[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
We will hear argument next in number 232098, Wherever TV against Comcast.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. Sanders.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, my name is Adam Sanderson for the appellate Wherever TV.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Time permitting, I hope to address four issues.

[00:00:18] Speaker 02:
The first three relate to Wherever TV's appeal of the District Court's judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
The District Court determined that there was insufficient evidence as to two claim limitations.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
the IPG application, and the adding channels.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
As to these two claim limitations, it's worth noting that the district court judge assigned to the case was presiding over his first patent trial.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
You know, I once got into trouble making exactly that point from where you stand, and I would not advise you to go there.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Yeah, OK, that's fine.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
And Your Honor, these two claim limitations, the district court error.

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
The district court did not view wherever TV's evidence in the light most favorable to wherever TV.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
And the district court misconstrued the claims.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
The district court imported limitations and did so at the J-MAL stage.

[00:01:14] Speaker 02:
So I'll address those two limitations.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
And then third, I would like to address the alternative ground for affirmance that Comcast has raised relating to the distinct server limitation.

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
Comcast's argument there is that

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
If the court had adopted Comcast's proposed construction for that limitation, there would have been a finding of non-infringement.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
But Comcast overlooks the fact that a previous judge held a two-day evidence-year hearing and took live expert testimony about how a person of ordinary skill would understand that construction.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
And it would not be a de novo review.

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
And the evidence was overwhelming that Comcast's proposed construction was wrong.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
And last, I hope to address Comcast's cross appeal, where they argue indefiniteness.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
The first limitation is the IPG application.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
The court gave it its plain meaning.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
And let's assume that it does not, in fact, have a plain meaning.

[00:02:09] Speaker 04:
I think that's a vastly overused term, even when combined with plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:02:17] Speaker 04:
There are some pretty obvious challenges

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
on both the adding point and on the IPG about how much of the intelligence in producing information has to be local.

[00:02:36] Speaker 04:
So just get to how the spec or anything else helps us figure out the answer to that question.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
It does, Your Honor.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
And I think one of the errors that the district court is not focusing on what is being provided.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
The interactive programming guide application, the claim one requires the application to provide an interactive programming guide.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
The experts both testified that that's a graphical user interface.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
And it's not just graphics.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
It has to be interactive.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
So it has to respond to the user's inputs.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
If you've used television last 50 years, you're familiar with that.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
And that's in the specification.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
I would direct the court to column two, line 59 through 62.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
It's well-known, graphically interfaces.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
That is what an IPG is.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Claim one also tells us to whom is the interactive coding guide being provided.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
It's to the user.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
It's interactive by the user and it's a user configurable interactive programming guide.

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
What I'm hearing, but help me if this is your view, that essentially you think the IPG application, if construed, should be construed to require, but only require, the graphical user interface and that it's responsive to the user.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
It could do a bunch of other things too that are called out in the specification, but if it were construed as a matter of law, that's all it only need consists of those couple of things I listed.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
Is that your position?

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
I think that's right, Your Honor, and that's because that's what an interactive program guide is.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
and it is interactive to the user.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
But where the real meat of ClaimOne is, it's not just providing any interactive programming guide.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
It's providing one with these particular features in ClaimOne that make it different and special.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
So it's gotta be an application that provides a graphical user interface that provides that access to both these different types of content sources, traditional cable and satellite, as well as

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
these new modern streaming services.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
So what is your view then at their rule 50 motion?

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
What should the district court have done?

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
Should it have provided the construction according to what you and I just set out and let the case go to the jury or should the judge have done something else?

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
I think it really comes down to where to provide.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
I don't think anyone, even the experts, disputed what an interactive programming guide is.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
The question is whether it was, quote unquote, provided by the XR receiver application that we identified.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
The district court determined that it wasn't because there were programs in the cloud, according to the district court, that did, in the district court's mind, provide that interactive programming guide.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
But that was error because the testimony from our side as well was that none of those programs in the cloud have any ability to provide not only graphics, but receive the inputs from the user.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
The district code I believe used the word brains.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
The brains as far as Interactive Program Guide is on the set-top box.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
It's in the form of the XR receiver.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
So what should the court have done?

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you some questions?

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

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
When you say the brains, I mean, I think you're saying the word provides.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
I mean, I looked it up in a dictionary.

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
It says it's make available for use, right?

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
So the XR receiver, as I understand it, that renders the display, right?

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
It creates.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
It makes.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
takes whatever information it gets, the instructions it gets on how to render, it might get that from the server, but it is the thing that makes the display show, right?

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
It's like a graphics processor.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
And it's also the thing, do I remember, I just want to make sure I understand this correctly and then I'm going to let you talk, sorry, that the user also receives the user instructions, any user instruction and will send it to the server.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
And your view is that that, although it's not doing the entire job,

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
of making an IPG.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
It's enough to meet the claim language drifter says that the application provides an IPG.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor, because it's the most logical choice.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
It receives every button press that the user provides through the keyboard is captured by this program.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
No other program.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
This program, if it can't process it itself, and most of the times it doesn't, it packages it up.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
It creates a network connection to an application that runs in the cloud, sends the event up, gets data back.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
And what Comcast vocabulary is instructions, rendering instructions that come down from the cloud.

