[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
The final case for argument this morning is 171453, Lessaman versus Stratasys.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
I'll be ready soon.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, Your Honors?

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
The District Court's construction should be reversed.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
The terms adjustable and and should be accorded their plain and ordinary meanings.

[00:00:55] Speaker 02:
There's nothing in the intrinsic record that requires this Court to depart from the ordinary meaning.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
These are lay terms

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
And as Phillips has said, they should be given their plain and ordinary customary meanings.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
The claim language in this case supports giving it its plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
If you look at the claim language, what it really describes is a snapshot in time.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
It looks at the assembly at the time it's configured to process material.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
And at that time, it looks to see if it's got three die components connected in the way it's received within language.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
But most importantly, what it specifically says is,

[00:01:31] Speaker 02:
the positions of the second and third die components must be adjustable along the longitudinal axis.

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
And so what that means is, are the positions of the second and die component movable along the longitudinal axis?

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
It still says there's a first, a second, and a third.

[00:01:48] Speaker 03:
And under your view of the construction, those terms no longer have meaning, because you can take the third and make it cease to be third under your version of the construction

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
by sticking it in between one and two, and now you've renamed it two.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
I don't see how you can do that.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
Your construction would read out first, second, and third, it seems to me.

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
It would not read out first, second, and third, Your Honor, because the way the claim is written, you look at the claim at the time it's configured to process flow.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
The claim doesn't talk about what it has to look like during the adjustment or after the adjustment.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
So it only talks about you look at the claim and it says,

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
At the time that I'm configured to process the material, I have to have these three elements, the first die component, the second die component, the third die component.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
And then at that point, the question becomes, there's a position for the second die component and a position for the third die component.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
And can that be adjusted along the longitudinal axis?

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
There's certainly, you would agree, no, you have to agree because it's indisputable.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
There's no disclosure in this spec of an example, an embodiment, in which

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
The whole thing is taken apart and the components are moved from one place to the other.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
Is there?

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
There is not four.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
For the figures two to four, it is a telescoping or threaded embodiment.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
You're right.

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
So there's no disclosure in the spec of an example which does what you said.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
That of course does not preclude this claim from covering it.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
I get it.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
But when you look in order to understand how

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
to interpret these words at the specification, I guess I'm thinking the intrinsic record really doesn't support what you'd like us to interpret this as, because there's really two points in the intrinsic record I'd like you to deal with.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
Let's start with column six, and at about line 49, I think this is probably one of the most relevant parts of the spec to this question,

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
And it says, the ability to adjust the relative positions of the dye components 201, 202, and 203, that's 1, 2, and 3, right?

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
In the example, yes.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
Along the longitudinal axis allows the extrusion dye to make changes to the flow of the extrusion material without having to retool the dye, replace the dye, adjust the temperature, so I guess

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
I feel like what you're seeking to do is to retool the die.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
There's a difference between just sliding something a little bit left or right or totally taking it apart and reconfiguring it.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
So when you look at the intrinsic record, what you'll see is the prior art that the patent holder was distinguishing to was a single piece die that's a fixed channel die.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
And in that context, what retooling means, and it's in the record, what retooling means is drilling it out.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
You have to make some permanent changes to it.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
So in the context of extruding material, what you have to say is, oh, I need a larger channel for this particular material.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
Retooling can mean putting something in to expand the diameter, for example.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
I mean, I've read pretty extensively in the art.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
So I have a sense of what different things could constitute retooling, but I'm not sure physically

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
disassembling the device and reconfiguring it isn't also within the umbrella of retooling.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
And it isn't in this case for the specific reason is in this application the invention is

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
to an adjustable die.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
Yes, but this one just, all the ones disclosed just kind of slide a little left or right in that telescope.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
And wait, wait, before we, because part of the other problem is I feel like I stopped too short in my reading because your answers to me are very reasonable, but I think the very next sentence takes away from the reasonableness of your answers as well because

