[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
And that leads to our final case for this morning, number 25, 1254 Ridge Corporation v. Kirk National Lease.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Okay, Ms. Carwell.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Good morning, your honors. Tiffany Carwile here on behalf of Altum LLC.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
May it please the court. The last time I was here, I had requested that the court conduct a claim construction because it appeared that the district court was confused regarding this court's case law. Seemingly, in response to that request, this court advised the district court to reconsider the party's arguments. Unfortunately, the district court did not do that. So I am again asking this court to conduct a proper claim construction in the hope that we will not be back up here for a third appeal. There are three key terms that the court did not properly construe.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
Flexible along the entire length of the panel, a first outermost surface, a second outermost surface, and insulated. A proper claim construction of any of these three terms demonstrates not only that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, but that they will fail on their infringement claim.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
Unless the court wants to start elsewhere, the first term to be construed is flexibility.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
The plain language of the term flexible along the entire length of the panel is that it's innately flexible, that any point of that panel can be flexed.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
And this is confirmed by dependent claim four, which says that compression gaps can be added to make the panel more easily bend. Therefore, it's presuming that the panel on claim one already bends. It doesn't bend because of compression gaps. It bends because of the materials chosen for the panel are flexible on their own. And, Your Honors, this is confirmed by the clear disavowal in the prosecution history relating to the flexibility.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
If you look at Appendix 1700, it says that the flexibility of both the thermoplastic membrane and the foam from which the panel is made that allow the panel to flex along the tracks. It is the material itself that allows flexibility, not any addition of grooves, compression gaps, hinges, or whatnot. And then it goes on. The foam and the liner chosen for the panel are designed to flex. Flexibility is a property of the material chosen for the panel.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
And then it goes on, it is the material itself that flexes. And that this is specifically related to the addition of the language flexible along the entire length of the panel. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, this language, this disavowal does not relate to the language that was not accepted about not having hinges. This language was specifically to the flexible along the entire length language.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
Can I ask, if you're right about that claim construction, is there a dispute that might have to be resolved on remand about whether the accused doors come within the flexible at every point, as you say?

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor. The panel we present, I don't have the demonstrative here, but the panel was offered as an exhibit to the trial court. That panel, you can't bend it. It is as hard as the wood, as hard as any other, the hard surfaces.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
You can't bend it aside from the particular panel. Was there testimony about that? You can't bend it?

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
There was testimony from the witnesses, particularly Dominic Grandominico. He testified. He was the one that we introduced the panel with, and he showed during his testimony that you can't bend that panel, Your Honor. And so that is in the trial testimony. I don't have the exact details. page number for that, but that was his testimony at the trial court.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
In addition, there has been no, first of all, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to put forward evidence that at this stage it meets all, that the product meets all the limitations in the patent. And they have never said that the Alton panel or the K&L door is flexible on its own. They presented no evidence that it can flex on its own. And the only evidence before the trial court was that it is completely inflexible and that the only way it can go above the tracks.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
So for purposes of review of the preliminary injunction, all we would need to say is there has to be this kind of pervasive flexibility.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
The claim construction, to the contrary, by the district court was wrong and There is no evidence showing a likely or probably even argument showing a likelihood of success of infringement under the now newly adopted claim construction, but that would leave the case still intact and there could be litigation about that later. Your Honor, I would say you might think you might make a motion for summary judgment or something, but that's not what we are dealing with.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
That is correct. That is not what you're doing. However, we do already have a motion to dismiss pending based and it's pending waiting for this court's decision on a claim construction. But that is not for this court at this time. So if the court does find that the flexibility does require innate flexibility, the only evidence is that the panel is not flexible. And so the court would need to reverse the trial determination on the preliminary injunction. With regard to the second factor, the first outermost surface, second outermost surface, This is also clear from the patent what that means.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
If you look at, excuse me, the patent, it says that the thermopl- Permit a sandwich composition. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
It doesn't permit a sandwich composition.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
That is correct. So tell me if I'm thinking of this right. It clearly doesn't permit a completely sandwiched composition. I took the other side to be making the argument that when you have the little grooves in the foam, that while most of the outer surface opposite the truly outer surface is covered in the thermoplastic, there will be these grooves that are kind of nakedly exposed to the outside.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
So on those places, it's the foam that is the outer surface.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, they do make that argument. However, if you look at the wording of the patent... There's only one outer surface on each side. Correct. There's only one outer surface, and it says the outer surface of the door. So it's not a silver of the door. It's the entire door. They made a clear disavowal also during the... I think I understand that. I'm sorry.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
And then on the third point, the insulating, insulated, what do you think the proper construction is?

