[00:00:00] Speaker 06:
which is 241138 Ridge Corporation versus Kirk National Lease Company.

[00:00:06] Speaker 06:
So we propose to have two council argue for a single party, which is not a good idea.

[00:00:12] Speaker 06:
We'll permit that, but we will not permit two reply to total arguments.

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
I understand that, Your Honor.

[00:00:17] Speaker 06:
Mr. Burton.

[00:00:19] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:00:20] Speaker 04:
I represent, may it please the court, I represent two of the defendants in this case, Kirk National Lease and Truck and Trailer Part Solutions together with the other defendant, Altam.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
We ask this court to reverse the district court's preliminary injunction order for three separate reasons.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
On behalf of the appellants, I will be addressing the first of those reasons, which is that Ridge, plaintiff Ridge, is a licensee of a patented suit, lacks statutory standing.

[00:00:45] Speaker 05:
If you agree with you on that, we don't have to get to the rest of this case, right?

[00:00:49] Speaker 05:
You don't have to, but you can, because... No, no, no.

[00:00:52] Speaker 05:
My question was, we don't have to.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
You don't have to.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
And we would submit that you can, because it's a curable defect, and it's not a jurisdictional defect.

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I know.

[00:01:02] Speaker 05:
We'd rather ask for an advisory opinion in case they cure the defect below.

[00:01:07] Speaker 05:
But assuming we're not going to do that, did they try to cure the defect below?

[00:01:13] Speaker 05:
I mean, you agree, if they bring the patent holder in, then they're standing here.

[00:01:19] Speaker 05:
We're talking about statutory standing, which we need some better word for, because it gets confused with actual Article III standing.

[00:01:27] Speaker 05:
But for the purpose of this, I guess we can assume that that's what we're talking about.

[00:01:32] Speaker 05:
Did they try to bring in the patentee?

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
No, not at all.

[00:01:37] Speaker 04:
What they did was post-complaint was submit a statement by the patent owner, the licensure, Coldchain, that says Coldchain reaffirms that it retains the right to sue, which we argue is a dispositive point here, but it's not going to pursue these particular defendants in this lawsuit.

[00:01:56] Speaker 05:
Well, that doesn't sound like it cures the standing.

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
It doesn't.

[00:01:58] Speaker 05:
That's what I'm saying.

[00:01:59] Speaker 05:
They have to be joined, right?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:02:00] Speaker 05:
Maybe involuntarily joined?

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
They didn't file a motion to join at all.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
Excuse me.

[00:02:07] Speaker 04:
No, what happened is we can't erase the issue of lack of standing because of a necessary party and therefore the court shouldn't get to the preliminary injunction issue

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
and co-defendant Alton filed a motion under Rule 19 to say you should join the party, which appellee resisted at the time.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
And the court agreed and said there was no standing, but we say that's the incorrect result here.

[00:02:35] Speaker 06:
What do our cases say about whether they can compel the patent?

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
Well, I don't have a specific case in mind.

[00:02:43] Speaker 04:
I think the Lone Star case discusses the Rule 19 point in the most detail, which is that if the court agrees under Rule 19 that a party should be joined if feasible, then it has to order the plaintiff to join that party.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
And if they're reluctant, they're joined as a defendant and can be realigned by the district court as an involuntary plaintiff.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
But the overall issue here is that under this court's well-established case law, whether Ridge's license is a license or whether it's really an assignment, and that's because this court has held an exclusive licensee as standing under the statute, Section 281, to sue on its own without joining the licensor.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
only if it has been transferred all substantial rights in the patent.

[00:03:36] Speaker 04:
The license has to be tantamount to an assignment, as which this Court said in the Alfred E. Mann Foundation, which is not here because among other reasons, the licensor retained the right to sue.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
Clearly, it has the right to sue under Section 14 of the agreement.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
It's not illusory, as it in some cases, because the licensor does not have an unrestricted right to sub-license.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
For those reasons, we're asking the court to rule that the district court should have ruled that Plaintiff Ridge lacks statutory standing to obtain relief.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
So we would vacate the preliminary injunction, right?

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
Vacate the preliminary injunction, send it back with instructions that the appellee and the trial court have to join the patent owner cold chain.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
If there are no further questions, I will turn it over to my co-defense counsel for the remainder of Appellee's opening argument.

[00:04:34] Speaker 06:
Mr. Carwile.

[00:04:36] Speaker 06:
Oh, Ms.

