[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Target Corporation versus Proxycom Wireless, 2022-12-82, Mr. Davis.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Target raises two issues with respect to its appeal.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
First, with respect to the 359 patent, the Board erred in interpreting page 37 and 43 to require interaction with the claimed list of goods when no such requirement of interaction is recited in the claims.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
Second with respect to the five nine two patent particularly things 25 28 and 29 the board erred in applying the wrong legal standard and Holding that the prior art disclosure that sometimes but not always made the claims are insufficient for purposes of invalidity Turning first to the issue of the three five nine patent

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Claims 37 and 43 recite delivering a list of goods or a list of goods available for selection as part of a step in an e-commerce transaction.

[00:01:01] Speaker 00:
As the board already found with respect to claim one, that aspect of a step in an e-commerce transaction was already met by Partia's disclosure of providing an electronic coupon or an e-coupon.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
With respect to claims 37 and 43, the board further found, and this is at appendix 39,

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
quote, that Partia discloses sending a restaurant menu as part of electronic coupon information, thus establishing that the board does not dispute that the menu is a list of goods available for selection.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
So your view is that 3743 are inconsistent with the decision on claim one?

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I believe that the board's determination was that interaction

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
is was required with that list of goods and that's just simply not recited in the claims.

[00:01:51] Speaker 04:
What's their basis for requiring interaction with claim language?

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'm not certain.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
It might have been... Well, what did they say in their opinion about that?

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
Yeah, they said that interaction is required particularly.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
They said, petitioner and his decorant failed to identify any discussion or suggestion in Berthier of the user interacting with the menu after it has been delivered.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
the board doesn't provide a basis for that interaction requirement.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
As has been the case in several other proceedings before this court, where the facts that would support these claim limitations being met are largely undisputed.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
They're already found by the board, and the error below here was one in properly reading in a limitation into the claims.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
This court, the proper remedy here is to reverse as to claims 37 and 43 and find those claims unpatentable.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
Proxycom arguments and response really fall into two buckets, one of which were waived.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Proxycom didn't raise arguments in particular regarding these claims.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
They instead had arguments regarding the independent claim one that were rejected by the board.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
And two, Proxycom raises arguments on appeal now with respect to claim one.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
And those arguments have already and are flatly stopped.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
There was a copending proceeding, the 932 IPR,

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
Also involving claim one for which claims 37 and 40 may depend.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
And Proxscout made the choice not to appeal those determinations.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
If there aren't any further questions on the 359, then I'll turn to the 592.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Claim 25, which is the independent claim at issue in the 592, recites determining that the server must determine a name of an entity or object located in proximity to the second wireless device.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
Now the board acknowledged petitioner's argument that Partia, the prior art reference at issue there, expressly discloses a merchant media arrangement.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
So that's the thing that has the billboard that distributes e-coupons electronically.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
And it also discloses an in-store embodiment where you put that merchant media arrangement in the store itself.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
Advertisements are in the store along with the Bluetooth beacons

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
such that the recipient of that e-coupon can then redeem that e-coupon for a product in the store.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
The board's rationale for finding that that limitation of the 592 Claim 25 is not met, this is at Appendix 72, is while it may be likely that the advertised products are in the store, this is not necessarily the case.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
For example, the products may be out of stock.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
But it is black-letter law, as this court found in Hewlett-Packard,

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
that a prior product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
And this court's findings in Unwired Planet are particularly on point here.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
There, the patent challenger had showed that a limitation would often be met, and this court found that that was sufficient.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
A particular limitation there required an ordering

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
of geographic locations from farthest away to nearest the prior art disclosed an alphabetical ordering of those geographical locations.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
And it was found that is sufficient even though the alphabetical ordering of course wouldn't always meet the geographical ordering of farthest to nearest it would sometimes meet it or it would often meet it and that was found to be sufficient.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
How do we know from Pertilla that there was it's going to identify any Entity or object that's located in the store Pertilla at paragraph 39.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
Sorry appendix 1426

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
I guess my question is, and we can look at this, is would it, if all fertility data is sent a coupon for items that the store might carry, but it has no idea whether they're there or not, why would that satisfy this limitation?

