[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our first argued case is Q-Technology versus Walmart, 22-24-1667.

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

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hushman, before you get started, I'm sorry.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Let me, as a matter of housekeeping as much as anything else, see if I understand.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
You've asserted three patents here.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
One of them, the 108, is clearly the focus of your argument and your brief and so forth.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
But the 473, I don't see that that patent says anything about location in the claims, the asserted claims.

[00:00:41] Speaker 03:
So I wonder whether that

[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
we can basically scratch that patent off the list.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
So the three patents, the parties and the court treated them as being equivalent.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
They're all in the same family.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
They come from the same spec.

[00:00:55] Speaker 02:
The 473, they do recite the location limitations and dependent claims.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
Well, but you've asserted, as I understand it, two claims.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
One is 14, and the other is 16 of the 473, neither of which, as far as I can see, says boo about location.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
If the court determines that location is the key element, then there might be some claims that do not benefit from the determination that you're asserting here.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
Say again?

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
Not the two that you're asserting here, I take it.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
Sorry, which two are we referring to?

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
Well, because I understood you were asserting 14 and 16 of the 473, isn't that right?

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
Yes, yes.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
But not the two that we're asserting here, correct.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
Those two claims don't contain the location on these.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
So to just get cut to the chase, we can basically say disregard the 473, right?

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're not arguing for the validity of the 473.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
We are, because in addition to the location, particularly at step two, we're also relying on the two dual pathway architecture.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
And so if the court finds that argument persuasive, then the 473 would still be in play.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
Well, I don't want to take up much of your time on this, but the arguments in your brief are focused on location.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
Yes, and so maybe I'll start there if the court doesn't mind.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
So thank you, and please, the court.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
The invention here is directed to a specific method that changes how computer file transfer works in three ways.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
First, it dispenses with URLs.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
Conventional file sharing uses URLs to specify where the file is and to provide access.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
Here, the server does that instead using a physical location and an ID.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
Second, it reverses the conventional process for how users retrieve the files.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
So instead of reaching out to the server with a request with the URL, instead the server notifies you when you're in the right location.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
And then third, it transfers the file through the server, but sends the ID directly from user to user.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
The ID by itself can't be used to get the file.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
So it can be sent over non-secure channels.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
So Your Honor, that's the third limitation that we're relying on.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
The district court found that these were essentially mental processes that could be performed with pencil and paper, sharing content using a unique identifier.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
So I think there's two responses to that.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
The first is the unique identifier in this claim does not function the way the district court believed it did.

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
So the district court's analogy or Walmart's analogy is that you provide a Dewey decimal and get back content.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Here, the claim actually, if you look at limitation, if you look at the claim itself, the claim is entirely location driven.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
And Walmart admits this at page 16 of their brief.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
So the determining limitation at step F, where the server determines that the user is within a particular location, then the server sends that user a notification.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
And then only the user can request the file.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
So the user can't just go up to the server and say, here is the ID.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
received the file.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
Instead, the whole process is triggered, as Wal-Mart's brief puts it, by the determining step.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
And so that's very different from a mental process.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
And more importantly, it's a specific method that changes how the prior art works.

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
So how would you define what's being communicated?

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
Would it be content, information,

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
It seems to me, at the end of the day, you're talking about information.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
So yes, we're talking about transferring information.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
One, that's a basic function of the computer.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
I kind of like the way you said the transferring information.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
And you transfer the information to somebody that you trust or that has this unique identifier, to the right person.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
Yes, but the unique identifier.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
Isn't that what's happening here?

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
You're transferring information to the right person?

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
In some sense, but this court has recognized in many cases that security is a. I kind of want you to answer my question.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
So what's happening here is, yes, you're transferring the information to certain people who are permitted to receive it.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
And that includes not just the ID.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
You're not just giving an ID to a trusted person who can then access it.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
But the limitation... How is that not abstract?

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
Because that's one piece of the claim.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
Where the claim actually starts is in limitation F where the location determination is being made.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
Now you've added the location determination.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
So it's not just like adding a location check, right?

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
So in the conventional process, what you would do is you'd go to the server, you'd say, I have the ID, please give me back the corresponding file.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
And that's not how the claim works.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
In the claim, in order to get the file, you have to go to the location,

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
And then, instead of reaching out to the server, the server tells you, here is available content.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
And only then do you provide the ID.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
So in this situation, or even the manner that you've described what the claims are directed to in your viewpoint, did we decide this issue in secured mail?

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
So no, because in secured mail, the QR code in that case was simply affixed to the outside of an envelope.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
And it provided metadata and information about the user, but it didn't change how the mail process worked itself.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
Here, the patent specifically contrasts the way the invention works against URL-based file transfer.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And what URL-based file transfer does is it uses a URL to show where the file is and provides it as a form of access.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
So for example, if you look at a Dropbox URL,

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
it'll have 20 random characters in it.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
And the reason is because a hacker can just try a million combination of possibilities and guess the URL otherwise.