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
But the testimony from our expert is that is a data file formatted in JSON.

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
The only program capable in Comcast X1 system.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
Can there be two interactive program guides in this claim and it's a comprising claim?

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
There has to be an interactive program application installed on the device, right?

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
But could there also be one elsewhere?

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
That's yet, I believe, an error that the district court makes is if the district court believe that there is a application in the cloud that qualifies as an IPG application, claim one only requires an IPG application that provides.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
That is not to say there can't be two.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
And I would submit to you that the application that most directly provides the interactive programming guide to the user is the XI receiver.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
The other applications in the cloud are providing data, not an interactive programming guide, but Comcast would argue that they do enough to be deemed that.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
Are they in it?

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
Do they amount to an application, IPC application or claim one?

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
That's not mutually exclusive of the XR receiver being open IPC.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
Is this a fact question?

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
These are all fact questions.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
Your idea of provide is that if I have a little earpiece

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
And you asked me a question.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
I don't have the slightest idea what the answer is.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
But I've got the earpiece.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
And the network boss is now feeding the information.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
And I presented to you that's providing.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
And I do not mean to ask that in a skeptical way.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
I think that's what this amounts to.

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

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
I think this XR receiver does far more understanding than maybe that hypothetical you're giving.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
It's forming the words that are going to come out of my mouth and it's also listening through my ears to go back to somebody up north to get the information that will then be submitted to me and I will speak it.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
I would say it this way, if you've got a hearing piece and you're getting help from someone in another room and they're giving you information to respond back to me, I would say they're giving you data but they don't know what the user in the living room is asking for, they don't know what's being asked, they don't know how to draw it, but you do.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
So you take that information and with your knowledge and your expertise, you're the only program that can now say, I'm going to formulate that to an answer to this user.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
I don't know if that answers your question, but

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
These are fact questions, and I'll just crystallize it with one point.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
One of the important fact findings the district court made that was error was determining, well, the set-top box doesn't provide the interactive programming guide.

[00:10:24] Speaker 02:
It's provided in the cloud.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
I would ask, Your Honors, to consider Comcast's own document, Appendix 15889.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
And Comcast phone document says Parker is a set top box that has been enhanced to provide the Excalibur guide and core service functionality.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
of Comcast customers.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
I don't understand why there's not a claim construction dispute.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
A question of law here, for instance, with your back and forth with Judge Serrano, why shouldn't we do that as does provide include helps partially provides, but doesn't completely provide?

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Isn't that a question of what the patent is claiming?

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
I think that would be very helpful if we go back and we retry this case to get that construction that provide doesn't mean it has to do everything itself.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
But then I'm concerned your argument in places seems to be it's too late to construe these claims or at least it was at the first trial.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
Well, Comcast never proposed a construction for the word provided.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
Although we disputed many terms, I was not aware that was a dispute of that word until we got through the trial.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
And then after the close of evidence, that was the argument.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
I'm not saying they waived.

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
I'm not saying they didn't present it.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
We fought about a lot of things.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
And you didn't present a construction either.

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
We never proposed a construction.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
So now at this point, if there were a construction to be provided, there has to be a new trial anyway, right?

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
So there's no O2 micro problem, right?

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
The jury's gone home already.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
The only way to go back is to do it over.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
And we would need that, I believe, some instruction, because there's a dispute now, clearly, of what Provide is.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
And I would submit, respectfully, that Claim 1 already contemplates the idea that the IPG application doesn't do it all itself.

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
Can I just switch topics?

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
Yes, please do.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
So tell me if I've understood what is concretely in dispute.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
On the accused system, there's a set of icons that appear on the screen and you don't get to add icons.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
you as a user to the screen, but you do get to activate them.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
Um, and so one question is maybe even the only question is whether, um, without a further construction, um, the term adding, um, can encompass a notion of activating, not creating a new item on the display.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
Um, and I take it your position is the answer to that is yes.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
Um, and therefore without a construction, it was improper to grant.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
And if we were to say that, then the question would have to go back and there too, there would be a question.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
Well, maybe they're really off to be a claim construction.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
Um, and so you also want to persuade us that actually the concept of adding

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
is in fact sufficiently broad that it's not limited to creating a new symbol on the screen, on the display, but in fact making it a door that is open to the transmission of content.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
Yes and yes.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
And to answer that question, I think maybe what was lost, the district court, is that the antecedent of channels is channels of video content.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
So the confusion I would submit is that the court confused the offering of a channel with an actual channel of video content.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
So the offering of channel, all these content providers want consumers to know about their channels, want consumers to know about their video, movies, and television shows.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
So they're available to see the description, the titles of the movie, the channels through the guide.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
But aren't there aspects of the specification that suggest a distinction between adding a channel and subscribing to a channel?

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
And if that's right, then why isn't the adding, as I think Comcast says, really about changing what's on the display?

