 08:
We did raise this very carefully in our reply brief, because it came out immediately before our reply brief was due, that the judge who authored the FWDs here shortly thereafter joined a law firm that represents Samsung.

[00:23:54] Speaker 08:
And we have sought, through a Freedom of Information Act request,

[00:23:58] Speaker 08:
information about the circumstances of that.

[00:24:00] Speaker 08:
I understand that's uncomfortable for all of us to think about and talk about.

[00:24:04] Speaker 07:
But there's also knowledge for us.

[00:24:06] Speaker 07:
That issue's not before us.

[00:24:08] Speaker 08:
That's an issue that we raised in the reply and asked the court to take judicial notice of those facts.

[00:24:14] Speaker 08:
We also asked the Patent Office to weigh in, please.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
You brought it up in the reply, but that issue's not property before us.

[00:24:22] Speaker 08:
Well, that was an issue that the facts only came out at that point.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
echo the comments that my colleagues have been making.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
And just to be clear, which we encourage you to see this argument, representation.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
But even in your arguments, given the traditional discovery, there's continuous reference to opposing counsel as being underhanded and involved in bad faith and willfully

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
withholding things.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
And I just didn't see that.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
And I think it distracts from the argument that you do have your valid argument.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
These other experts distract them, so they don't help you.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
And to a certain extent, they could hurt you because they're so distracted.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
And we encourage you as members of the bar to keep an eye on that as we move forward into this and maintain civility at a professional level.

[00:25:27] Speaker 08:
Well, thank you for those those comments, Your Honors.

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
Okay, time has expired.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
I thank all counsel.

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
This case is taken under submission.