[00:07:32] Speaker 02:
And so that makes it very inconvenient to transfer.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
And so what the invention does is it gets rid of the URL.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
So if I want to transfer a file to everybody in this room, I can upload it to Dropbox.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
I get a URL that's a million miles long that I have to tell everybody.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
Or I can get everybody's email address, and I can email it to them.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
and they might not want to provide me that.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
But with the invention, I can upload the file to this location, and I can tell everybody that the ID is Christmas photos.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
If this was a URL, a Russian hacker could guess Christmas photos easily.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
They use computers to guess millions of combinations.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
But the way the invention works, only people in this room will get a notification that this file is even available.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
and then they can reply with the ID Christmas photos.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
And if a hacker intercepts that, that's fine, because they're not in this room and they can't get access.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
But determination of location itself is an abstract idea.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
I agree that determination of a location is... And we have a number of cases that have basically said determining location is nothing inventive, nothing that qualifies as an invention.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
Yes, I agree.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
And determining location itself is not the focus of the claim.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
Instead, the focus of the claim is to replace a technical element of how file transfer works with a location and an ID.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
And so, for example, in TechSec, there was a question of whether most... Are you disclaiming the location element of the claim?

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
Not at all.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
We're saying that this is a scenario where the claim uses location, just like, for example, TechSec used

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
multi-level encryption.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
And the court there said multi-level encryption by itself might be an abstract idea.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
But what the claim is actually directed to is a method for file distribution that makes sure that only the right user can see different parts of the file.

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
And it's using multi-level encryption as a factor, but it is not directed to multi-level encryption.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
And similarly, on that note, I just want to briefly touch on step two.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
the claims using location, even if location is in some sense abstract.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
The conventional use of location is to locate physical objects, to tell you where you are in relation to the Starbucks.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
It is very unconventional to use location to provide access to digital files.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
And so here, location is being used to make a

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
function of the computer itself, file transfer, better and easier and more secure.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
And that's very similar to Weisner, where location, even if by itself is an abstract idea, was found at step two.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
If you use location to improve a different function of the computer, that can be eligible at least at step two.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
Do you make the location-based arguments before the district court?

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
We did.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
So if you look at appendix 4.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
I think it's fair to say.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
I mean, I looked at the places that you've cited where you make this allegations that location is critical.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
And there are only two places, and they're like one sentence each.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
So I think- Is there anything more than 1239 and 1252, I think?

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
So at 1246, there is a heading that says the specific improvement is found directly in the asserted claims.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
And we identify the specific improvement as what we call the flow of information, because it changes the protocol for file sharing.

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
We don't use the flow of information in our brief, but that term is defined at 1246 at the bottom.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
1246 46 of your of your brief.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
Oh, no, so sorry 1246 of the appendix of the appendix Yeah, but that is of your brief and in the yes, it's our SJ brief below and so at the bottom the heading says the Specific improvement is found directly in the asserted claims Well, yes, but you don't talk about as far as I can see the only places that you talk about locations

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
1239 and 1247.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
So we talk about a 1247.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
I mentioned 1247.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
So other than 1239 and 1247.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
Where is location discussed?

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
So location, at the bottom of 1246, we specifically say when we refer to the flow of communication, we use that, we define that to refer to the specific limitations, including E, which is the location determination, and G to I, which is the notification and the response.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
I mean, if I were at the district court, frankly, and I read the brief you submitted to the district court, and then I read the brief that you submitted to us,

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
I would have been very surprised to see that suddenly location becomes the centerpiece of your appeal.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
It was not.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
I think it's fair to say.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
I think it's fair to say that.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
It was not a centerpiece of your presentation to the district court.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
You would agree with me on that.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
It was not the centerpiece.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
But the argument that we made below and here is that the invention is directed to a specific method that improves prior file sharing, particularly URL-based file sharing.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
And at 1246 through 1247, what we call the flow of information below, we've used a kind of simpler terminology here.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
We specifically say that that includes limitation E of claim 10, which is the location determination, and limitation G through I, which is the notification that 1247, we talk about it in text.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
Counsel, you're entering your bulletin.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
You can continue or save it as you wish.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
I'm going to save it.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
Mr. Bell.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
Judge Lauren, may it please the court.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
Gabe Bell on behalf of the Appellee Walmart.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
I'd like to pick up where the court left off with the location-based limitations.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
I think the court grasps that it was not the centerpiece.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
It was mentioned in scattered places.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
And I think the proof is ultimately in the pudding below, where you look at the hearing that they did before the district court.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
And it was an extensive hearing.