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor. With regard to insulating, our position is that insulating is specific to R-value and that the only R-value listed in the patent is 14 to 50.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
Wait a second. You can't argue that it has to be that specific R-value.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor. I'm not saying that it has to be 14 to 50. I would say that if you look at the UltraVision case that this court came down with a few years ago, that in that case it was an IP, an ingress protection for waterproof.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
Is your argument that insulating means it has to be a door that's sufficiently insulated to serve as a door of a refrigeration unit?

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Correct. And also that the only information in the patent with regard to that is at least 14 R value. And that is similar, almost directly analogous to the UltraVision case that was dealing with waterproof in the district court.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
I don't think you can argue that it has to be 14.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
I would just refer this court to the UltraVision case. That had a very similar fact pattern where it was an IP, ingress protection, and the patent said 65 to 68. The district court said the claim construction for waterproof would be an IP of 65 or greater, and this court upheld it. saying that everything in the patent affirmed that, and the same is true here, Your Honor. Everything in the patent affirms a 14 or greater. However, even if the court disagrees, it is clear from the patent that it has to be suitable for use in cold storage.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
And the door that we have, the only testimony is that it cannot be used in cold storage because its R value is minuscule. And so for that reason also, this court could reverse and should reverse the preliminary injunction. And I believe my time is almost up. Can I just double check? Of course.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
So there's a patent infringement claim here, and then there are two other claims. One is a state law tortious interference with contract claim, and then there's a false marking claim.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
And I guess...

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
Would I understand correctly that as to those, we don't need to reach the likelihood of success that your core pitch sufficient to reverse the preliminary injunction is that both of those rest on conduct that is distinctly in the past for which there's no likelihood of repetition in the future?

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
I would agree, yes. In additional, with regard to the interference, the court, particularly for Alton, didn't find that there was any likelihood of success at this point in time on that state law claim. So we didn't address that because the court found in our favor. at least Altam's favor, with regard to that. And yes, with regard to the patent, the false marking, that is sufficiently in the past, and there's no reason to have a preliminary injunction, and particularly a preliminary injunction regarding infringement with regard to an alleged false marking.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
Does the non-infringement part of the injunction matter to you all?

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
Not to Altam, Your Honor, but it very well could matter to my co-counsel, K&L.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
Okay. Well, let's hear from Ms. Watt.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
May it please the court? My name is Melissa Watt, and I represent the K&L defendants, which are Kirk National Lease Company and Truck and Trailer Parts Solution. And I will be addressing the trial court's error in failing to give construction to the term second outermost surface specifically.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
What about the rest of the injunction?

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry? Does it matter? So the non-patent claims matter.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
The non-patent infringement claims, false marking is a... Yes.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
Yes. So the remaining claims that are a portion of this court's order do matter to our client, partially for the reasons that have already been pointed out, because they rely on past conduct, that there is no evidence that they are likely to reoccur, but also because... The past conduct is the claim that your product was patented?

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
The past conduct of it is the basis of the non-patent claims.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
It was based on an assertion that you had argued that your product was patented when it wasn't.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
That's part of it. Part of the prior conduct was a letter that referred to, and some marketing that referred to the door, the handle door as patented as opposed to patent pending.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
So that was a portion of it, but the reason that it's significant here, and it matters for the injunction specifically, is because not only was it past conduct that's not likely to reoccur, but it also, the conduct that's been enjoined by the injunction is not narrowly tailored to... What's the other conduct besides the false claim of being patented? The letter that related to being patented was sent to a customer or one of... Put aside the false claim of its being patented.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
Is there anything else?

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
There were some other arguments that were made by Ridge relating to the product in the market and having some impact on quality, but there wasn't substantial evidence to solidify their opinion that the door being produced and being sold would have any concrete impact going forward, partially because at the time of the first injunction issued... That sounds like an irreparable injury argument.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry? It sounds like an irreparable injury argument. What else is there in the injunction? We've got the patented issue as to whether it was patent infringement. We've got the past false claim that your product was patented when it wasn't. Is there anything else, or is that the whole universe of liability issues?

