[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
uh... uh...

[00:00:27] Speaker ?:
uh... uh...

[00:00:58] Speaker ?:
Okay, thank you.

[00:01:29] Speaker ?:
I'm not entirely sure.

[00:01:46] Speaker ?:
I'm not entirely sure.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
You have to be able to go out and get this.

[00:02:17] Speaker ?:
So it's you.

[00:02:17] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:18] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:18] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:18] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:19] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:19] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:19] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:20] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:20] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:20] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:21] Speaker ?:
It's you there.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
So this is part of the center, and you can use it to show off.

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

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
So they might be professional choices.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
But the AI is just not that good.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
So I have to do it.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
I don't know, again, and I think beautiful.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
But I remember in the election, I was like, oh, that doesn't look that good.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
And I was like, sure.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
I might want to use the arms of the theater.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
Right?

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
So maybe give me minutes or something.

[00:03:40] Speaker ?:
I don't know.

[00:03:41] Speaker ?:
We could do that.

[00:03:41] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:41] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:42] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:42] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:43] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:44] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:44] Speaker ?:
We could do it.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
Well, they knew they'd be made for a villain.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
Good afternoon, please be seated.

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
I'm pleased that you could all make it today.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
The first case for argument is 14-5134, Lucree v. United States, Mr. Lukaszczyk.

[00:04:49] Speaker 04:
Whenever you're ready.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
Did I get the pronunciation right?

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
The pronunciation.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
The parts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the latter within the inside limits assigned to their authority.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
This appeal respectfully requests the assistance of the court to examine the constitutionality of the statutes involved in this case.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
Congress has changed our patent system from the Constitution to the Paris Convention to harmonize our system with the European system.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause B of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
Do you, sir?

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
Acclaims court the senseless case on the basis that any condition Congress imposes on patents need only be rationally related to the promotion of progress in science and useful arts to survive judicial scrutiny.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Sir?

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
I was just going to ask about that.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
We all agree, there's no dispute, is there, that that is the standard?

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
That the requirement is that it's rationally related?

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, I have a new hearing aid.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
Everything's so loud, I can barely hear you.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
Do we all agree that the standard is whether or not this is rationally related to the purposes of the constitutional provision?

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
Let me go up, please.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
The first issue to be decided is the expiration of

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
1532 patents every week, times 52 weeks.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
2013, a year, 79,689 patents expired.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
How does this expiration promote the useful arts as required by the Constitution?

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
That's the main issue.

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
That promotes the progress of the science and the arts.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
The Patent Office on this website, policy matters contemplated for fostering innovation.

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
The policy factor is contemplated by the Patent Office, taken from its publication, fostering innovation, higher back-end fees, foster innovation, and benefit the overall patent system.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
Expiration moves the subject matter of the patent to the public domain for subsequent commercialization.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
Thus, the Patent Office supports expiration of the patents.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
The statement does not say that the invention cannot be made in China, Japan, and any other

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
and be exported to the United States before the 17 years as early as four years.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
The Congress can solve the problem of expiration of a patent for non-payment of the maintenance fee by designing a more acceptable method of collecting the fee rather than expiring the patent.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
Placing a lien on a patent would be one possible solution.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
The most important part of the original claim

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
of the decision to declare the European laws, maintenance fees, publication, and first to file as unconstitutional, and thus repeal the acts.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
Over the past eight years, Google and others have spent millions of dollars to lobby Congress and produce an ingenious patent troll narrative, which distorts the reality of invention in America.

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
Post-brand opposition also created the American Vents Act and validates patents at about 75%

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
Article III courts invalidate patents at similar rates under the inflatable abstract idea category of subject matter ineligibility.

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
Today inventors are losing more cases than any time in the 224-year history of the U.S.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
patent system.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
The publication of a patent application before it issues gives potential competition, advanced notice of a product before it is fully developed, and it reveals a trade secret if a patent is not issued

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
The first to file system of the American Events Act should be declared unconstitutional, since the constitutional provides exclusivity at conception for both copyright and inventions.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
The inventor is then given time to reduce the invention of practice.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
On the European system, the race to file does not provide the required information to comply with the constitutional requirements.

[00:09:27] Speaker 05:
Sir?

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
Sir?

[00:09:30] Speaker 05:
Right here?

