[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
We have four cases on our calendar this morning.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Two patent cases, one from a district court and another from the PTO.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
We have a veterans case and we have a government employee case that is being submitted on the briefs and therefore will not be argued.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
Our first case is the evolutionary intelligence versus sprint.

[00:00:32] Speaker 04:
Apple et al.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
There are a lot of numbers here.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
2016, 1188 through 1199.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
So we will hear from Mr. Kennedy.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
The inventions of the asserted patents are highly specific, unique,

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
improvements to computer technology.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
The district court overgeneralized the inventions and failed to appreciate the improvements that they make to the prior art static information model that's discussed at length in the specification.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
But where is that in the claim itself, like claim one of the 682 patent or claim one of the 536 patent?

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
In fact, I could only find the word static information once in the entire specification.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
So where does the claim itself make it clear that what they are seeking to cover is precisely the narrow advance that you're suggesting was made in this field?

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
Well, as a first point, I want to make clear that these patents do not claim to be the only way to overcome the static information model.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
This is just one way of

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
addressing limitations with respect to the static information model.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
But to address more specifically your question, for example, in the 536 patent claim one, where it discusses the second register, the second register has a representation designating time and governing interactions of the container with other containers.

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
according to the utility of information in the information element relative to an external to the apparatus event time.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
And what that means is that the invention is designed to dynamically adjust these register values according to constantly changing external to the apparatus event time.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
And that's with claim one.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
Are these done by physical changes in the computer, or is it programmed?

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, it is programming.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
But I suppose you could say that.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
And ultimately, it's just organizing information and rearranging information.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, I would not characterize it as just reorganizing information.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
Reorganizing information.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
I wouldn't say that it's organizing information in any way differently from what a computer normally does, Your Honor, of any computer application

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
at base is designed to organize information.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
It's also designed to process information, to change values as at the time and the space change.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
So it's not just about taking information that exists and putting it in different places like files or boxes or these analogies that the defendants used.

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
The law has changed.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
These patents go back to 1998 when we didn't have the

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
the governing law from the Supreme Court.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
And you say it's no different from other computer processes organizing information, but most of them in the last number of years have been found not to be eligible for patent.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I would say that this case is most like some of the recent cases that this court

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
BDR and Enfish.

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
I knew you were going there.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
That's right, Your Honor, and also Bazcom.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
But I think Enfish is particularly relevant to this case.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Well, we claimed in Enfish, in that opinion, we stated that the claim articulated a precise, exact, concrete way to achieve more efficient memory

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
And the claim articulated the elements.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
I mean, one of the differences here is your claiming that these claims represent some improvement over static information in the form of dynamic information.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
These claims contain nothing meaningful.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
They never explain how the containers are created or manipulated, how the dynamic interactive registers work, nothing.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
These claims are aspirational claims, like so many of the others we've held invalid under 101.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
I'm not saying there isn't a kernel of inventiveness

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
I'm saying it wasn't properly claimed according to today's standards.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
Enfish was, whether we were right or not, a case in which we said the claim itself articulated a precise, specific way to achieve greater computer efficiency.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
This claim, especially, you went to the 536, which I would have too if I were you, right?

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
It's at least got some level of detail.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
I mean, the 682 is

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
nothing but aspirational claiming.

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
So I don't see how you can draw the analogy to Enfish in light of what our court said about those Enfish claims.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
I'd like to address the 682 because I think that the limitations of, we'll just start with claim one, are actually quite specific.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
In the 682 patent you have a

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
plurality of containers.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
And in each of those containers, you have container registers that are encapsulated.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
But that's normal.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
That's not unusual.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
That's not argued to be novel in any way.

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
The part that I just stated, Your Honor, is not unusual.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
You are correct.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
However, as this court was clear in the Bazcom decision, the court considers the ordered combination

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
of the elements.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
And so if I could just build on what I was describing with claim one, the container registers, there's a plurality of them, have historic data that's associated with the interaction among the containers.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
And further, when a search is done, the historic data in each of these containers is searched.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And that results in

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
some of the containers being identified as being responsive to the search query.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
But that's not all the claim requires.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
It requires more.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
Well, good, because so far you've described nothing that's patent eligible.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
So keep going.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
What is the else the more it describes?

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
The identified containers are then encapsulated in a new container.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
And then inside of each of these containers that are encapsulated,

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
There is a second container register, and that register is updated with data associated with interactions of the identified containers.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
These are the containers inside of the larger container with the larger container.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
So in other words, the encapsulated containers are interacting with the container that encapsulates them, and the registers inside the identified containers are updated dynamically.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
in that interaction.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
And then the last step is that a list of identified containers is provided.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
That is a highly specific claim.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
Each of those elements, of course, has to be satisfied in order for there to be infringement.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
And with that in mind... Do you have kids?