[00:04:36] Speaker 06:
Carwile, sorry.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
Tiffany Carwile on behalf of Defendant Altam, LLC.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I want to address, Judge Hughes, your point or your question relating to whether the court should or can

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
continue on with the analysis.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
We would say that yes, the court can and the court should.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
Looking at the district court's opinion, it is obvious that the court misunderstood how to do a proper claim construction and how to do a proper analysis of a patent case.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
Contrary to this court's holding in the Phillips case, that the specification is highly relevant and dispositive, the court stated that the

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
the specification is less significant.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
Contrary to this court's case, a similar case in Markman, that the prosecution history is of primary significance.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
The district court said it's not relevant.

[00:05:34] Speaker 05:
I understand you want us to look at all this, but you're asking us to make an advisory opinion.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, if you look at how the United States Supreme Court has

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
distinguished between an appropriate opinion and an advisory opinion.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
It wasn't cited in the briefs because we weren't raising advisory opinion issues, but it's Rhodes v. Stewart.

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
It's 488 U.S.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
1.

[00:05:55] Speaker 03:
The court says, what makes a pronouncement a proper judicial resolution of a case or controversy rather than an advisory opinion?

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
is the settling of some dispute that affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, if you make a proper claim construction, it will do exactly that.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
It will settle the dispute here between the defendant and the plaintiff because there's not really a factual dispute.

[00:06:19] Speaker 05:
We can make that final outstanding and it may resolve the dispute too.

[00:06:23] Speaker 05:
It may or it may not.

[00:06:25] Speaker 05:
That's why you want us to rule on both grounds.

[00:06:27] Speaker 05:
But if it does, then we don't have to

[00:06:30] Speaker 05:
we don't have to rule on this again.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, but it's highly likely that it will not resolve this dispute.

[00:06:37] Speaker 06:
Look, statutory standing is not jurisdictional, so we don't have to decide statutory standing.

[00:06:42] Speaker 06:
We could decide that there was a failure to establish infringement and that that was a defect in the preliminary injunction, right?

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
And we would ask to have the court look at the district court.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
Are you expressing a preference for the ground of our decision?

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
We might have a difference between the defendants.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
I think the autumn preference would be to issue a decision on the

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
claim construction, because that would end the case.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
The district court has held in abeyance our motion to dismiss based on claim construction pending this court's decision, and so will likely take this court's decision into consideration in ruling on our motion to dismiss.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, with regard to the claim construction, we think there were at least three errors.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
First, the error with regard to that the door cannot have a sandwich panel.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
If you look at the specification

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Well, actually the prosecution history in Cold Chain, they specifically said that their door, the sandwich structures of Rowan Bush, which was the patent that they were trying to distinguish, are not the same as applicants claim structure.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
Rowan Bush sandwich panels, structures do not include a foam insulating material forming the second outermost surface.

[00:08:01] Speaker 03:
Here, Your Honor, we have a sandwich panel.

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
We have a thermoplastic layer.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
with foam with a second thermoplastic layer which was specifically disavowed by cold chain during their prosecution history and therefore it cannot be now used to find infringement.

[00:08:17] Speaker 05:
Not just the merits of the injunction, this is the merits of the infringement claim that you want us to decide under the guise of an appeal of a preliminary injunction.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
That's not even the standard we would apply.

[00:08:29] Speaker 05:
We would apply whether there's a likelihood of showing infringement, not whether

[00:08:34] Speaker 05:
the claim construction is actually correct and that there is infringement.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
Well, to find the likelihood of infringement, you have to have a proper claim construction, Your Honor.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
And the district court's claim construction was nowhere near proper.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
I mean, you just want us to jump ahead and give up some opinion that you think the district court will follow on the merit of the infringement claim.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
No, we would like this court to issue a proper claim construction because the district court completely ignored this court's rulings regarding how to do a proper claim construction.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
And if this court does not give guidance, the court will continue to ignore this court's claim construction rulings.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
and issue another decision that is erroneous, and we will be back up here on a second appeal, probably on a preliminary injunction, Your Honor.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
We have some case law that suggests that in an initial preliminary injunction, our claim construction might be, it's not the final claim construction necessarily.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
I think there was at least one case that I can remember where there was one claim construction at the preliminary injunction phase and a different claim construction in the final stage of the case.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Isn't what Judge Hughes is saying is correct?