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
Yeah, there's nothing in the patent about changing the display.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
That's why Comcast proposed construction wasn't right.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
The site and the specification I'm familiar with that I think you may be referring to talks about adding or deleting channels or subscribing to a program.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
So when they're talking about subscribing to a program, it's like a pay-per-view program.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
Whereas adding and deleting channels is a lot of fun.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
But there's nothing in the spec about subscribing to Netflix.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
I would say there is in figure eight.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
So when Comcast moved for Jamal from the district court, they argued that figure eight is an illustration of how to add a channel.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
And we agree with that.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
Figure eight does provide a flowchart on how to add a channel.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
And the first step in the flowchart

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
is you view the IQG.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
The second step is you select your content source.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
I would submit to you that's the offering of a channel, that's the offering of Netflix.

[00:16:01] Speaker 02:
And then from there, you've got a decision tree, left or right, depending on what the content source is and whether you have a subscription already.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
And if you don't have a subscription, you may have to subscribe.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
I would respectfully submit that sometimes our argument

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
has been quite a little bit misstated.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
Subscribing is very often a step in adding a channel, but it is not required.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
You may already have a subscription relationship with Netflix.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
You've done it separately.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
So you may only need to provide your credentials to the system, so therefore the system knows.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
But you're right.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
You've activated that.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
It's undisputed, right?

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
That, I don't know, if Comcast doesn't have a Showtime icon, that nothing you can do to put one on the screen.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I can't.

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
And does that matter?

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
It's not the right analysis, but it matters because the district court sent the jury home in part based on that.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
I guess I'm thinking of a situation in which Conquest provides an icon, say Netflix, but it's as good as dead.

[00:17:17] Speaker 04:
It just doesn't do anything for you until you activate it.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
And then something, some other thing, Showtime, if that still exists,

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
to where it's not even on the screen.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
There's nothing you can do about that.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
You can activate the first, but there's nothing you can do about Showtime.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
The district court said at no point did Wherever TV prove that they could increase the number of channels that Comcast offers.

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
But nothing in the claims requires us to

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
increase new channels that Comcast offers.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
We don't have to do the IPG.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
That's what the district court said.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
Is it your view that both of those examples that Judge Charan just said would be adding, it's just the claims aren't limited to only the Showtime example?

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, yes.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
That would be my position.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
The claims don't, they would be added if I was to be able to literally force the IPG to offer a new icon of Showtime, like you said.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
So that in your view, it meets the claim to be able to do one kind of adding, even if you can't do another kind of adding.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
And I think that would be most closely followed what you see in both figure seven and figure eight, in that you are selecting

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
a channel that's already listed as an available option to be offered or the icon as you say, and then you've activated it.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
That's what figure seven, figure eight show is that it's a yes, yes.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
I just wanted to ask you about the claim, claim language.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
So an antecedent to adding or deleting channels is that each of the channels is selectable.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
And so I'm wondering if that impacts your claim construction at all.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
because it is comprising claims.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
It says each of the channels is selectable, and then later it says adding or deleting channels.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
Is that only channels that can be selected?

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
Yes, yes.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
So I would say I would start first with channels of video content.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
That's what we're talking about.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
That's the NSE at the very top.

[00:19:16] Speaker 02:
And I would say the plain and ordinary meaning of adding channels is you don't have the channel until you can watch the channel.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
You don't have it.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
If you want to come over to my house and watch the Super Bowl next week and you ask me, do you have ESPN because of Super Bowl?

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
And I say, I have it.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
What you're asking me is, can we select it and watch that Super Bowl?

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
And you're going to be disappointed if you come over.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
And I said, there it is.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
There's the ESPN icon.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
And then I select it.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
And then you and I are seeing a message saying, you really need to add it and subscribe to it or call your operator.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
So I think the whole part of claim one is directed at what you're saying.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
It's about channels of video content.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
selectable for receiving video programming.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
And this is also consistent with computer science.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Channel in general is just a data pathway over which data flows.

[00:20:04] Speaker 02:
A channel of video content is a pathway over which video flows.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
You don't have a channel.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
unless you can actually get the programming on the jam.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
That's what I would see.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
Just real quick.

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
You said figure eight is an embodiment of the claims.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
It's not the full scope of the claims, right?

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
It does not define the claims.

[00:20:24] Speaker 02:
And neither does figure seven.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
But they're illustrative.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
If I could turn and I know well over what what did you want to address it out there alternative?

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
Ground for affirmates, which was a distinct server limitation.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
I think we should go to the other side Thank you, and we restore your revival time plus I

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
I want to pick up on the adding or deleting discussion because I think there were some important comments made by Council on the other side.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
I think it's quite clear based on the specifications or throughout the patent that adding means adding a new content source, not one that already appears in the guide.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
And on the flip side, deleting means deleting a content source that does appear in the guide and no longer appears in the guide.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
So for example, figure three illustrates adding a channel called YuxTV to the guide.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
Some internet channel that I'm not sure if it exists anymore, but YuxTV

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
It talks about how a user who wants to add Yux TV to the guide can find Yux TV.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
It might not be available from Comcast, which is given as an example, or other providers.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
They can add Yux TV, they can have it appear in the guide, and they can assign it a channel number.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
And again, this is part and parcel of what the entire patch is talking about when it's talking about adding.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
You know, in the description of the prior art, for example, it talks a lot about how the traditional model is where the MSO, the cable company, rather than the user, is in control of what's available.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
Is there a particular language that you want to point us to in this specification that you're relying on for how you just described figure three?