[00:13:50] Speaker 01:
So So aside from what was argued as the misleading marketing as patented, which relates to the letter that was sent, Ridge also made arguments that the product was inferior and so would have an impact on Ridge's… That's irreparable injury.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
That's not the liability issue.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
The trial court did cite to, at a high level, market share and price erosion.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
Same problem. That's irreparable injury. It's not a liability issue.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
To my knowledge and my understanding, that is the extent of the evidence in the record relating to that.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Go ahead. You're out of time, but we'll give you a little bit more time.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Well, as to the second outermost surface of the door, if you look at the preamble, it sets forth that what is – for claim one, what is set forth is an insulated overhead door that has six sides that include the top, the bottom, the first side, the second side, the first outermost surface, and the second outermost surface. And then the claim sets forth – The insulated door comprising six elements. So the first outermost surface, which must be the thermoplastic layer. The second outermost surface of the door, which must be made out of foam.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
and then discusses how those are formed together to create a panel. But the district court in their construction ignored the word outermost and concluded that the required foam layer is necessarily the second outermost surface of the door simply due to the fact that the layer is foam. But this definition gives no effect to the word outermost because any foam surface that is opposite the first outermost surface at that point that is of the requisite size would fit this definition.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
The interpretation isn't exactly backwards based on the patent because which layer is outermost is determined by the configuration of the layers, not the material of the layers. And the claims do not define the outermost surface of the door as the foam insulating layer. Rather, the claims first require the door to have a second outermost surface and then require that the second outermost surface of the door be formed from a foam insulating material.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
And with that, I think we're out of time. Thank you.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
Mr. Tackett.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, Your Honors, may it please the Court, Christopher Tackett on behalf of Appalachian Cold Chain and Ridge Corporation.

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
the district court correctly construed the patent and found a likelihood of success on the merits on the patent. I can go through those items that my colleague on the other side of the V was discussing. I'm happy to jump right into those.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
Insulating, yes, Your Honor. Insulating.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
Start with the one that she started with, which, if you would, the flexible at every point.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
Sure, I'd be happy to do so. So the most important aspect of that one is the words that opposing counsel left out, right? Insulating along its length so as to approximate the curvature of the door frame.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
The insulating is defined only with respect to the ability to traverse the curvature of the door frame, which the accused or pardon me.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
So it's defined in the claim, Your Honor, solely with respect to its ability to approximate the curvature of the door frame. OK, and the accused or does this as the district court found the the dependent claim for tells us that there can be ridges compression gaps put into the door to assist it with. traversing the curvature of the door frame.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
So this idea that the material must be so flexible as to bend on its own is not representative of what the claims say, Your Honor.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
The biggest issue and where opposing counsel spends the most time in their brief is is talking about insulating and what that means.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
And I think, Your Honor, Judge Dyke... It has to mean a door that can be used in a refrigeration unit, right? A cooling unit.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor. No. Absolutely not.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
Dependent Claim 14... It's part of the way the spec tells you it is, right?

[00:19:07] Speaker 02:
No, no, Your Honor. The summary of the invention says that the invention taught under the patent provides many potential benefits over the prior arts. Okay, one of them is the elimination of seams in the door so you have a flat surface so you can put decals on for... What does that have to do with insulating?

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
It insulates from light, from sound, from dirt, debris. The idea that heat... Yes, Your Honor. The idea that heat...

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
Where in the specification does it talk about insulating from sand?

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
It does not. It uses the word insulating, Your Honor. And so insulating is not limited by its barest form. It's not limited to protection from heat transfer.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
Is there any discussion of other kinds of insulation, like electrical insulation or sound or light or dirt?

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
So there is discussion about the elimination of horizontal seams from the door, which allows for a clean, uninterrupted surface, which has the benefit of keeping out the other elements, not just heat, and also allowing for a flat surface on which advertisement can be placed.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
Where does the spec say it keeps out dirt, sound, whatever?