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
Even if we were to say what a claim construction could be in the guise of likelihood of success, that doesn't tell you what the claim construction is for the case, necessarily.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
I think in this case it would because the claim construction relies on the prosecution history, the disavowal of the door and the patent or the alleged infringing product here.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
So if the court were to look at it and say, yes, they disavowed these particular elements based on the prosecution history, that would be the proper claim construction throughout the entire case.

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
because the prosecution history is not going to change.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
It is what it is.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
They disavowed a sandwich panel.

[00:10:29] Speaker 03:
They disavowed a door that is only flexible based on ridges in different zones.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
It specifically said that the material itself is flexible.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
The material here that the Alton panel and the K&L door made of is not flexible in itself.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
It is rigid.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
It is hard.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
We had a demonstrative before the court that showed that, Your Honors.

[00:10:53] Speaker 03:
And I see that my time is up, so I'm going, unless there's other questions, I will... We'll give you two minutes for a bottle.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
All right, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:11:05] Speaker 06:
Mr. Tackett.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
Your Honors, good morning.

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, my name is Christopher Tackett, here on behalf of... Why don't you try to join the patentee here?

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor,

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
I think context is important, okay?

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
So we have a case where a complaint was filed because we found out about this infringement and rampant unfair competition.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
The next day, we're in a TRO hearing.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
Then we have an injunction set for 10 days later.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
We exchange discovery due... I don't really care about any of that.

[00:11:39] Speaker 05:
Our case law on this, there's a lot of it, and it says

[00:11:43] Speaker 05:
that you have to have all substantial rights.

[00:11:45] Speaker 05:
And if you look at the case that is where we found a lack of substantial rights, it's when the patentee retains a right to sue, which is the case here, right?

[00:11:56] Speaker 05:
I'm going to man factor.

[00:11:57] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, the patent team in name only.

[00:12:01] Speaker 05:
Where do you say in name only?

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
What I mean is that the patent, the licensure's rights are so trivial that they don't exist.

[00:12:10] Speaker 05:
The licensure doesn't have the right to sue?

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
The licensor has the right to initiate suit and so does Ridge Corporation.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
But importantly, if the licensor initiates suit, your honor, Ridge Corporation has complete rights to control the suit and to settle it whenever they would want to.

[00:12:31] Speaker 05:
I mean, I don't know how that gets you out of our case law.

[00:12:35] Speaker 05:
They still have the right to sue.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
They have the right to initiate suit.

[00:12:40] Speaker 06:
That is correct, your honor.

[00:12:43] Speaker 06:
Their suit by granting a sublicense because the sublicense right is limited to situations where the sublicensee is purchasing from you Your honor I mean that's the cases we found it's illusory Not because the licensee can participate or manage the suit

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
So I want to answer Judge Dyke's question and also speak to your question, Judge Hughes.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
Judge Dyke, we could eliminate suit and moot it in many instances via sublicense, but I think you're correct that there is a restriction on our sublicense that's

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
put in there by Rich Corporation for its own purposes.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
The example given in Appellant's brief is that if Altam LLC, a component manufacturer, if Rich Corporation wanted to give a sublicense to that component manufacturer, they could not because

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
They can only give the sub licenses to door manufacturers because the patent invention is a door.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
We don't want to give a sub license to a component manufacturer that seeks to aid in competition against us.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
We want to exclude them, your honor.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
And if there is a suit initiated by cold chain instead of by Ridge Corporation, Ridge Corporation has the complete power to settle that suit.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
we have complete control over all decision-making in the suit.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
And the intent of the parties in the amended and restated license agreement that's in the record is that Ridge Corporation has all substantial rights.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
And they do, under the man factor, Your Honor.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
And the document filed in the docket that there was some reference to, it's in the district court docket at 63-1.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
I wouldn't suggest that we look beyond the terms of the license agreement, Your Honor, but this document is reflective of the intent of the parties that Ridge Corporation gets all-exclusive, all-substantial rights to the patent.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
And what Colchane says in the signed document that's filed in the district court is that they just claimed any ability to be involved in the action and that Ridge Corporation has complete control over the suit.

[00:15:12] Speaker 06:
To the question of infringement, the district court seemed to agree that the centillion standard wasn't satisfied here, but then seemed to go on and say that somehow Akamai changes centillion.

[00:15:24] Speaker 06:
That seems to be odd.

[00:15:26] Speaker 06:
Do you agree that the centillion standard's not satisfied here?

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, you're asking with respect to infringement?

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
I do not agree, Your Honor.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
Why not?

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
Rich Corporation showed a substantial likelihood of success on infringement.