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
Yes, absolutely.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
So the description of figure three comes, I think it's column 10, around line 30 to sort of 45.

[00:22:35] Speaker 01:
And so at 31 it talks about how the top row of that figure details the possible content available using the global IPG of the present invention.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
So that's the content that you can access using the invention.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
And then at 45

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
It gives the example of how, due to contractual limitations, a Monado Tokyo cable subscriber can't watch KABC because it's not offered by that cable company, Monado.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
And so the NA box, not available, appears.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
Then at, this is now in column 11, the top of the column line five, it talks about adding Yux TV, and it talks about how in the present invention... Is that like a comedy channel or something?

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
Honestly, I don't know.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
But it's certainly a channel not available from cable providers, cable companies.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
And so in the present invention, it allows the user to add Yux TV and program it to appear at channel 900, and then it allows the user to add other content subscriptions.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
So again, this is talking about channels that are not available, NA from the content providers.

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
I totally get how that's an example of adding.

[00:23:46] Speaker 03:
I just don't see what limits the scope of adding to that type of example.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
What can you point us to?

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
Yeah, absolutely.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
So I think, again, there are a number of places

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
In the present invention, for example, discussion, and this is at column six, it talks about how, and this is line four, the invention allows content based on user-defined preferences, not content availability restrictions provided by a content provider.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
At 10, it says users are not limited to an MSO, a cable company or content middleman, who limits or controls what content's available.

[00:24:22] Speaker 01:
And then starting at line 16, we have an example that I think sort of describes this case perfectly.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
It talks about how the user can add, delete programming channels in real time, so that's the claim language, adding and deleting, that might not be available to subscribe through MSOs.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
And it says IE, a user with a subscription to Time Warner Los Angeles, Comcast Philadelphia, might not have access to CCTV5.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
but could subscribe with CCTV five and integrate this channel into the IPG.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
So in, it uses the word ad and which it was agreed below meant adding to the IPG.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
It uses ad to refer to accessing a content source that wasn't already in the guide provided by the cable company.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
But doesn't it also say IE, you know, I said, for example,

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
So that may be one example.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
And I understand the argument from the other side that we're trying to import limitations from the specification into the claim.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
But the flip side has that they can't run away from throughout the specification.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
I can give more examples, too.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
He said, figure eight is an example of adding.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
Again.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
But even if so, the claims are generally not limited to the examples unless there's something that excludes

[00:25:37] Speaker 03:
the broader view that they would have.

[00:25:42] Speaker 03:
So I'm looking for what would tell me that one of SkillMeR would not read the claim language as broadly as the patentee is arguing for.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
So I understand the patentee's argument in this regard.

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
It's that the word add or delete means subscribe or unsubscribe.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
It includes that.

[00:26:02] Speaker 01:
And it includes subscribe or unsubscribe to channels that appear into the guide, or activate or deactivate icons that already appear in the guide.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
And I think there's sort of two key problems with that.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
I think the first is that the rest of the claim language requires configuring the guide.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
So actually moving things around on the guide, changing the appearance of the guide in terms of which channels are ordered, the configuration.

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
And I think subscribing and activating doesn't

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
I had understood, at least in the accused system, and I know I was asking about claim construction.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry to jump from one to the other, but the configuration could be going from a gray sort of, I can't

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
I can't access the content of the channel I see on the screen to now it looks black, so I can't access it.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
Wouldn't that qualify as configuring?

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
I don't think it would, Your Honor, because configuring, and there are a few places where it comes up in the spec, refers to actually rearranging the appearance of the guide, the order of the channels in the guide, going back to the... Even if this is, I don't think in dispute, this is not the way the district court got to a judgment on infringement.

[00:27:10] Speaker 03:
It's not an argument on appeal, I don't think.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
No, not at all.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
And sorry, I apologize for going down that road.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I mean, it was agreed below that everyone understood that this meant adding to the guide.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
And that is what the way their experts described it.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
He said it was crystal clear that this means adding to the guide.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
This is how they framed their plain and ordinary mean claim construction.

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
And so again, if you're subbing in the word subscribe or activate.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
Do I remember?

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
I thought that this was another limitation that was given plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
Am I wrong?

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
No, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:27:41] Speaker 01:
But at the Markman stage, wherever TV said that they asked for planning an ordinary meeting, which a skilled artisan would understand as adding or deleting to the guide.

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
So just to illustrate that it was understood below, and the reason why there wasn't a conversation about configuring is because the question was, can you add to the guide or remove from the guide, which I think precludes this sort of subscribing, activating understanding.

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
And then the spec itself, and a few of the figures, seven and eight, that we've been discussing, actually distinguish between subscribing and adding.

[00:28:15] Speaker 01:
So in figure eight, for example, and I believe counsel said this, subscribing may be one step of the process to adding a channel, but it's not the entire channel.

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
And in fact, in figure eight, there are a number of additional steps that have to be taken.

[00:28:30] Speaker 01:
So at step 800, it talks about adding a new content source,

[00:28:35] Speaker 01:
806 locating the new source, then on the backend at 808 and 810, there's downloading the metadata.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:28:43] Speaker 04:
I'm not, um, I think I'm not quite capturing getting the, um, the point you're trying to make with this.