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
So it satisfies the limitation when those products are in the store, and that's the whole purpose of what paragraph 39 is describing.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
When you have these advertisements in the store, you would have Bluetooth beacons around the store.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
It's for advertising those products and redeeming those products.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
I can read from paragraph 39.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
I think you have it, Your Honor.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
Partia teaches, certain example types of electronic coupons, e.g.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
product offering with price discounts, may require validation and or redemption.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
For such electronic coupons,

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
The user's terminal visits the second location, such as the merchant purchase center, where a redemption data processing station, 54, validates such coupons.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
So you get a coupon for, which is what we normally do, for a product with a discount.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
And the point is that you go and you redeem that coupon to get that product.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
Partia then goes on to explain that that second location, because up to this point, they're in two separate locations.

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
The location of the merchant media arrangement

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
in the location of the store.

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
The procedure then goes on to explain that those may be the exact same location and you would put tags or beacons located in the store itself such that you can get the coupon there and redeem it.

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
So is that really a legal error or just the board has so misread this reference that there's no substantial evidence for its conclusion that Fertilla doesn't disclose this?

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
I think both would apply, Your Honor.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
Both you there.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
It's directly contrary to this fight this court's findings in Hewlett-Packard as well as an unwared planet But they're finding also is directly contrary to what he expressly teaches with respect to the in the store embodiment There's nothing else right that the board relied on to find that that Pertilla didn't disclose this this is the same paragraph We just have to look at it.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
Yes, rather, okay?

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
Proxy comes arguments with respect to these issues as well as

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
either fall into the bucket of being flatly stopped or again raising issues that were already decided with finality in the 932 IPR or they're raising an argument that these targets mapping somehow changed when the board recognized throughout that targets mapping that it was relying on was consistently the same throughout

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
Do we know that the entity or object located in proximity has to be something that can be purchased?

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
Or can it be something else?

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
Because, I mean, Partilla specifically discloses like a tag or something that's located there.

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
Why isn't the tag itself?

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
I don't know what a tag is, but I assume it's like, you know,

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
but here's this item for sale.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
Why isn't that the name of an entity or object?

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
So the tag is like an RFID tag.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
Sometimes you have a badge.

[00:09:13] Speaker 00:
That's just a locator.

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
So the phone gets close enough to the RFID tag or the boot to the beacon.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
But Partee is expressly describing in paragraph 39, as we read, that there's a product offering for price discounts.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
So in the same way we typically think of a coupon, you get $0.50 off or whatever for a particular product.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
The product is separate from the Bluetooth beacon or the RFID tag that is the initial interaction.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
Why did the board talk about inherency with regard to this?

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I don't think we relied on inherency.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
But the board found, I think that was the source of the board's confusion, was reconciling.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
Inherency is often the source of the board's confusion.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
Was it argued by either side as an inherency analysis?

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
It was not argued by the petitioner.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
I don't remember an argument from the patent owner that it was inherential.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
But even under what the court cites there, it cites Robertson.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
And Robertson says, the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
It necessarily results from, if it products in the store, it necessarily results in the claim limitation being met.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
Unless there's any further questions, I'll reserve the remaining time for a bell, Your Honors.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
We will save it for you, Mr. Hand.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
Can you start with the second set of claims about the 23 series?

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
If it may please the Court.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Well, it's Prossie Com's position that the petitions failed to meet the statutory burden as to any of the claims, even if the Court disagrees with our cross-appeal.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
It is clear that the claims that Target is appealing failed because Target never set forth grounds and explained those grounds in the petitions.

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
And I think, to your Honor's point, turning to claims of, sorry, you asked for claims of the 595.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
Let's just look at 25.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
It's the main independent claim in that group, right?

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
And so I think what's most notable here, Your Honor, is the board made a finding that Target failed to meet its burden.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
It did not show how these claim limitations were met.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
They did not abuse their discretion in making that finding.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
and turning to.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
Why is it an abusive discussion standard isn't it a substantial evidence standard.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
Because well I think there's no no no sorry I don't want to I shouldn't have asked you I don't want to get hung up on that.

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
Where can you point me in the record what their petition says about claim twenty five.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
So there... Because we just looked at a passage in Bertilla that seems particularly relevant, and the argument from your friend seems somewhat persuasive.

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
Did they not make that argument in the petition?

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
They did not.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
And so if you turn, for example, to Appendix 2449, which is their petition,

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
So when Target addressed claim 25, they did not address at all any of the additional limitations that were added by that claim.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
They are largely citing back up to the independent claim.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
So claim 25 adds that the server needs to determine a name.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
There is no explanation of how Partilla meets that limitation at all.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
They have their citations to some evidence, but there is no discussion in the petition at all.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
Target completely failed to do that.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
Well, it sites back up to, can you, I mean, these petitions are often, because they have such, you all have limited page stuff, sometimes they have to economize.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
Is this, they're citing to C19A, is that what, so where is that?