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
Okay, so I have a bin at home.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
And it's a series of shelves, and each shelf has a bin.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
And this one is dinosaurs, and this bin is Legos, and this one is Lincoln Logs.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
I mean, I'm making it up as I go along, because my kids are older now and the bin doesn't exist any longer.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
But you understand my point.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
If I told them to go do a search based on historical data, go find me the T-Rex, how is that any different from what you just articulated was your claim, but for the fact that it's on a computer?

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
Which, because that's what the prosecution history mattered, right?

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
The examiner twice rejected this claim as ineligible under 101 in the ancient days when everything was eligible.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
Twice he rejected this as ineligible.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
And then you added using it all on a computer.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
You narrowed the claim by limiting it to on a computer.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
Well, the Supreme court has made clear that that doesn't save claims any longer.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
Our transformation or tied to a machine went out the window.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
How is what's claimed here, these registers in a computer which contain particular types of data and are therefore searched, any different from my kid's set of shelves?

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
The difference in that metaphor, Your Honor, is that the T-REX is not interacting with a container.

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
And the T-REX does not have a dynamic register that is updated to account for the interactions between the T-REX and the larger container.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
So in the context of the 682 patent.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
And that's where the defendant's analogies fail also.

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
The defendants talked about searching libraries.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
So for example, you could imagine searching a library for a certain subject matter and finding responsive books and putting them in a container.

[00:10:24] Speaker 02:
And so far, it might sound like I'm talking about the claim one of the 682, but it requires more.

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
it would require that these books that have been identified have registers that actually update dynamically as the books interact with the container.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
And so that's where that... Isn't that what the card at the back does?

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
It keeps a record of who's checked it out.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, there's no interaction between the book and the container that would result in the card being updated.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
So no.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
The point that I wanted

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
to focus on.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure what interaction with the container means.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
I guess the language here is so unbelievably abstract and opaque.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
It's hard to even think about what it means in intuitive terms, but I guess I took what it meant was if you take the book out and you put it in a cart, that's the container, and then you write down what carts it's been in, which is the same, my cart and Judge Moore's court cart.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
And then there's a record in the book of

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
the containers it's been in.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
Why is that improper?

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, I don't think that addresses the specific requirements of the claim, which is that the identified container actually needs to interact with the new container that has encapsulated it.

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
What does it mean for the identified container to interact with the container that has encapsulated it?

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
Or Your Honor, it could mean exchanging data, for example.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
Right, so I write my name in the card on the book or the librarian who's checked it out does.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
I understand that, but Your Honor, that is not the container itself, the container interacting with the book.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
That's someone taking the book out of the container and writing information.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
in it.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
It's just completely distinct from the... Why is my little satchel containing the seven books I've checked out that morning not a container, a capsule?

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, first of all, even by the defendant's own claim constructions, a container has to deal with digital data.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
It's a computer term.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
They said that it needs to be logically defined.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
But setting that aside, and let's assume that

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
for the sake of argument that a satchel is a container, that still doesn't meet the limitations of the requirement because the satchel cannot communicate with the book, it cannot interact with the book.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
So there's no exchange of data or processing going on and there's no dynamic updating of the book in accordance with that.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
But I think what the Patent Office has done with these patents is instructive because the Patent Office considered 15

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
different prior art references, all of which process containerized data.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
That's undisputed.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
And the Patent Office found, after a lot of analysis, that none of those prior art references anticipate any of the claims of these patents.

[00:13:42] Speaker 04:
Mr. Kennedy, you're onto your rebuttal time.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
Would you like to save it or continue?

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
I'll continue for a moment, Your Honor.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
What that shows us is that there are at least 15 different ways of processing containerized data that do not run afoul of the patents.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
And to my knowledge, Your Honors, this is the only case in which this argument has been made, that when there are so many different examples of prior art that practice in the field of invention without running afoul of it, there can be no preemption.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
We will save the remainder of your time, Mr. Kennedy and Ms.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
Keefe.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, very much.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
As Your Honors were noting, the problem here was not one of improving a computer, but rather one of data organization, updating, and retrieval.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Can you explain that distinction?

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
The distinction between whether or not it's simply organizing information or improving the functioning of a computer?

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
So the way I understand it, your honor, in the Enfish case, as well as in McRoe and DDR, these were problems that existed only because of the computer space.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
These are problems that arose within a computer.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
For in DDR, for example, the problem was keeping someone on a website and preserving a look and feel of a website.