[00:28:51] Speaker 04:
So what I was trying to respond to is subscribing is one part of adding and going from a gray icon.

[00:29:02] Speaker 04:
to a live icon by subscribing would seem to be included in adding?

[00:29:11] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:29:12] Speaker 01:
What I'm trying to clarify is that figure eight illustrates the full set of steps that have to be undertaken in order to add a channel.

[00:29:21] Speaker 01:
So merely subscribing to a channel that is already there isn't the way the figure and the specification describes the full flow of adding a channel to the guide.

[00:29:31] Speaker 01:
So adding is broader than and has a different meaning than subscribing and merely subscribing to a channel.

[00:29:37] Speaker 04:
So if Comcast in my earlier hypothetical on Tuesday doesn't have a Showtime icon and Comcast puts a Showtime icon on the screen on Wednesday, has Comcast added that channel, even though it's dead?

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
I think, under the understanding of adding, yes, Comcast has added that channel to the guide.

[00:30:03] Speaker 01:
It didn't appear in the guide before, and now it does.

[00:30:06] Speaker 01:
And we have the example of Netflix, where that was the case before 2012, a user, no matter how badly they wanted Netflix, could it add Netflix to the Comcast guide, then starting in 2016,

[00:30:18] Speaker 01:
Comcast added Netflix to the guide, and from there a user couldn't delete it, which is sort of the other side of the adding or deleting limitation.

[00:30:26] Speaker 01:
No matter how badly they didn't want Netflix to appear in their guide, it still appeared there.

[00:30:31] Speaker 03:
Isn't this discussion reflective of the fact that here there is a material dispute as to the scope of adding and deleting in the claims, and somebody needs to construe them as a matter of law?

[00:30:46] Speaker 01:
In the district court's view, which I think is correct, is that, in fact, the plain and ordinary meeting of the adding and deleting limitation doesn't stretch far enough to include the subscribing or activating understanding.

[00:30:58] Speaker 01:
To the extent there was a claim construction dispute, the district court could have resolved that before sending to the jury.

[00:31:04] Speaker 01:
I think the record's clear how the district court would have resolved it based on the reading of the patent that's in the district court's opinion.

[00:31:11] Speaker 01:
And it would have been a claim construction that excluded subscribing or activating for all of the reasons I've been giving.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
I think it was right to just give the limitations of their claim an ordinary meaning and find that the evidence didn't suffice, but I think it's ultimately immaterial if the district court had construed it and called it a construction rather than... The claim language says adding or deleting, so a system that didn't allow you to delete but did allow you to add could come within this.

[00:31:40] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:31:41] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:31:41] Speaker 04:
And what is the status of any validity challenges to this claim?

[00:31:48] Speaker 01:
So we raised the indefinite issue.

[00:31:51] Speaker 01:
There is another invalidity challenge we were raising at trial, which would still be open in a future retrial.

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
A prior art challenge?

[00:31:59] Speaker 01:
That wasn't resolved.

[00:32:02] Speaker 01:
If I may, I want to switch to the IPG application.

[00:32:04] Speaker 04:
And that was raised only as a defense?

[00:32:09] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:32:12] Speaker 01:
So in the colloquy with my friend on the other side, there's a lot of focus on the providing language, but the key language I think in the claim that we're disputing appears just before that, which is the claim language requires a very specific type of application to be installed on the device, an interactive program guide application that in turn provides user configurable IPG.

[00:32:36] Speaker 01:
And the meaning of interactive program guide application

[00:32:41] Speaker 01:
is an application that actually provides itself the interactive program guide.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
Provides itself in full with no assistance from anybody else.

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
I think it may be able to provide with some assistance, but it has to perform the functionality itself of that type of application, an interactive program guide application.

[00:33:00] Speaker 03:
And how do we know what that functionality, the functionality of an IPG application is?

[00:33:07] Speaker 03:
And most importantly, how do we know it's not

[00:33:09] Speaker 03:
limited or it's not satisfied by just the few things that are done on your accused receiver.

[00:33:18] Speaker 01:
So there was no dispute below that the XRE receiver does only two things.

[00:33:23] Speaker 01:
It displays pixel by pixel information rendering instructions it receives from the server in the cloud and it receives and transmits user input.

[00:33:35] Speaker 01:
Those two things do not constitute any of the functions described in figure four, for example.

[00:33:41] Speaker 01:
Which is exemplary and not the full scope of the claims.

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
Agree.

[00:33:45] Speaker 01:
And it is true, but again, it would be surprising if not a single one of those functions were performed by something that is an IPG application.

[00:33:53] Speaker 01:
And again, I think throughout the patent, from the title on down, it's talking about what an IPG application is and does.

[00:34:02] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you a question?

[00:34:04] Speaker 00:
Is there any place in the patent that talks about the importance of an IPG application that does all of these things that you're saying the IPG application does, being in a particular location or being a single application?

[00:34:21] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:34:23] Speaker 01:
So in a number of places, for example, at Column 7, Line 29, it's talking about an always connected portable set-top box.

[00:34:34] Speaker 01:
And that's where Wherever TV gets its name.