[00:13:57] Speaker 04:
The district court explored all the issues.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
And location was mentioned exactly zero times.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
So even when the district court repeatedly said anything more, anything more, anything more, we didn't hear word one about location.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
But this presents us with a problem that we face frequently, which is an argument that is mentioned but not emphasized in the district court.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
It gets us into whether the argument was fully developed line of cases and so forth.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
This was mentioned in the brief.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
It was.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
And there is, in fact, I think at 1246, or 1247, a whole sentence is devoted to location.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
So what would you, if you were in our position, what would you say with respect to the question of whether this has been waived, given that it was discussed and took places in the brief?

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I think it's discussed at such a generic level and not connected to any particular technological advance.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
So certainly they mentioned the limitations in passing, as one would expect from anyone.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
But they didn't go on to spell out, and this is why it improves the technology.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
For that reason, I would say it's waived.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
But ultimately, I would say it doesn't matter.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
I would say it doesn't matter because, as the court has noted, making location-based determinations, this court has repeatedly found, including at BTIERO, for example, controlling access there to a bet, including making notifications to the users about the bet and then ultimately allowing or disallowing the bet based on the location.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
And that's not a one-off.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
There were location-based restrictions in bridge and post, for example.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
and in Sanderling, both of which phrased the abstract ideas there as focused on tailoring information and using IDs.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
So in Bridge and Post, the first patent in that case, the 574 patent, had a persistent ID.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
And this court said, although there were many other limitations, including restricting based on location, the claims were ultimately directed to sharing content or tailoring content based on a persistent ID.

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
So that's why I say it doesn't matter.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
What was the case you mentioned besides Bridging Post?

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
You mentioned one.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
Sanderling, your honor.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Sanderling.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
Sanderling.

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
Sanderling from 2023.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
It's a precedential decision.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
It was restricting the provision of software, actually, based on the user's location.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
And we didn't focus on this in our brief.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
I don't think you cited that.

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
We did.

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
We did cite it one time, Your Honor.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
So I don't want to... I can find the exact place.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Well, that's all right.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
I didn't see it in the table of cases.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
It was cited.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
It wasn't to focus.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
BT Arrow, I think, disposes of the location-based arguments by itself.

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
The others are just kind of icing on the cake.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
And so whether you combine the two abstractions, or whether you think of it as focused on the persistent ID, or excuse me, the unique ID, ultimately it's an abstraction that boils down to mental type steps, as this court said in Personal Web, where you had a content-based identifier, combined with other information processing functions, restricting access, sharing files, and deleting files.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
And this court said, although you can kind of chain these two things together, they're still both abstractions.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
And therefore, it doesn't make the overall claims any less abstract.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
I think we're squarely in that realm here, where you're talking about sharing content using an ID.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
I noticed when I checked in this morning at the desk, there was a QR code where I could go and get the information to log into the network.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
It was provided directly to me, and yet it went up to the network and provided me with information.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
I mean, the examples are endless, from the library context to the code check context to the package retrieval context.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
It's ultimately a commonplace concept that this court has repeatedly found abstract enemy.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
You know more about what goes on in this court than we do.

[00:17:56] Speaker 04:
Well, I wouldn't presume that, Your Honor.

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
But thank you.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
So I'm happy to answer any additional.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
You may have already addressed this point in what you just said.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
But just to make sure I have your position on this, Mr. Hashman is distinguishing

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
cases like Buteiro and Bridgenpost and Capuan by saying that they don't involve the actual transfer of information based on location.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
Buteiro involves eligibility of a gambling exercise based on location, but not the transfer of information.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
is, if I'm fairly characterizing his argument, is a kind of mechanical, computer-based functionality that is not only not abstract, but also, if need be, satisfies this claim, the requirement of part two of the Alice test.

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
if you can address that.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
Of course, Your Honor.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
I think that actually makes it more abstract than BTIERO, not less.

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
Because BTIERO actually had to control the functionality of whether you're allowed to make the bet.

[00:19:16] Speaker 04:
So that is information, I would argue, more complex information.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
And then in addition, if you look at... It's not information that's conveyed to the bettors, I understand.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
The bettor gets only one piece of information, which is

[00:19:29] Speaker 03:
You're not in an appropriate jurisdiction.

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
You're out.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
Thumbs up, thumbs down.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
That's the information.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
But if you look at a case like secured mail, there you are very clearly using a QR code that somebody has previously stored information that's associated with it on one end, and then transferring that QR code to somebody else to be hand-delivered, and that somebody else scans the QR code

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
and retrieves all that user-specific, recipient-specific information and can see it.

[00:19:57] Speaker 04:
So there's an example where information is transferred in, I would argue, almost exactly the way it's transferred here.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
So maybe a difference between this case and secured mail is that here we have the limitation of location.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
And how would that affect, let's say, secure mail?