[00:09:31] Speaker ?:
Oh.

[00:09:33] Speaker 05:
Didn't you concede, though, that that first-to-file provision has nothing to do with her debate with the Patent Office regarding the maintenance fees and cancellation of her patent?

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
It's part of the court's responsibility to review the Congress for the public.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
She's a member of the public.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
That's why I've expanded this part of the case to give the court the responsibility to do their job in reviewing legislation.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
But I can tell you why.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
I'll hit that in a second here.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
Recent research demonstrated that patentees adverse to file countries lag far behind US patentees in patent disclosure breadth.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
The study shows that US patents have significantly higher page counts indicating breadth of disclosure and claim count indicating breadth of protection.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
than patents originating from countries with a first-to-file regime.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
Claims court dismissed the challenge of the constitutionality of Patloff's transition to the first-to-file system.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
The holding was based on cited case MedStat Engineering versus U.S.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
holding that a plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the first-to-file system, whereas alleged harms were speculative and not actual.

[00:10:54] Speaker 00:
Once again, the court said that, nonetheless, even if standing were bound

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
These claims would fail on the merits, given the court's deference to congressional discretion over patent legislation.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
The court thus again failing to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authorities.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
There's the effect on universities.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
Universities derive significant income from technology transfer and patent licensing.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
However, academic realities put different

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
pressures on university professors and researchers.

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
Operating on the man to publish or perish, scientists are more concerned with presenting their results at conferences and publishing them in peer-reviewed journals.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
After all, their careers depend upon it.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
Patent-taking results is usually an afterthought.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
Under the former first to invent regime, there's no necessity for researchers to rush a patent application to the Patent Office.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
The grace period afforded by the US patent system allowed researchers to present their discoveries at scientific conferences and publish them in professional journals and still have 12 months from the date earliest disclosure to file the patent application.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
A first to invent machine is then very important.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
First to invent to American universities.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Without a grace period, previously published results may no longer be patentable.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
A change from the first to invent, the first to file a regime may have the unintended consequences of a sharp decline in university patents, ultimately resulting in the decline of technology transfer revenues.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
Legislative history.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
Under the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
78 that under the Constitution, the Federal Court would have not just the power but the duty to examine the Constitutionality of statutes.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
The courts are designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar providence of the courts.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
When Marbury versus Madison, 1803, argued to be the most important idea in Supreme Court history, it was the first new Supreme Court to apply the principle of judicial review, the power of federal courts to avoid acts of conference in conflict with the Constitution.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
The executive branch carries out federal laws as well as Beethoven laws and has a similar responsibility for interpretation and enforcement of the laws enacted by the legislative branch.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
The instant game is not just a claim by the inventor, it is a claim by a U.S.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
citizen asking the court to review the patent laws enacted by the legislature.

[00:13:43] Speaker 00:
The executive branch has a constitutional responsibility for reviewing the laws to protect the public.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
A police statement that

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
to the extent that Congress deems harmonizing a path system with international standards to be necessary and proper to promote science and useful art, this was an entirely rational exercise of Congress legislative authority.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
Apple Lee, however, stated that Ms.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
LeCree's remaining arguments consist of a protracted exercise of speculation based largely on irrelevant reports about the supposed harms created by Congress.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
It should be noted, however, that many expert opinions have been included.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
Although not related to this claim, Congress is currently considering H.R.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
9, which creates a patent system without inventors.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
Over the last eight years, Google and others have spent millions of dollars to lobby Congress to produce an ingenious patent-roll up narrative which distorts the reality of invention to America.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
Post-Grand Opposition procedures

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
created by the American Vents Act, that's what I've claimed, invalidate patents at a rate above 75%.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
This is the same act that enacted the first to file challenge in the early to claim.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
The patent office has set up a fee schedule to foster innovation.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
The fee schedule is set up in three categories, micro entity, small entity, and large entity.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
With existing laws, increasing the number of patents issued to smaller entities only makes more patents available

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
royalty free after the patents expire.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
I have previously suggested at work appropriate classifications of patent office to bring the patent office back to the Constitution.

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
During Mitt Romney's campaign, I suggested a way to solve both problems involved in this complaint.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
That is to set up two sections of the patent laws.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
First, micro entity and small entity inventors would continue to be covered by the Constitution.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
Second, large entity inventors would also be covered by the Constitution, maintenance fees, publication, and first, the file.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
I recently sent the same suggestion to Jim Bush to use in his campaign, for his zipsalocriture.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
Well, we are into your rebuttal time, so why don't we hear from the government?