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
It says, basically, you're going to adjust the positions without retooling the die.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
And I was left wondering whether or not taking it apart in the manner the accused infringers do would amount to retooling.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
And you're telling me no, no, only sort of a permanent change would amount to retooling.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
But the very next sentence says, as a result, ah, a result of the adjustability of these three components, as a result, the extrusion die 200 of the present invention.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
Now, that's kind of magic language in our world.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
of the present invention is capable of reducing the time required to develop a suitable extrusion die to form a new product and to adapt to the changing extrusion materials.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
And you have to have something that can reduce time and adapt to changing extrusion materials.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
Sliding something around in a telescoping fashion absolutely meets those criteria.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
Having to stop, take everything apart, reconfigure it seems to not

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
be capable of allowing you still to have that reduction in time and adjustment to extrusion materials.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
Your honor, actually, that supports it.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
There's such a significant reduction in time.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
So what the acutest product... There's a significant reduction in time, I agree with you, as compared to a single component invention die, right?

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
And that's where you're going, right?

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
You're going to tell me the prior art was a single component and this is three components.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
And the advantage of having three components is they can be varied and you don't have to

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
do it with a single component is that where you're going I am going there but it's also just the mechanism all they've done is it's the same invention it's the same adjustability all they've done is it's just a few screws to remove and it's actually a set where what you do

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
is instead of having a telescoping arrangement, you have a set of Lego blocks where you can just put in pieces to be able to make the same adjustment.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
So it is actually meant to reduce the time.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
It is used as in reducing the time.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
It does everything that what you say are the advantages of this preferred embodiment are exactly what are achieved by the Stratasys product.

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
Well, the Stratasys product might reduce time as compared to having to replace it with a whole new

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
die configuration.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
But I can't imagine that it is as efficient, for example, as what is actually disclosed, the adjustable telescoping mechanism.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
And I'm not sure that because there's not language in here that specifically limits it to the telescoping method and it does... Well, I mean, but that's what we're trying to decide.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
We're trying to decide whether the word adjustable means adjustable in the manner

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
disclosed in this patent or whether it means and includes an adjustability that requires taking it apart and reconfiguring it as opposed to simply adjusting it.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
They see those as two different things.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
And taking it apart in this context is really a very simple act.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
It is not the kind of taking apart that you're imagining.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
It's simply taking a couple of screws apart.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
It's like in the second embodiment where they take some parts of the mandrel apart to be able to adjust it.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
It's a simple mechanical adjustment that they're making that really is different from the art.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
And that's why the law kind of breaks down on it.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
Suppose your tie was a little off to the left right now.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
And I might say, oh, here, sir, let me adjust your tie.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
I would sort of move it to the center.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
But it seems like I would be going beyond adjusting if I said, here, let me take you off it and retie it properly on you.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
That doesn't feel like an adjustment.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
And that's kind of what you're doing here.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
You're taking apart these components, reordering them.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
No, in this case, the language of the claim really is to looking at it at one point in time.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
And the advantages that you're looking at in column six, which are the right advantages to look at, are achieved by their embodiment.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
Because all you're doing is it's intended to have a set of die components that you can move around exactly in the way we're talking about, where they disassemble and reassemble.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
And it achieves the same thing and it gives you the same reduction in time, it gives you the same ability to be able to quickly come up with a new die configuration for processing a new material.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
That's exactly how it's used.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
And the reason I keep going back to the single fixed channel die as the distinction is, in the case law in this court, in fact what everybody relies upon, when you walk away from the ordinary meaning, it's because

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
within the spec, there's something that says part of the ordinary meaning doesn't apply.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
And here there's nothing there because- But you're presuming this is the ordinary meaning.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
I just gave you an example about your tie, which I think is on all fours with this and you've just sort of stepped right over it.