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
So the summary of the invention talks about how the elimination of the seams is one of the benefits. Okay, so that's what I'm pointing to there.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
So you're saying it doesn't actually talk about insulating from anything except heat.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
The claims themselves don't talk about... The spec doesn't talk about it either.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
not that I recall specifically, I think the spec spends a good deal of time talking about preferred, certain preferred embodiments, which under this court's case law do not dictate how we read the claims.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
Um, The claims themselves don't tell us that there's any particular R-value that needs to be reached.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
Right, but I think as some of the earlier discussion, I think, indicated, it's a different point that a particular R-value like 14 is required. That's a harder sell than to say it has to provide enough insulation for so that it would be useful for what in the industry is understood to be a category of refrigerated containers or possibly even freezer containers.

[00:21:53] Speaker 04:
So those are two separate things.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
I took it that, I don't know, you were making a point, and I'm not sure really whether you were. Are you disputing that in the industry— the industry whose skilled artisans would be reading this, that they wouldn't really understand there to be this recognizable category of doors for freezing, doors for refrigeration, and then, you know, other doors.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
In the industry, there would be doors that you would use for cold storage, absolutely. The patent just doesn't contain such a limitation.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
And you're including both freezers and refrigerators in cold storage. Is that right?

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
Yeah, those would be different. Now, those would be different levels, different specifications. Right.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
But the patent doesn't The independent claims don't require that. And dependent claim 14 and the doctrine of claim differentiation also tell us that the patent doesn't teach that specifically.

[00:23:03] Speaker 04:
But if the industry recognizes this categorization of different kind of container doors, why isn't it a natural understanding of the word insulation here in light of the spec?

[00:23:23] Speaker 04:
to mean a door suitable for that industry-recognized category, the cold storage category.

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
I can only take insulating by its plain meaning. I can't inject a certain specification into it. I think I would do dishonor to the patent by doing that and to the dictates of claim construction, Your Honor. If the If Wachtell wanted it to be cold storage, he would have said so, right? And if Wachtell wanted it to be you've got to hit an R value of 14, it would have said so in the independent claims.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
It does not, okay?

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
I think the summary of the invention is important because it talks about the different benefits over the prior art. One of the main benefits is the elimination of the horizontal seams. Another of the main benefits is it's lightweight. If you have a worker on the back of a truck... You can't have the word insulated in there at all.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
The benefit over the prior art of Raoul and Bush is eliminating these openings...

[00:24:38] Speaker 03:
So why, if that's the invention, why have the word insulated?

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm going to answer your question right now. I wasn't avoiding it. The patent, under its plain terms, it says that the thermoplastic layer by itself is insulating, which counters against the notion that the word insulating inherently means cold storage.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
So the first layer, the first outermost surface, the thermoplastic layer is called insulating. So we know from that that it doesn't mean cold storage only.

[00:25:16] Speaker 03:
I have no idea what you're saying.

[00:25:19] Speaker 02:
The first outermost surface is a sheet, a continuous sheet of thermoplastic.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
It would not. A sheet of thermoplastic is never going to be good enough for cold storage. It wouldn't be insulating. That's what I'm saying, Your Honor. So the wording in the patent describes that first outermost surface, the thermoplastic layer, as being insulating. And that's really important, I think. Where is that? When it's describing the first outermost surface in claim one, It uses the word insulating, describing that first outermost surface.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
Can you just give me a line number? Okay.

[00:26:19] Speaker 03:
I'm not seeing any reference to that as being insulated.

[00:26:53] Speaker 02:
I don't have it right in front of me, Your Honor. I don't want to take the court's time reading line by line. It's in our brief. I recall it from our brief.

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
I do want to touch on the outermost surfaces point since I was just discussing it. It's important to remember that we're talking about a door, right? So if you're standing on the outside of a truck, This would be the door, right? The first outermost surface is the first thing you see. That's the thermoplastic. The second outermost surface is the continuous layer of foam, okay?

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
That's the second outermost surface.

[00:27:38] Speaker 04:
Unless there's something on the other side of it.

[00:27:42] Speaker 04:
And then it's not outermost at all. It's completely inside.

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
That reading, I disagree respectfully. That reading removes the word first and second because there could be a third outermost.

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
You're measuring distance from the outside, right? This is the first outermost, the face of the door. Second outermost would be the phone. If you have that optional additional layer that's discussed in Dependent Claim 9, it would be just as true to call that the third outermost surface.