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
And so claim 19 does not at all discuss or does not require that the server determine a name.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
But do we have their argument on 19A in the appendix?

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
Is there argument on 19A in the appendix?

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
It would be, Your Honor, earlier.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
I don't have the appendix cite there.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
Well, do you have your appendix?

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
I do, Your Honor.

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
So there 19A.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
is found on Appendix 2428.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
And in that discussion, they do not address the server determining a name.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
Now, Mr. Davis, in presenting the store within a store argument, where you take the merchant media arrangement and you put it in the store, which is paragraph 29 of the Partilla reference, Mr. Davis said, well, to your honor's question, there's beacons throughout the store.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
That's a mistake.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
Partilla never says that.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
That's what Target does.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
Target has beacons throughout its store.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
But the Partilla reference never goes into that sort of detail to suggest that if you put the merchant media arrangement or that there are multiple locations or that these are next to a product that receiving a coupon that might name

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
30 cents off of Crest toothpaste that that means that the server is determining the name of an entity or object Located in proximity to that billboard This is just trying to I'm confused about something.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
I thought the Claim element we're talking about is what's called 25 B Is that right?

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
2449 is the petition.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
And so we shouldn't be looking at 19A.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
We should be looking at 19B and C, shouldn't we?

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
Isn't that what?

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
2450 cites?

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
It cites to, so element 25B cross-cites to 19B and C. And 25C cites strictly to 19C.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
And 25C.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
When you look at 20, I mean,

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
Look at 2430 in the bottom.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
Doesn't it say exactly what we're arguing about?

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
That Partilla discloses a remote source server to associate the promotional information on the promotional article with an e-coupon linked to this particular location.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
So it identifies that the ID is tied to a coupon.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, but that does not indicate that the server is determining the name of an object or entity located, the name of the object or entity.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
It's giving a coupon.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
It's returning a coupon.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
But there's no indication in Partilla that the server is performing the additional limitation required in 25 of determining the name of an object or entity that's located in proximity to that tag or that billboard.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
What does it mean to associate the promotional information on the merchant promotional article, although that's in brackets, so I don't know what that means, with an e-coupon linked to this particular location?

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
Isn't a merchant promotional article something that they're selling?

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
No, it's linking what's displayed on the billboard to a coupon.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
The server is not making any further determination as to whether to report back

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
the coupon itself.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, this is further highlighted the same lack of evidence is found and is even more glaring with respect to claims 37 and 43, where again, of the 359 patent, where those dependent claims add limitations and there is zero discussion

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
in the petitions.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
And so the board's finding was not that it's met some of the time or it could be met in some cases.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
It's that the petition did not set forth any explanation or put forth evidence from which a finding of invalidity could stink.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
Do you agree that there's nothing in the claims

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
Now I'm going to the other ones at 41 that there's nothing in claims that suggests there has to be an interaction I Disagree with that what in the claim language suggested her has to be an interaction.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
I think that the the suggestion that it is taking place within the context of an ongoing e-commerce transaction requires more than just a static delivery of one item and

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
And where we see that distinction drawn, your honor, is when Target set forth its explanation in claim one, how a coupon satisfies the limitation.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
Target also cited to the redemption process.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
So it's cited to steps in an ongoing e-commerce transaction.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
With the suggestion that you could deliver a menu, there's no indication that that's a list of goods or services.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in Partilla that explains how that would happen in an ongoing transaction.

[00:18:38] Speaker 04:
Wait, that sounds like a different argument.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
If we assume that a menu is a list of goods or services, then does that make the board's determination wrong?

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
It does not.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
It seems like the board determined that the reason it fails is because there's nothing that requires the user to interact with that list of goods or services.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
Well, the board, the board said, and this is appendix 39, the board

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
determination rests on the fact that the petitioner did not explain how sending a restaurant menu constituted a list of goods or services one or as a step in an electronic commerce transaction.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
So there were two grounds that the board said the petition failed to establish.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
So there was nothing in that petition.

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
I mean how is a restaurant menu not a list of goods?