[00:15:51] Speaker 06:
The evidence that's in the record... Centelion says that supplying software doesn't make you an infringer, direct infringer.

[00:16:01] Speaker 06:
And you haven't asserted induced infringement here.

[00:16:04] Speaker 06:
Why isn't that fatal to your infringement case?

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
Are you, Your Honor, you're asking with respect to the contributory infringement defendant solely?

[00:16:20] Speaker 06:
Go ahead.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
With respect to the contributory infringement.

[00:16:33] Speaker 06:
I'm confusing you.

[00:16:35] Speaker 06:
Go ahead.

[00:16:35] Speaker 06:
With respect to the claim construction,

[00:16:39] Speaker 06:
and the question of the second outermost door.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
So on claim construction with the one argument, there's about six different claim construction arguments that the appellants make.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
One is that the

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
that it is not the second outermost surface because outermost has to be the very farthest thing out.

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
It's essentially what they argue.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
They had a patent attorney give opinion testimony about that.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
But in doing so, they tried to read the word second out of the claims.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
So the patent says first outermost surface, then it says second outermost surface,

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
And they say that it has to be the only, has to be the last surface basically in order to meet the claim language.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
But dependent claim nine specifically says you can have additional layers on top of that second out of most surfaces.

[00:17:41] Speaker 06:
It says you can have an additional layer, claim nine.

[00:17:45] Speaker 06:
It doesn't say on top of it.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, it says that it would be directly after that second outermost surface.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
So yes, it does say that it would be on top of it.

[00:17:58] Speaker 06:
Item 9 says that?

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
It provides for additional layers, essentially.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
You have the first outermost surface, then the second outermost surface of insulating material, and then provides that additional layers can be added to that.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
So that's one of the arguments that they make.

[00:18:17] Speaker 06:
So the insulated overhead door further comprises an additional membrane.

[00:18:21] Speaker 06:
It doesn't say on top of the foam layer.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
The additional membrane can only be there if it's on top of that second outermost surface foam layer, Your Honor.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
It can't float.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
So that's what it provides for.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
There are several other infringement arguments that are made.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
One was discussed during the second arguing at council's position.

[00:18:54] Speaker 05:
There was discussion that... I want to take you back to the standing stuff again.

[00:19:00] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:19:01] Speaker 05:
Because you've said that you retain the ultimate right to settle anything.

[00:19:07] Speaker 05:
Where is that language coming from?

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
In the amendment, we say licensing agreement says that... Is that page 266 of the appendix?

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
Or is it a different part of the... Yeah, it begins at 260 as the cover page, Your Honor, and then goes on... What language are you referring to?

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
Are you referring to the language that's at the top paragraph on page 8266?

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
That is the section, Your Honor, that I'm looking at, yes.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
And what language in particular are you referring to?

[00:19:59] Speaker 05:
Is it down at the bottom, small room and numeral five?

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, the final control.

[00:20:08] Speaker 05:
But doesn't that refer to cases where the licensee initiates?

[00:20:15] Speaker 05:
And they can cooperatively do a case.

[00:20:19] Speaker 05:
It doesn't say anything about the first sentence, which is, both licensor and licensee shall have the right to initiate patent infringement action.

[00:20:32] Speaker 05:
You said that this is part of a long list of conditions to how to allocate cost and recovery in the course of the litigation if the licensee initiates a joint action.

[00:20:47] Speaker 05:
Isn't that true?

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, there's nothing in the agreement suggesting that Ridge would not retain this final say if Cold Chain were to initiate a suit.

[00:21:01] Speaker 05:
What do you mean by that?

[00:21:02] Speaker 05:
The plain language of this is it's part of a long paragraph talking about the licensees actions.

[00:21:10] Speaker 05:
There's nothing about the licensors actions.

[00:21:16] Speaker 05:
Why would you read a small sub-component of one to control all actions under the agreement?

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
I'm just going to follow up and say, you know, if you look at, this is one long sentence here.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
that's on page 266 and it says, if licensee initiates such action or the party's cooperative initiated joint action, and then it has all those things, it doesn't talk about the situation where the patent owner initiates the action alone.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:21:48] Speaker 05:
All it says about when somebody doesn't join is the non-initiating party shall provide all cooperation reasonable.