[00:10:29] Speaker 03:
I don't think I'd be adjusting your tie when I take it off of your neck and then put it back on and retie it.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
I think you would still be adjusting my tie, Your Honor.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
It's just, that may take a little extra time, but it's different from- But that's when the spec uses other words like retooling,

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
I feel like that falls more within those kinds of words than it does the adjustment words.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
Nope.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
In the tie example, if you were to take it to that, that far in this case, what you would have to say is you had to make me a new tie to adjust it, or you had to cut my tie and make some other permanent change to adjust it as opposed to simply either moving it or as you said, take it apart, take it out and retie it.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
Those are different adjustments than the type of retooling that we're talking about when it's a permanent die where you're saying,

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
cut the tie, or make a new tie.

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
You've made a lot of statements today that I'm just kind of bewildered by because it's almost like you expect me to accept them as true, but they're completely fact findings.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
You've told me that it would take the same amount of time to make these two sets of adjustments.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in this record to that effect.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
There's nothing anywhere in this.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence in this record of anything vaguely like that.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
All the arguments you are making are, quite frankly, factual arguments that you very well should have put towards the district court judge prior to his or her claim construction.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
Her, his?

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
I don't know.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
Prior to its claim construction, the court's claim construction.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
But you didn't.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
You chose not to proffer expert testimony that explains these differences between retooling and adjustment, or the differences in the time savings between

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
what their product does and the adjustment otherwise disclosed in the patent.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
So, I mean, I can't make decisions on all of that.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
That would all be fact-finding, and you didn't even introduce any evidence to support what you're saying.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
But, Your Honor, in this case... That was your choice.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
That was a litigation choice that you made.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
I don't think it was as much of a litigation choice as the intrinsic record, Your Honor, in this case.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
It's really to a fixed-channel, single-piece die.

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
And we were the first to have come up with a multi-component adjustable die.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
You're saying the fixed record, the intrinsic record, doesn't define what it means to retool anywhere in this intrinsic record.

[00:12:38] Speaker 02:
But the retooling in this context, and there is evidence of this in this context, are making permanent changes.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
Whereas in both in the construction that we're asking for,

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
The dyes that we're talking about are not permanent changes.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
The construction you're asking for, I thought you didn't posit a construction.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, the ordinary meaning, I apologize.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
The ordinary meaning would cover having, making changes to the dye that are not permanent.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
So these are all... Maybe that's part of...

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
The difficulty in the record that's been developed here is that you didn't posit an alternative claim construction.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
You just said, I guess you said, ordinary meaning.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
Did you say just construe the claims?

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
We did say ordinary meaning.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
And that makes it harder, I think, for everyone, including the district court judge, because it doesn't help the focus.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
But anyway, that's just an observation.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
Just one last thing, if you don't mind, because I know you want to save some time for rebuttal.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Where in this patent does it say retooling affects a permanent change in

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
It's in the context of Column 2.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
Column 2.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
So you've now talked about the fixed channel die.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
That's what they're talking about in the background.

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
I'm in Column 2.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Tell me a line number, please.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
If you go to line, I think it's in top of Column 2.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
It's at lines 7 or 8.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
Accordingly, errors are encountered during the development of the extrusion die.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
It must be corrected by either retooling of the extrusion die.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
Do you see that?

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
But why does that suggest that retooling equates to a permanent change to the entire die?

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
Because the context of this is a fixed channel single piece die.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
That's what they're talking about and you can see that in column one when they're talking about extrusion die 106 includes a die component having a fixed channel.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
It's a fixed channel single component die and that skill in the art and we have this in the record

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
People still in the art know that the changes that you make to such a die to be able to deal with different materials.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
So possibly retooling a fixed channel single piece die involves affecting a permanent change.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
That doesn't mean the word retooling used in multi-component products necessitates a permanent change.

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
I don't know.

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
It's not in this record is your problem.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
But the patent itself never discloses as prior art a multi-component die.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
The way the patent has been written

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
It's specifically to the prior arc being a single component fixed channel die, where the retooling is permanent.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
And that's in the record.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
And what the invention is, is to a multi-component adjustable die.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
And so the retooling, as it's used in that, to show an advantage.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
Where in this patent does it say the invention is to a multi-component die?

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
Where does it say that?

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
Because you know what?