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so I don't think it affects it at all.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
In secured mail, you effectively had a location-specific limitation built in because the mail goes to one recipient.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
So it's even more specific in the location restriction there.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
You have one person receiving it and scanning the QR code.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
You don't have the whole neighborhood learning about it or the whole world learning about it.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
It's exactly one location.

[00:20:37] Speaker 04:
So I think that's even more specific.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
But if you look at other cases where the location-based restrictions were even combined with using a user ID, for example, Bridge and Post was one such example, had both of those elements.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
and didn't make it any less abstract.

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
So you combine these kind of mental processes that are familiar in the real world, they're familiar in the computer context.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
My friend said that these don't require the use of URLs.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
I mean, the claims don't actually say that, but moreover, the specification points out that you can use a URL to transfer the content rather than sending the content directly.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
So there is a public URL that could be part of the system, so all the security limitations that they mentioned

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
They're not anywhere in the claims, and I think the specification refutes them.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
Likewise, the privacy concerns that he mentioned, not giving an email address.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
Again, the specification says you can read on a system that would provide an email address to access the content.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
This just points up the problem.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
These claims are generic in a way that ultimately reads on abstractions and general purpose computer components, not anything technologically advanced.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to answer further questions.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
Otherwise, I respectfully ask for the district court to be affirmed.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Bill.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hashem has three minutes for a bottle.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
So I just want to briefly address the waiver point very briefly.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
So the district court addressed the proximity determination of the appendix 8.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
He said the location is just part of the generic environment for performing the claim.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
And so that issue is before the court.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
We also addressed it at 1252 and 1253.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
We said it was directed to location-based file sharing.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
And then we criticized Walmart's library analogy for not including location.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
And so on the library analogy, which my friend here mentioned, fundamentally it has the same problem as DDR, which is that it doesn't confront the technical problem that is unique to computers.

[00:22:49] Speaker 02:
In the real world, location naturally limits access.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
But computers don't work like that.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
In a computer, you use a URL.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
to identify where the file is, and whether I'm here or whether it's a hacker in Russia, they can get access to the file if you have the URL.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
And so what the invention does is it changes how file transfer works by taking out the URL.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
The fact that it doesn't use a URL is not in the claim, but what the claim says is the way that you get the file is by going to the location and getting a notification, not using a URL.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
And you might use URLs somewhere else under the hood, but the claim doesn't require it.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
How is that like DDR?

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
In DDR, we were dealing with a claim that dealt with a technological solution to a technological problem.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
That's certainly not the case here.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
So in DDR, what you had was the analogy that the invention was just like having a store within a store.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
And what the court said in DDR is that analogy wasn't helpful because it didn't confront the technical problem that when you

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
click on a link, you're instantly transported somewhere else.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
Similarly here, you can say a library, it's similar to a library, and the library analogy doesn't work for various reasons.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
For example, the claims have two users and a server, and the Walmart analogy only has a patron and a librarian.

[00:24:17] Speaker 02:
But most importantly,

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
Computers, by default, don't operate the way where you walk up to a librarian and you have access to only what is in front of you.

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
Computers, by default, use URLs to provide access to everybody in the world equally.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
And so to get rid of the URL is itself a technical invention.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
It's very similar to the Unilock case.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
where the change in the protocol for how the invention worked was itself inventive.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
And finally, to look at secured mail and Batero, what's different in those cases, those cases don't change how the information is actually transferred.

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
So for example, secured mail adds metadata to it.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
But it uses a private address, right, which the invention doesn't require you to do.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
So the invention would be like taking mail delivery and changing, instead of using a residential address, changing it in a way where you could send a mail to everybody in a neighborhood without knowing who is in that neighborhood.

[00:25:16] Speaker 03:
It changes the way the delivery works.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
The TRO case, not a case in which the use of, for example, GPS to determine location, is a way to evade the problem of the URL.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
Because, obviously, the gambling institution has to determine where you're located.

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
URL sometimes can be helpful, but not necessarily.

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
a use of GPS to determine location is a way to evade the problems of the US URL.

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
Why isn't that

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
just such a situation in which you are using a different device to determine location.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
You're still using a URL in Botero.

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
You're adding a location tack on to it, which is not what we have here, which is if I am trying to get the file, I don't need the URL for it.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
I can go to the location and get it, and that's different.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
Also, Botero is the classic example where you're

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
You're solving a business problem.

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
You're not trying to make the computer itself easier to use.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
And to go back to the example of trying to share a file in this room, if I want to share a file with people in this room, it's very inconvenient to share a Dropbox URL with 20 random digits in it that are needed for security.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
And the invention allows me not to have to do that.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you to both counsel.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.