[00:21:57] Speaker 05:
It doesn't say you get a veto power or a final settlement.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
Not in express language, Your Honor.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
We will maintain that we have all substantial rights necessary for standing under man.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
I do understand what the core is raising.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
I see the sentence there.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
It begins a serial list.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
But there's nothing saying that the cooperation from Cold Chain would not include deferring to the exclusive licensees.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
strategic decisions and settlement demands of any case.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
And in almost every instance, Ridge Corporation could give out a sub-license that would separately nullify the suit.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
And the license agreement is very clear that Ridge has some suit.

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
If this goes back, are you going to get them included and joined?

[00:23:00] Speaker 05:
I'm sure that we would, Your Honor.

[00:23:02] Speaker 05:
So when did you do it in the first place?

[00:23:05] Speaker 05:
Because it seems like you've wasted a lot of our time coming up here when you should have just read our case law and seen that you wouldn't have had all substantial rights.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
We believe we do have all substantial rights.

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
This is emergency litigation.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
And we filed this acknowledgement

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
and within weeks of filing the case in which Cold Chain and Ridge Corporation state this in writing their intent with respect to the amended and restated licensing agreement that Ridge Corporation would have all substantial rights with respect to the suit.

[00:23:56] Speaker 06:
The patentee objects to being joined.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:24:00] Speaker 06:
Patentee objects to being joined?

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
I don't know that they have an objection.

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
They have no desire to be involved from a time standpoint.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
Their intent with respect to the amended and restated license agreement was to

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
have an exclusive licensee in Ridge Corporation whose rights would be tantamount.

[00:24:24] Speaker 05:
Then they should have written one that gave you all substantial rights rather than the one we have.

[00:24:32] Speaker 05:
I mean, when there's language that says the licensure retains the right to sue, there's very, very few circumstances that that's a transfer of all substantial rights.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
we believe that we have all substantial rights, Your Honor.

[00:24:50] Speaker 05:
You may believe it, but when you look at our case, that's not even a close question.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
Certainly, if this court directs that cold chain needs to be joined to the suit, we'll do that.

[00:25:06] Speaker 00:
There's still infringement.

[00:25:09] Speaker 00:
Everything that was ruled upon by the district court correctly construed the claims and found that

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
The three defendants were acting in concert infringing upon Ridge Corporation's exclusive patent rights.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
They were false marking across the industry in which the products were being sold and saying they had a patent when they did not have a patent, while they were infringing upon Ridge Corporation's patent rights.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
So certainly, and I can speak to any of the infringement issues, although the court doesn't seem

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
interested in going through them.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
I can speak to any of them, though, but the district court did correctly construe the claims.

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
And what you see in the arguments that appellants are raising with respect to the claims is the cardinal sin of trying to import limitations into the claims that aren't there, directly contrary to Phillips.

[00:26:19] Speaker 06:
Okay, I think we're out of time.

[00:26:21] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:26:21] Speaker 06:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:45] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, with regard to standing, it is our position that there is no statutory standing for the reasons that you addressed.

[00:26:54] Speaker 03:
I would like to address one particular point with regard to the subslicensee.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
There is, under the circumstance we have here, where K&L purchases panels from Altum

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
the license agreement between Cold Chain and Ridge would prohibit a sublicense in this case.

[00:27:11] Speaker 03:
In the very instance that we have here, the agreement would not allow a sublicense, meaning that the retained right to file an infringement suit is in no way illusory.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
You heard counsel say that they would seek to join Ridge in this case, and if this court therefore doesn't provide guidance to the district court on how to do a proper claim construction, we will be back up here on a preliminary injunction issue for this court to deal with it and address it.

[00:27:46] Speaker 03:
That is not a good use of anyone's time, particularly this court, as it seems like it's a very busy court.

[00:27:55] Speaker 03:
We would ask that you look at our claim construction arguments, particularly that the door is rigid and inflexible, where the patent history specifically says that the material itself is flexible.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
In looking at the dependent claim floor, which the ridge relies on, it even says that you can add depression gaps to make it more easily bend.

[00:28:19] Speaker 03:
Therefore, it presupposes that the door in of itself, without any ridges, without any grooves, bends.

[00:28:26] Speaker 03:
Ours does not, Your Honors.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
And in addition, excuse me, the door is not insulating.

[00:28:33] Speaker 03:
We had evidence that the door had a very low insulating rate, less than one.

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
The district court said we didn't.

[00:28:40] Speaker 06:
I think we're out of time.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:28:43] Speaker 06:
Thank you, all counsel.

[00:28:44] Speaker 06:
The case is submitted.

[00:28:46] Speaker 06:
I think we'll close that session for this morning.