[00:34:38] Speaker 01:
The purpose was to have a self-contained

[00:34:41] Speaker 01:
a set-top box that would itself have the IPG application installed on the device, and you could move from place to place.

[00:34:49] Speaker 00:
As distinct from... Can you say column 7, line 29?

[00:34:52] Speaker 01:
I believe that's right.

[00:34:54] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, but why would that...

[00:34:57] Speaker 04:
portability mobility function, which the spec does talk about not be satisfied by a box that performs these very limited functions of creating a display and listening to the user, but sending and receiving everything of importance up to a server.

[00:35:18] Speaker 04:
And since it's, the server is going to be separate from the, you know, the Shanghai cable company.

[00:35:22] Speaker 04:
Um, all of this can be done.

[00:35:25] Speaker 04:
It's just that you, your box is enabling you to communicate with all of these functions in figure four, I guess, um, which are up in the cloud.

[00:35:36] Speaker 01:
In that scenario, you would have an application on the device that assists in providing or plays a role or connects to something that is providing, but it would not be an IPG application itself because the application on the device is not performing any of the functions that you just described.

[00:35:52] Speaker 00:
What about the function of rendering the display?

[00:35:58] Speaker 00:
And I think everybody would have to agree that there's not going to be any user configuration without at least

[00:36:05] Speaker 00:
the XR receiver sending what the user input was to this XR server, right?

[00:36:13] Speaker 01:
So that's true, but the claim only requires an IPG on the device.

[00:36:18] Speaker 01:
So whether or not the IPG that Comcast has in the cloud is alone sufficient to provide the entire thing.

[00:36:24] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:36:24] Speaker 00:
You're assuming an IPG application has to do more than the two functions I just identified.

[00:36:31] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:36:32] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:36:33] Speaker 00:
Going back to my question before where I asked you where, if anywhere in your specification,

[00:36:39] Speaker 00:
Does it say that it's very important for an IPG application to be in one place, or that there be one application that does it all with respect to the IPG?

[00:36:50] Speaker 00:
And you pointed out the language portable set-top box.

[00:36:53] Speaker 00:
Is there anything else?

[00:36:54] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:36:55] Speaker 01:
So another place I'd go is in the summary of invention at column eight.

[00:36:59] Speaker 01:
I believe it's around line 31.

[00:37:01] Speaker 01:
And it talks about how metadata related to the remotely stored content is transferred to and locally stored in the device in the form of the global IPG customized to the user's individual preferences.

[00:37:15] Speaker 01:
And then figure four, which is illustrative but again indicative of what the meaning of the term is in the claim.

[00:37:23] Speaker 01:
The description says, figure four is a conceptual architectural diagram of the global IPG application.

[00:37:29] Speaker 01:
So it is describing a set of functions that the global IPG application performs.

[00:37:36] Speaker 03:
Can I take you back to the first of your examples, just since it was first, which was column seven, lines 29 to 30, which says the present invention allows for an always-connected portable set-top box, regardless of internet service provider or MSO.

[00:37:54] Speaker 03:
That's what you were referring us to, right?

[00:37:56] Speaker 03:
What about that is telling one, a skill in the art, that it's important

[00:38:01] Speaker 03:
how much of the IPG application functions are stored locally in that set-top box as opposed to out in the cloud, when after all, it's talking about being always connected to the cloud, to the internet.

[00:38:17] Speaker 01:
So what that's talking about there is the connection to the MSO is for the provision of the content itself.

[00:38:24] Speaker 01:
The earlier in the specification, it talks about how the MSO

[00:38:28] Speaker 01:
is not in control of the guide and the user is in control of the guide.

[00:38:32] Speaker 01:
So that connection, by the terms that the specification describes the role of the global IPG of the invention, that connection is not providing the functionality of the guide that resides on the set-top box, precisely because the purpose was to sever the tie from the IPG application provided by an MSO or cable company like Comcast.

[00:38:53] Speaker 03:
then I guess help me on what part of 29 and 30 is responsive to Judge Stoll's question about show us where it's important or where the patent says it's important to have these things on the set-top box as opposed to elsewhere.

[00:39:10] Speaker 01:
So the portability of the set-top box in that example hinges on the fact that the IPG resides on the set-top box because the connection to the MSO or cable company is not providing the global IPG itself.

[00:39:25] Speaker 01:
So in order to have a set-top box that is portable in the way that they are describing it in that portion of the specification, the application itself has to reside on the set-top box itself and can't be coming from the source of the cloud.

[00:39:38] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that though.

[00:39:39] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:39:40] Speaker 00:
There's some inference being made there, right?

[00:39:45] Speaker 00:
I don't know, because it does say always connected to Judge Stark's point.

[00:39:50] Speaker 00:
Because if it's always connected, it really doesn't matter whether the IPG is on the set-top box or not, right?

[00:39:58] Speaker 00:
In order for the set-top box to be portable.

[00:40:01] Speaker 01:
I think it does matter, because it's important to the patent who is providing the interactive program guide application.

[00:40:07] Speaker 00:
And where do you get that from?

[00:40:09] Speaker 01:
So in the description of the present invention, it talks about how in column six, line four, it allows the user to access and view the same content through an identical IPG anywhere in the world.