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
If I can answer to your question, based on the briefs that were submitted, the rational basis review standard isn't contested.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
It was assumed in Ms.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
Lacree's briefing.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
And the arguments were that... Can you hear?

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
You cannot hear.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
Is there a way you could try to speak as loud as you can?

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
In response to your question, I believe that Ms.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
Lacree's brief

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
assumed that the rational basis review was the correct standard.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
There wasn't a direct challenge to that.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
Well, even under rational basis, your friend suggested that, well, if you're going to do something, even if you can require the maintenance fees, you could put a lien on the property or whatever to try to seek the funds versus just not allowing the patent to continue.

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
Why is that not an alternative means which to pursue this if we assume this is a rational end?

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
because that was a determination made by Congress.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
And under the rational basis standard, the court simply looks to whether there was a result that was legitimate, that met the legitimate congressional objective.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Here, the objective was to precisely to allow patent holders to allow their patents to lapse

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
and to expire if the patents prove to be not successful, thereby having to avoid paying the continued maintenance fees for an unsuccessful patent.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
And that promoted the filing of patent applications.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
And that certainly I think meets the standard under the rational basis test.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
The second issue is whether this constituted a takings claim.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
As we explained in our brief, the trial court correctly held that there's not a taking when a patent expires due to the failure to pay the statutorily required fee.

[00:18:26] Speaker 01:
That's because the patent privilege doesn't

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
exist independently of the conditions set out by Congress.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
Let me just ask you, going back to the earlier point, is there a different analytical framework that applies to a situation where the Patent Office is using the fees to sustain the Patent Office, as opposed to when the fees are directed towards other purposes outside of the control of the Patent Office?

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
No, I believe the analytical framework still is the same.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
I think that question was addressed by this Court in the Figueroa decision

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
And that's specifically held that the fees that exceed the cost of operating the patent office can be directed towards other purposes.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
In one of the examples the court used was to help pay to fund the court's review of patent cases.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
I don't know that we get any of that money.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
Maybe that was just a suggestion.

[00:19:27] Speaker 05:
But the argument that's made is that this whole maintenance fee process or procedure is more than necessary.

[00:19:38] Speaker 05:
And once you get the initial fee and there is then the disclosure, isn't that all that's necessary for purposes of promoting the use of arts, which is the only real congressional purpose we can have?

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
The court has held that Congress can impose under its authority under the intellectual property clause a fee system that was specific holding in Figueroa and that wasn't specific to just the initial fee or the reviewing fee.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
The fee system includes all of them with fees for both the application, the review, and the maintenance fees.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
That was a determination that Congress made

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
And again, the purpose of it was to promote more patent applications so that unsuccessful patents can simply lapse at the option of the patent holder.

[00:20:33] Speaker 05:
But is there any point at which the fee becomes so excessive that it doesn't serve any legitimate purpose?

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
Well, certainly the fees that will be set have to meet other tests under the Constitution, such as the due process clause.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
Lucree, and I don't believe anyone has ever challenged the amount of the fees as being excessive.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
That wasn't part of the case that was brought below or the appeal.

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
It was rather the authority of Congress to set the fees.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
But do you think there'd be a viable argument to be made if the fees were set excessive?

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
I mean, if Congress decided we'd like to get rid of our $18 trillion budget deficit by fees charged to patentees, do you think that would present a problem on the Constitution?

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
Anyone who made that argument would certainly have to show that the fee amount, say, was arbitrary.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
They would have that burden.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
And it's conceivable that you could have an excessively established fee currently under the eight.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
Well, it's not arbitrary if you say we've got an $18 trillion deficit and we'd like to get rid of it.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
Again, that takes you back to the fact, does it not, that as long as there's some relationship between the payment of fees and the use of those fees towards improvement or efficient administration of the patent system, that's one thing, which takes you back to my question about why it wouldn't be a different situation if the fees are diverted.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
I don't think, yes, it's conceivable that if Congress imposed excessive fees or very high fees,

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
in order to promote deficit reduction or fund the military or do something that has no conceivable even tangential relationship to promoting science and the useful arts that could be properly challenged or could be the basis of a challenge.