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
Talk about Enfish.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
DDR is easier.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
For Enfish, the argument in Enfish was that because it was a means plus function claim,

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
They actually brought the algorithm from the specification into the claim itself.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
And that algorithm for setting up these data structures included the mandate of it being a self-referential data table.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
So the table would work faster and use less memory because it was self-referencing itself within the computer itself.

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
I think I understand what was happening in Nfish.

[00:15:43] Speaker 03:
What I'm trying to understand is, or looking for,

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
is language that captures an intuition that is a pretty strong intuition that something is different in ENFISH about the internal organization of a generally available computer capability.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
And the claim is about that as opposed to the use of current computer capabilities, which also involves programming.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
And I'm looking for language that helps

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
identify that intuitive distinction.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
So for this case, I think that the language that can help is the notion of exactly how broad the claims are in both patents, because both patents talk specifically about containers and registers.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
And it sounds like it might be specific, and it might have some form of structure.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
But if you look at the specification, the specification calls a container anything from n bits to all of cyberspace.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
And that's actually within the patent

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
specification at, I'll get you a citation, starting at the bottom.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
536.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
In the 536 pattern, at the beginning, at the bottom of column 8, when they start describing what a container is, up through the top and inclusion of column 9, and I'm looking specifically at lines 5 through 100, a container at a minimum encapsulates a single digital bit.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, 5 through what?

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
5 through approximately 9.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
And so it talks about a container being anything from a single bit to all of cyberspace and to all containers that could ever be defined in cyberspace, including cyberspace that hasn't been created.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
And then further, in column 12 at line 45, it says that containers can include n other containers to infinity.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
The registers themselves are also deemed to be nothing more than values, something like a name or a rule.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
And that's at column nine.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
lines 14 through 17.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
And so what we have here, which I think can help, Your Honor, is the notion that a container can be anything and include anything, even other containers, and the registers can be anything, any value, so long as it in some way identifies what's happening.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
Then the only specificity we have for the registers are that they be potentially based on time or on location.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
And then we're directly into the IV-1 case, in which this court held that location-based organization of information or using location in order to deliver more information was, in fact, an abstract idea.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
And so I hope that helps, Your Honor.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
I think those are pieces of language that you can use from the claims to distinguish it from ENFISH, which was something very specific, a self-referential table because of a means plus function claim versus the overwhelming breadth

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
of the claims and containers that can be anything with registers that can be anything other than possibly time and space, which IV-1 has told us is absolutely abstract.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
And so this case is much more like IV or Digitech and Accenture.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
And the reason I bring up Digitech is because Digitech was a case in which pieces of information were extracted from other information and combined together to form a new profile.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
And it appears as though that's what

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
the patent owner is saying is happening here is that but we're adding in information to something else.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
But in Digitech, the court found that that combination of new material into another form that could be used later was also abstract.

[00:19:25] Speaker 01:
And finally, I have a question.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
Please.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
If this claim were interpreted as being a specific concrete improvement

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
to, or I should say, change in how computers record and retrieve data.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
Because that's kind of like what Enfish was.

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
With the reference table, the spec talked at length about how it's going to work faster, it's going to be more efficient, that sort of thing.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
If creating these buckets of memory within a computer would allow for

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
a much more efficient search process, for example, to take place every time across all computers because this really went to the heart of computer memory.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
And if that were the nature of the claims, wouldn't that be like Enfish?

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
I don't believe so, Your Honor, and the reason I say that is because this is simply improving a search, not improving a computer, and there's a very big difference between that.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
To Your Honor's example of trying to find a toy in a bucket, if, for example,

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
The dinosaur got a red sticker on it every time your son used it to show that it was his favorite animal and the red sticker therefore made it more obvious and easier to find.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what is happening here.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
You're just making the search a little bit faster, a little bit easier by putting things in a location that might be more convenient.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
You're not improving the computer at all.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
You're just using a computer in order to do what other people have done.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
Enfish was a software case that improved the functioning of the computer.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
See, improving the computer, you make it seem like it is a static object capable of being improved absent a user's interaction with it, which clearly it is not.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
The computer didn't look better with the Enfish software than it did without it.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
It wasn't some sort of aesthetic thing or otherwise.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
It was the computer functioned more efficiently

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
What does that mean?

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
That means when a user interacted with it, it did something faster, better, with less memory, whatever.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
How is that different from something that would dramatically improve search capability, for example, whether it be on the internet or through the computer memory or something like that?