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
All of the advantages touted in this invention have to do with adjustability, and none of them have to do with multi-component.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, if you look at the extrusion die there, claimed as a three-component die.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
Yes, it's claimed that way, and it's disclosed that way, and all the examples include the multi-component.

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
But what I don't see is this patent stressing that the multi-component is the invention.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
And in fact, it can't be, because there were multi-component

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
dies in existence before this, according to the prior art.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
They were adjustable.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
Adjustable.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
They're adjustable.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
But it's adjustable because it's a multi-component die.

[00:15:55] Speaker 03:
But there were multi-component dies beforehand.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
And they weren't adjustable.

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
They were not adjustable.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
But here they're adjustable, and there's not a specific mechanism that it's not touting the mechanism of telescoping over disassembly, reassembly, which is really the difference in the case law.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
This is much more like Phillips than

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
Any of the other cases the any it's not like Curtis Wright.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
It's not like Symantec because in those cases when you look at the ordinary meaning it encompasses both Embodiments and there was something in the spec that specifically said I disparaged this methodology I stole this over that here.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
It's silent on disassembly reassembly and all it does is say one embodiment of achieving this is with telescoping

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
And to limit the claims to that telescoping method is improper, and it's actually reading in the embodiment, which is wrong under your case law.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
Will we still have a minute for rebuttal?

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
The issue picking up on where we left off is what's the ordinary meaning of these claim terms, the adjustable limitation in the context of the patent, which is what the court's case law says you look at, the context of how it's used.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
And the claims really answer the question right off the bat with picking up on what Judge Moore was talking about with the order of the components.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
The claim is for an assembly.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
It's a die assembly that has to have components that are in a specific order, 1, 2, and 3, where the components are received within each other and adjustable along the longitudinal axis.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
And so for the claim limitation that's actually in question for adjustable, for example, is the second component that has a position that's adjustable along the longitudinal axis.

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
relative to the previous component, and the claim goes on to say it's also received.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
And I don't understand claim one as being limited to a telescoping process.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
I see that coming in in the tapering limitation of claim maybe three, is it?

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
Yeah, claim three.

[00:17:58] Speaker 03:
So adjustable could mean something different, right?

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
Comprising means maybe there could be more components.

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
There's a first, a second, a third, but maybe there are more things even in this, but those things maybe aren't really adjustable, but maybe

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
three and two can slide around.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
I just see the telescoping coming into the dependent claim and I assume without being a skilled artisan that the independent claim is broader and therefore it could be done in a manner other than simply by telescoping.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
You're absolutely right it's comprising so you can certainly add more components for sure.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
The telescoping is what we've used as a shorthand to describe that, really on the second and third components, that they have to be adjustable and received within the previous component.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
So when you're looking at the patent, what it's describing and claiming in claim one is an extrusion die assembly, a single assembly where there's components that are received.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
I see.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
It has to be received within.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
I missed that part.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
So that kind of really does limit you somewhat to telescoping.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
We think it is really essentially claiming the telescoping arrangement where you have

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
one component and then a second component that's received within.

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
How does the accused device work then?

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
How is it received within?

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
Because I would think that would mean each piece has to get progressively larger for it to work.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
How can you take three out and put it between one and two and have all the received within stuff be met?

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
With the accused device?

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
So we actually disagree that in the accused device the components are received within.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
That's not obviously an issue here.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
But in the Q's device, it's plates that are stacked on top of each other.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
And there's pins in the plates that are really for alignment.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
And those pins sink into a surface on the plate.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
And so that's what Leesman says is received within, which we say that's actually not received within.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
So that is a dispute.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
But to give a little more context to... I'm just trying to figure out if it's not limiting the telescoping

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
What could it include, and how could it possibly extend to your device?

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
With the accused devices, Stratasys' position in the district court was that the components are not received within an accused device.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Because there is no- That's not in front of us.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
You don't have to do that.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
But with the accused devices, you know, when they're put together, you can't do anything with them.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
Everything's fixed in place.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
The only way to make any sort of, I guess, what you'd call a modification to the accused device is to disassemble them.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
They're not adjustable longitudinally.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
You just have to disassemble them.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
You disassemble them.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
And you know what?