[00:40:24] Speaker 00:
But that's just saying.

[00:40:27] Speaker 00:
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I read that when it says identical IPG as being the display itself, that it's always going to have the same content.

[00:40:37] Speaker 00:
Whether I decide that I want to

[00:40:39] Speaker 00:
look at my IPG and watch the game here at court or whether I want to do it at home, I'm going to get the same IPG.

[00:40:47] Speaker 00:
So how does that tell me that it's important that the IPG app be on the set-top box?

[00:40:54] Speaker 00:
I mean, all functionality of it.

[00:40:58] Speaker 01:
So again, I think it's the connection between the requirement from the claim of the IPG application installed on the device and

[00:41:08] Speaker 01:
the severing from the content availability restrictions provided by the content provider consolidator.

[00:41:14] Speaker 01:
And again, in the description of the prior art, it talks about the IPG being provided by the MSO and this allowing sort of a user-provided and controlled MSO.

[00:41:23] Speaker 01:
Something has to be on the box, and the only thing that was shown at trial was the renderer and the sort of passing of the instructions on the box, and that's

[00:41:33] Speaker 01:
quite far away from the plain and ordinary meaning, I think, of what an interactive program guide application, in much the same way that an external computer monitor performs that same function.

[00:41:44] Speaker 00:
And there's testimony, I think, from both two experts, one saying that an IPG application has to perform all of these functions and one saying it's sufficient that it only performed two, right?

[00:41:57] Speaker 01:
So there was no dispute about the two functions it performed.

[00:42:01] Speaker 00:
I'm just asking, is there contrary expert testimony on this point?

[00:42:07] Speaker 00:
That is the plain and ordinary meaning of what an IPG application is.

[00:42:14] Speaker 01:
I don't believe there's sort of specifically on this issue.

[00:42:17] Speaker 01:
There is talk in the argument before the judge on the Rule 50A motion about talking about the functions that the IPD application needs to perform and discussion of Figure 4 and then Figure 7 and 8.

[00:42:29] Speaker 00:
I don't think there's any expert testimony.

[00:42:35] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure that there's actually testimony going to this particular issue.

[00:42:38] Speaker 01:
I mean, there was a particular issue being the meaning of an IPG application.

[00:42:43] Speaker 01:
That's exactly right.

[00:42:44] Speaker 01:
I mean, there's conflicting testimony with respect to whether the limitation was satisfied, but I don't think there's anything specific talking about what an IPG application needs to be.

[00:42:55] Speaker 03:
But there is specific expert testimony from their expert that your device, your receiver has an IPG application within the scope of their understanding of the claim.

[00:43:06] Speaker 01:
Yes, but again, I think that conflicts the sort of shared understanding of the function we did in light of the meaning of the plain language.

[00:43:14] Speaker 03:
You're across the field.

[00:43:15] Speaker 03:
I'm just wondering, is it contingent, or do we need to reach it even if we agree with the judgment of non-infringement?

[00:43:23] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:43:23] Speaker 01:
If the court affirms on the non-infringement grounds, you don't need to address the cross-field.

[00:43:29] Speaker 01:
I'm happy to answer any questions about the cross-field.

[00:43:33] Speaker 04:
That's good.

[00:43:33] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:43:41] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:43:43] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I would disagree that at the trial there was an agreement between the experts that the XR receiver only does two things.

[00:43:54] Speaker 02:
There was actually evidence from wherever TV's expert that XR receiver does some of the things that are in the embodiment in figure four.

[00:44:02] Speaker 02:
It's not required.

[00:44:03] Speaker 02:
Figure four doesn't define the invention.

[00:44:06] Speaker 02:
And I would just ask the court to consider

[00:44:09] Speaker 02:
One of the functions of the Figure 4 is then content retrieval and viewing management.

[00:44:16] Speaker 02:
I would ask the court to consider Appendix 13942.

[00:44:19] Speaker 02:
Can you say that number again, please?

[00:44:23] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:44:24] Speaker 02:
Appendix 13942.

[00:44:27] Speaker 02:
I would also ask the court to consider for the feature and figure four label content organization management, the testimony from Dr. Easton that you can find at appendix 13957 to 58.

[00:44:43] Speaker 02:
There, Dr. Easton testified that the XRE receiver

[00:44:48] Speaker 02:
allows the user to organize the content by labeling channels as favorites or putting in parental codes, which nicely falls in within that feature of figure four.

[00:44:59] Speaker 02:
And there is more.

[00:45:01] Speaker 02:
But I would like to change.

[00:45:02] Speaker 04:
That one would be 306.

[00:45:04] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:45:05] Speaker 02:
Yes, that would be 306, your honor.

[00:45:08] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:45:11] Speaker 02:
And I would say 314 is device settings management.

[00:45:16] Speaker 02:
I would direct the court to consider Appendix 18869, which is a one-page document that shows how the XR receiver can control the network connections to these other devices in the cloud.

[00:45:30] Speaker 02:
So there was more evidence than just XR receiver does two things.

[00:45:34] Speaker 03:
And did your experts say something in front of the jury about what his understanding of an IPG application within the meaning of the claims is?