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between searching and what was at issue in Nfish.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
So for example, Your Honor, what was at issue in Nfish was whether or not, because of how the data structure

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
within the computer itself would speed up its ability to actually, it wasn't even speed up, I think that the thing that it really did was it allowed for less use of memory.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
The opinion talked specifically about the specification going over and over about using less memory.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
In the search context, this is something that happens outside of computers and simply being able to put things in buckets is not going to reduce the memory that's being used or the memory that's going there.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
It's not going to reduce the memory, but it could dramatically improve the speed with which the computer operates to execute the command that you're searching for.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
But then that would be no different from the IV case, from Accenture, from Digitech, from Ultramershal, from all of these other cases where it might have been easier to get to the information and therefore it could have been faster to figure out which program to show somebody based on their location, based on their time.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
by virtue of the fact that you're using a computer.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
I don't think that the computer is being sped up here at all.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
In fact, all we're doing is we're giving a better search result.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
It's not a faster search result except for the fact that it's on a computer.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
It's better because it's the idea that, but I'm giving you the one that has historic information associated with it.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
There's nothing anywhere in the claims or in the patent that talks about this being faster or in some way making the computer better.

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
Instead, it just says, I'm going to try to get you

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
the best piece of information based on time, rules, location.

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
But put that way, it seems to me one could as easily say, this is actually faster and less use of computer resources to get to where the user wants to get.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
If you first give a kind of undifferentiated dump

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
of largely irrelevant information, then you're going to get a follow-up query and you're going to do it again and again.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
So if the computer says, I know you, I know what time of day it is.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
I know you're in downtown Washington.

[00:23:56] Speaker 03:
You've used less of the computer resources to get to, to the end of the necessary transaction.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
But then that your honor is no different from the TLI case in which you got a large dump of information about a photo, which included the photo itself, as well as information about the photo.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
And then you extracted the metadata about the photo and stored it so that in the future when you wanted to find that photo again, you could just ask for pictures about the birthday party instead of having to wade through all of the pictures.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
And the court found that to be abstract as well because it was simply reorganizing data so that someone could go and grab it.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
That is a fundamental human behavior that existed prior to the computer.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
And the fact that you're using a computer, which can eventually speed it up,

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
is only in its general purpose way.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
It's not improving the computer at all.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
It's simply using the computer for its general purpose on general purpose components.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
And here, the patent owner has admitted that all of the components that are being used are general purpose components, including containers, registers, gateways, and values.

[00:24:58] Speaker 00:
And so the computer's not being improved upon at all.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
All this is is potentially a better way of organizing the information so that someone can maybe access it more simply

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
not so that the computer is working better.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
And that is exactly what all of the cases, content extraction, Digitech, Accenture, Ivy, et cetera, talk about in terms of if all you're doing is reorganizing data so that it can be pulled up more quickly or pulled up in a different fashion, that is not something that is eligible for patentability.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Instead, those are abstract ideas of using human behavior to reorganize data so that we can access it a little bit more simply.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
And that's why Judge White down below used the example of a librarian or even, for example, a barista who sees you walk into the coffee shop and realizes that you have a latte normally.

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
But when it's Christmas time, you get a pumpkin spice latte.

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
And that's just an update of the registers and updated the information.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
And that's age old human interaction that should not be patentable.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
And I don't think there's anything in the claims that takes it out of that realm.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
And unless your honors have any other questions,

[00:26:09] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
Keefe.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:26:12] Speaker 04:
Kennedy has a couple of minutes.

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
We'll give you two minutes.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
To the extent that this patent is about reorganizing data, one would say exactly the same thing about the patent in ENFISH.

[00:26:27] Speaker 02:
That patent involved the self-referential database tables, and all it did essentially was take various different tables that were in the relational model, where you had separate tables,

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
and you combine them into a single table.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
It's essentially reorganizing information.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
But this court held that that was eligible and noted that it was eligible because it resulted in faster searching and, as counsel said, smaller memory requirements, and finally increased flexibility

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
in configuration.

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
So if there's any argument that these patents are ineligible because they reorganize information, the same argument would have been true in NFISH.

[00:27:15] Speaker 02:
The main point that I think has been not addressed so far is the patent's discussion of the problem that it was trying to solve, which is a static information model.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
The patents describe at length seven different drawbacks with the static information model, and it's clear by the specification that that is what the patents are trying to address.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
The district court did not properly evaluate that.

[00:27:45] Speaker 02:
We offered an expert opinion that carefully evaluated the static information model, described how the patents are designed to overcome that, and stated that

[00:27:57] Speaker 02:
The patents are designed to address a problem that is squarely within the domain of computers.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
And of course, the district court, while considering facts outside the record and indeed inventing facts of its own, declined to review our expert's report.

[00:28:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

[00:28:17] Speaker 04:
We will take the case under advisement.