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
However, that's not the case here.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
And last, as we

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
our brief, and as the trial court held, Ms.

[00:22:48] Speaker 01:
Lacrete does not have standing to challenge the AIA.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
Her case, her patent expired well before the AIA was ever enacted.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
Are there any challenges pending on the first to file system that you know of that you're aware of?

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
I am not aware of any other challenges.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
However, I would note that the decision in Matstead that this court held recently

[00:23:13] Speaker 05:
uh... was recently rejected tertiary was rejected by the supreme court i'm not aware of any others the in master the argument was not made that just because some of the member of the public that they should be allowed to challenge it i mean the under the a i a anyone for instance can challenge the existence of a patent so perhaps anyone should be allowed to challenge the provisions of the a i a

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
Well, to have standing, you still have to show an injury, concrete and particularized actual imminent injury and fact.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
So anyone who was to bring that to have standing, they would have to show at a minimum that they're working on an invention or that there's a patent application that's pending, much less a patent application that's been denied for under the AIA.

[00:24:06] Speaker 01:
And that's simply not the case here.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
So if the court has no further questions.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
Sir, you have a couple more minutes if you have something to add.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
I've been a member of the Bar for 51 years.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
This is the first action I have ever taken in the court system.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
I began my effort by writing letters to my congressman.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
In 1999, my local newspaper called me a crusader for inventors.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
In 2001, the Florida Lawyer magazine called me Edison's advocate.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
After 30 years of government career, I moved to Punta Gorda, opened my practice.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
All my clients were independent inventors, and one of them founded the Edison Inventors Association in Fort Myers.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
My motto, and the one that I kept repeating to members of the association,

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
10 two-letter words to live by.

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
If it is to be, it is up to me.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
That's why I am here.

[00:25:20] Speaker 00:
I've paid all the cost for this action, and Ms.

[00:25:23] Speaker 00:
Luke Green has authorized the court to award any damages received as a contribution to the USPTO.

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
I started working my career for IBM where I made two inventions, then went to work as a patent examiner.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
One invention was patented and the second was published.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
My most significant jobs were as Assistant Solicitor for Patents at the Department of Interior, Chief Patent Law Division, Headquarters Air Force Assistance Command, and Director of the U.S.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
Navy's European Patent Program.

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
After attending the first East-West Patent Supposition in Budapest in 1966, and visiting Prague, Warsaw, and Moscow in 1967, I wrote the first paper on Eastern Patent Systems.

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
I brought up my past experience because I know what the patent system means to inventors and corporations, and why Google and others have spent millions of dollars to lobby Congress to distort the reality of invention in America.

[00:26:16] Speaker 00:
There are two inventor groups currently working to stop HR 9, which will eliminate inventors.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
I just don't see why the Justice Department is supporting the work of Congress of reviewing the laws to protect the public.

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
Inventors who are members of the public are

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
Justice Department clients is required by the Constitution.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
I recently joined the Inventors Group with a design patent titled stealth origami.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
I left a few models out here.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Look, I don't have any maintenance because it's a design patent.

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
I also have two websites.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
I haven't sold anything on the website.

[00:26:54] Speaker 00:
But my greatest satisfaction was riding an antique convertible in a parade, flying one over to a boy watching the parade.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
I get my satisfaction from young boys.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
It's of course the responsibility of another one.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
One of the most interesting inventions I've patented is ergonomically engineered underwear invented by a woman.

[00:27:19] Speaker 00:
A friend of mine loaned her $50,000 to start the business and sent her invention featured in Playboy magazine.

[00:27:27] Speaker 00:
It's the court's responsibility to give the patent system back to the entrepreneurs and the non-bomb printers.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
A favorable decision is respectfully requested.

[00:27:40] Speaker 00:
It is also the responsibility of the Justice Department to protect the inventions and preserve the patent system.

[00:27:50] Speaker 00:
As enclosures, I'd like to give to the attorney for use in contacting the commissioner

[00:27:57] Speaker 00:
about this publication and two inventors organizations suspected for inventors.

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
Inventors have nobody to protect their rights except the Justice Department.

[00:28:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:28:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:28:11] Speaker 04:
We thank both counsels on the cases submitted.

[00:28:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
I'm going to leave those here.