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
Because delivering a static item

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
does not meet the limitation of doing something in an ongoing electronic commerce transaction.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
And more to the point, at no point below, not in the petition, not in the reply, not at oral argument, at no point did Target ever address how a menu constitutes a list of goods and services, much less how it did so within the context of an electronic commerce transaction.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
It is making those arguments for the first time on appeal, which is totally improper under red line detection.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
Target never made the arguments below.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
The board correctly determined that Target wholly failed to address those limitations in the petition and correctly found that the claims were not invalid.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you this.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
If we disagree with you on claim 25 and determine that Partilas shows that

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
It does identify the name of an object or an entity.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
Does that mean that the board's holdings on 26, 28, and 29 are also incorrect, or is there something else distinguishing one of those?

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
The arguments were related to the base thing.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
They rise all together?

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
I'd like to address your honor's question to Mr. Davis about the inherency argument.

[00:20:57] Speaker 03:
And I think the way this comes up.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
Did you argue inherency?

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
We did not.

[00:21:02] Speaker 03:
And I think what happened here is the board went out of its way to give the petitions more credit than they were worth.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
The board went through a process of trying to map Partilla to the claims, not restricting itself to what the petition did.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
And what the board actually said was, at best,

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
there is perhaps an inherency argument advanced by the petitioner.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
They didn't directly do it, but the board said, at best, your store within a store arrangement could be an inherency argument.

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
And if that is the case, it fails because it's only sometimes met.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
It's met by happenstance.

[00:21:43] Speaker 03:
And so therefore, if it had been presented, it wouldn't be met.

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
I see I'm into my rebuttal time.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
I would like to reserve.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
that pleases the court.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
You may reserve it and use it if there is something to rebut.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
Mr. Davis.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
I'd like to address the points that were raised, starting first with the 592 patent.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
As Your Honor touched on, I'll properly note that this was the limitation that was at issue.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
It was 25B as opposed to 25A.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
And what is

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
noteworthy there in the petition itself.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
This is at Appendix 2450, where the petitioner directly argues that, as discussed in 19B and 19C, the merchant media ID used to determine information, including the name of the product being promoted, as well as its manufacturer.

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
The name limitation is directly argued there.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
There's no confusion by the board that that

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
but that's what petitioners argument.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
This is in the institution decision that appendix.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
And that refers back to the 19B and 9C around 2429 to 2433, which does say something about names.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
Can you address the other patent for a minute?

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
What is it in

[00:23:22] Speaker 02:
And this question, I think, except on something Mr. Hand said, I think Mr. Hand said something like, in your discussion and your petition of Claim One, you, for an element, for the Claim One counterpart element, which uses actually the term an ongoing electronic commerce transaction, which 37 and 43 don't use that term,

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
but that you referred to, and I'm summarizing perhaps inaccurately, the delivery of the coupon and then some continuing port, an additional step in a electronic transaction so that the delivery of the coupon with a list of offerings is not itself enough

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
to be the electronic transaction.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
Yes, yes your honor and Completing your initial thought that other reference to the name discussion was at appendix 2433 And with respect to the your question as to the 359 patent That is what the board found was sufficient to meet the requirements of an ongoing e-commerce transaction He received the e-coupon and then you go and you were dream you redeem that electronic coupon meeting those requirements the menu itself is provided as part of that e-coupon and

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
uh... meaning that you know i think that it did and i'm sorry just to be clear the the redemption process does not have to itself the electronic eight-year-old suppose in particular that it that it actually isn't so it's still an electronic on but it it doesn't have to be it's still in life but to the extent but to the extent we're focused just on the restaurant menu uh... it is maybe these days uh... a commonplace idea of

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
ordering your food electronically, but maybe not so much back in Cartier's days, where one, I would think, would contemplate ordering your food from the menu actually at the restaurant.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
Yes, I think Your Honor... I think this is probably what the Board had in mind.

[00:25:45] Speaker 02:
There's no second electronic step, transaction step, after getting the menu that is

[00:25:54] Speaker 02:
implicit in or maybe even naturally understood at the time to be contemplated by that delivery of the menu.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
So the only electronic transaction is getting the menu, along with the coupon.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
Well, and Your Honor, I think that's where the limitation is actually met.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
It is through getting the e-coupon, the electronic coupon, and redeeming that, what came along with the coupon, and this is all that's required in claims 37 and 43,

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
is the menu.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
There's no requirement that you do something electronically with the menu afterwards.

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
That's just not decided in the claims.

[00:26:35] Speaker 00:
I don't believe closing counsel addressed its cross-appeal, but we stand on the arguments that I raised earlier that they are flatly stopped from raising any of those positions because of the 932 IPR.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
Unless there's any further questions, Your Honor?

[00:26:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Council.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
Since there is essentially no argument on the cross field, there's nothing for you to respond to.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
We will take the case on the submission.