[00:28:19] Speaker 02:
And the patent specifically tells us that you can have that additional covering.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
So it's very specific in Claim 9, and that covering could be made of plastic, it can be made of cloth. There's different options, but it's specifically provided in that dependent claim that you can add additional layers so that the Reading that in to say this can't read on the patent, or I'm sorry, that the patent can't read on the accused's door, it's not harmonious with what we see in dependent claim nine.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
I don't think you need to look at extrinsic evidence whatsoever here. And the district court said, we don't think you need to either. But Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. If you just look at page 20 of our brief, there is a full-page printout of Appellant Altum's marketing materials. They say the PET foam is an excellent insulator.

[00:29:34] Speaker 02:
They remark it bends. It's not rigid like some of the competitors.

[00:29:41] Speaker 02:
Now, I don't think you need to get there, but Their marketing is the opposite of the positions that they're taking.

[00:29:49] Speaker 02:
And so I think that picture is truly worth a thousand words.

[00:29:55] Speaker 02:
The principal of Altum, Dominic Grandominico, he tried to provide expert testimony in the second injunction here.

[00:30:03] Speaker 02:
He relied on a book. He said that the book is authoritative. It's called The Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th edition, by David DeWitt and Frank P. Incropera.

[00:30:16] Speaker 02:
On cross-examination, Mr. Grandomenico admits that that textbook says that plastic is insulating and that foams are insulating.

[00:30:27] Speaker 02:
They're insulating systems, is what his textbook says. And...

[00:30:34] Speaker 02:
He said that was his textbook at Purdue. It was authoritative text in this area. And he had to admit that the text says those materials are insulating. I thought that was important to mention. It doesn't pop out in the briefing.

[00:30:50] Speaker 04:
You called out the large picture on page 20. It says, thermally efficient, our PET foam cores are excellent insulators with R values comparable to tradition PU foam panels. What's

[00:31:08] Speaker 02:
He used polyurethane. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor.

[00:31:12] Speaker 02:
And if you were looking at a cold storage application, you would use polyurethane most likely or something similar. But the patent tells us that open cell foams and closed cell foams are suitable. That's in claims five through seven. And so the fact that a closed cell foam is going to be suitable also would tell one skilled in the art that this isn't limited to cold storage applications, frankly, Your Honor.

[00:31:43] Speaker 02:
I see that my time has expired, so unless there are any questions remaining, I'll take my seat and ask that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:55] Speaker 03:
Ms. Carvalho.

[00:31:58] Speaker 00:
Your Honor.

[00:32:00] Speaker 03:
We'll give you two minutes.

[00:32:02] Speaker 03:
Two minutes.

[00:32:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor. Understood.

[00:32:08] Speaker 00:
With regard to the insulating, there is no claim that says that thermoplastic membrane is insulating. That language is not there. That is why the counsel could not find it. It just does not exist, Your Honor. Neither claim nor spec? Correct, Your Honor. With regard to flexible, the language being around the curved track is not sufficient. That language was added earlier on in the prosecution history. If you look at page 1756, One of the amendments mentions a curved track, and that was insufficient to get this patent patented.

[00:32:43] Speaker 00:
They had to add flexible along its entire length of the panel in order to get it to be patented. So that language means something in addition to being able to traverse a curved track, and that means innately flexible.

[00:32:57] Speaker 00:
The patent process history couldn't be more clear of a disavowal with regard to flexibility, Your Honors.

[00:33:02] Speaker 03:
What are we to make about this picture on page 20 of their brief?

[00:33:07] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor. With regard to PET foam, we don't dispute that PET foam can be insulating. The problem is if you look at the patent, if you look at the testimony,

[00:33:20] Speaker 03:
What is this a picture of? Is this the door in question?

[00:33:25] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor. That is not a picture of the door in question. It's a picture of some of their products that they offer. With regard to PE2 foam, it matters on the thickness. The patent itself mentions that thickness is important for R-value. The expert testimony mentioned that thickness is important for R-value. So something like if you're wearing a jacket, its thickness will increase the protection from heat. And so that's what it is. PET foam can be insulating, but PET foam is not insulating as used in the patent because the patent, at least with regard to the K&L door, because it's so thin, particularly when you put the grooves, it's less than one.

[00:34:04] Speaker 00:
And an R value less than one is not insulating as used in the cold chain patent. And so I would request that this court reverse and remand.

[00:34:16] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you. Thank both counsels for submitting.