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
It's possible that, you know, a skilled artisan would take a different reading of retooling as described in this patent, but there's no evidence on this, is there?

[00:20:23] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence of what retooling means.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
The concept of it means permanent retooling that council was raising in that type of argument.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
The patent doesn't talk about permanent retooling.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
It's just referring to the advantage being that it avoids the need to retool or replace the die.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
And at the Markman hearing, for example, council acknowledged that with the accused devices, if you're taking something apart and making a different die, that's a different die.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
So it really feels like retooling.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
It's retooling.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
It's replacing.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
It's both of those concepts.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
And that's what the district court noted is that contrary to what Liesman was saying, disassembling and taking out components and making a different die is the type of complication that the invention is trying to avoid.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
I don't have anything more for you.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
Do you have anything else you'd like to add?

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
Well, we'd ask that the district court constructions be affirmed and that the judgment of non-frenchment be upheld.

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I just have two points.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
piece of testimony that's in the record, it's on appendix 2105, where their expert specifically said this idea of having a threaded configuration that's in the patent, that if you change the components to make it shorter, that would not be retooling.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
Where is that appendix?

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
Appendix at 2105, lines 13 to about 24.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
Okay, there's four pages, 2105, and then is it 73, 74?

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
Oh, sorry, page 73, lines 13 to about 24.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
Well, but he doesn't say taking it apart and moving it around wouldn't be retooling.

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
He says taking it apart, cleaning it, and putting it back together wouldn't be retooling.

[00:22:12] Speaker 03:
Because the implication is retooling is changing it in some way.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
I don't know that the change has to be permanent, but I certainly agree with you that the plain meaning would involve changing it.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
But your point before was just simply if you took it apart and you had to put it back together in exactly the same way, even if you added it would be the same, it would be the same action.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
And that wouldn't be retooling in this context.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
And the reason is because of the way the patent has described the prior art and then the invention based on that prior art.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
And if you look at your law... My kids play with Legos.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
And when they build with Legos, you know, they follow the little instruction book and they build with Legos.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
And sometimes they disassemble it in a different one of my kids.

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
I have a lot of kids.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
A different one will assemble the same Legos.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
And when it turns out the same way, I mean, it's been rebuilt, but I don't think it's been retooled.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
However, if they decide to get creative and make their own thing with all the pieces instead of following the book, that feels like retooling to me.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
But in the context of this claim language where all you have to do is answer the question whether the position of that

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
Lego blocks can be adjusted along the longitudinal axis.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
It doesn't specify the mechanism.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
So because it doesn't specify the mechanism, any mechanism that allows for that change in position along the longitudinal axis is covered by that claim.

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
Any mechanism that doesn't require retooling, because that's what the spec says in two separate places.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
The present invention doesn't require retooling.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
And in the context of this specification, because the background and the prior art that distinguishes the invention from is a single piece,

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
single component fixed channel die versus a multi-component adjustable die.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
That's the distinction you have to look at.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
And that's why when you look at Curtis Wright or you look at the semantic case, those are all where the patentee himself has made that distinction between what the ordinary meaning would cover.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
Here on adjustable, there is no such distinction.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
The patentee has never extolled telescoping versus disassembly, reassembly.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
The patentee has never disparaged disassembly, reassembly as a manner of adjustment.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
And so for that reason, the ordinary meaning should apply.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
Lastly, Your Honor, I'll just say on received within, it doesn't have to... District Court itself rejected the idea that they had to be received within the channel because they said that was reading in the embodiment.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
That same analysis would apply to adjustable.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
And so the pins, when they're received within, you can still have an embodiment where it's received within, where it's received within the plate, as counsel said, and not be

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
the same as a telescoping method.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:45] Speaker 01:
We thank both sides of the case.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
This concludes our proceedings for this morning.