[00:45:42] Speaker 03:
Where could we find that?

[00:45:45] Speaker 02:
What's in my brief?

[00:45:46] Speaker 02:
It's in our brief, what he said on that topic.

[00:45:48] Speaker 02:
And what he said there is, does Comcast X1 include an IPG application on the set-top box that does these things?

[00:45:56] Speaker 02:
He said, yes.

[00:45:57] Speaker 02:
It's XI receiver.

[00:45:58] Speaker 02:
And then he proceeded to explain.

[00:46:00] Speaker 02:
But the sites are in my brief.

[00:46:04] Speaker 02:
As far as does the IPG application have to exist as a self-contained program on a particular device and do everything, it doesn't.

[00:46:16] Speaker 02:
And I would ask the court to consider the embodiment that is figure 2a in the patent.

[00:46:22] Speaker 02:
And when you see that embodiment, you'll see that there's actually a distributed version of the IPG application.

[00:46:30] Speaker 00:
I thought as I looked at that figure, one of those elements, the one that's not in what appears to be a cell phone, it's like set top box 157 or 158 or something like that.

[00:46:46] Speaker 00:
I thought that that is described in the patent specification simply as being something that receives the video programming.

[00:46:53] Speaker 00:
Nowhere does it say that it's responsible for generating an IPG.

[00:46:59] Speaker 00:
But if I'm wrong about that, please tell me.

[00:47:02] Speaker 00:
During the specification, it says that that element does something for the IPG.

[00:47:07] Speaker 02:
I'll tell you what I was going to ask you to consider.

[00:47:09] Speaker 02:
It's in column nine, blind.

[00:47:16] Speaker 02:
30 to 33, and in that line, in that part of the spec, it says, in this embodiment, the global IPG-12, located on the MMAD-14, which is one device, communicates with a segment of the global IPG code 154, located on a television operating system motherboard.

[00:47:36] Speaker 02:
My only point being that what they got there is an IPG application that has been distributed on two different devices, and they're in communication with one another.

[00:47:45] Speaker 02:
I don't believe it goes further to talk about what features exist on one versus the other, except to then specify and say in this embodiment, the video content, the movies, the television shows are not coming, are passing through the device, the MMD-14.

[00:48:03] Speaker 02:
Instead, in that situation, the MMD-14 is orchestrating the delivery of the video

[00:48:09] Speaker 02:
directly from the content providers to the television for network bottleneck issues or optimization issues.

[00:48:15] Speaker 04:
Can I just ask one question?

[00:48:17] Speaker 04:
If you look at the right near the top of column six, this is the present invention allows a user to access and view the same content through an identical IPG anywhere in the world.

[00:48:29] Speaker 04:
Internet connections available based on user-defined preferences, not content availability restrictions.

[00:48:35] Speaker 04:
provided by a content provider or consolidator such as an MSO.

[00:48:40] Speaker 04:
One thing you could say is that's not restrictive of the claim language, but I'm curious, when the server

[00:48:52] Speaker 04:
separate machine from the, you know, the head and content machine is owned and run by the head and content machine owner by the cable system.

[00:49:07] Speaker 04:
This sentence would not be true, right?

[00:49:10] Speaker 04:
So a Comcast owned and run

[00:49:16] Speaker 04:
server with an IPG would in fact be restricted to whatever content, to whatever content Comcast chooses to put on that.

[00:49:29] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure I understand the question, and it's probably my fault.

[00:49:35] Speaker 02:
Could you repeat it again?

[00:49:36] Speaker 04:
If you want Showtime and your own format, you can't get it from Comcast.

[00:49:44] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:49:44] Speaker 04:
So this sentence would not apply.

[00:49:48] Speaker 04:
I think as I say, I mean, if there was a discussion, maybe this is not restrictive, but this wouldn't be right.

[00:49:55] Speaker 04:
This would not be that this would not apply in the case of

[00:50:02] Speaker 02:
The term that the Senate says, the President... The first sentence, yes, from line 4 to line 13.

[00:50:07] Speaker 02:
The present invention allows a user to access and view the same content through an identical IPG anywhere in the world, an internet connection is available, and is based on user-defined preferences, not content availability restrictions provided by a content provider or consolidator, such as MSO.

[00:50:26] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:50:26] Speaker 04:
If Comcast won't let you put Showtime on and won't let you fiddle with the organization, then that sentence is not true.

[00:50:34] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:50:34] Speaker 02:
If, if Comcast had designed their platform differently and didn't allow you to access other content from other content providers through their servers and that sentence wouldn't be true.

[00:50:43] Speaker 02:
It doesn't restrict the invention.

[00:50:44] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:50:46] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:50:47] Speaker 02:
Yeah, and I think that's one of the arguments is.

[00:50:52] Speaker 04:
And you are out of time.

[00:50:53] Speaker 02:
So anything you need to say, it better be new.

[00:50:56] Speaker 02:
I think you have to go.

[00:50:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you for your time.

[00:50:59] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:51:00] Speaker 04:
Thanks, all counsel.

[00:51:01] Speaker 04:
The case is submitted, and that completes our business for the day.

[00:51:05] Speaker 04:
So we will stand in recess.