[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
cases is and has to be of course the patent.

[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
Here we have two patents.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
We have the 046 and the 570 patents and they relate to these self-releasing booting operations.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Before these boots, and this is right in the patent itself in the background, the officer would identify a scofflock vehicle, boot it, and then the vehicle operator would have to find their way with alternate transportation to wherever they have to pay the fine

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
and find additional transportation back and then sit and wait for the officer to come and unlock these boots.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
These inventions changed all that.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
Now you boot the vehicle, the boot itself is different, it's a coated boot, they're not the key locked boots, and now all the vehicle operator needs to do, call up, pay the fine, give it a deposit over the phone, in exchange you get the coated

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
go to the boot, you plug it into the boot, take the boot off the wheel, throw it in the trunk and return the boot, get your deposit back at your convenience.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
We know Section 101 and what it says is Patent Eligible Subject Matter and it includes any new and useful process, manufacture, composition of matter and machine or new and useful improvements.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
We also know now from decades of case law

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
that there's an exception.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
One of the exceptions is for abstract.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
The now familiar Mayo-Alice steps, the first step we look at.

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
Are you going mainly on step one or step two?

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
Actually, I think it should end on step one, Your Honor.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
I'll talk about step two.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
But I think step one, it should end.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
Step one looks at whether or not, of course,

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
The focus, step one focuses on the means and the manner in which these, which they achieve their goals.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
It has to be something, focus on a specific means or method rather than focusing the claims of the whole, focusing on the general result, the general idea itself.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
These claims are not directed to an abstract idea.

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
They all recite very specific means and method of achieving this.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
And at the center of every one of these claims is a specific novel mechanical device.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
It's a vehicular boot that doesn't rely on the keys of the old... Why isn't the claim directed to the vehicular boot then?

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
I mean, even if you're right, why is that not a step two case?

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
Because it sounds like what you're saying is the claims directed to this novel boot

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
but you don't even seem to know, I think, near the end of the claim.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
And so why isn't there an abstract idea?

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
And then you're relying on step two, I guess, by saying that you've got a novel boot.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, it depends which claim you're looking at and where that boot comes in.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
But I think it's really both.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
And the courts do recognize, and correctly so, that there is a little bit of overlap between these steps.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
But in my view, the first approach is to look at this and see, do these claims

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
just say, look, self-release booting, go ahead and find a way to apply it.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
Or do they say, this is the means for doing it, this is the method for doing it.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
And these claims do the latter.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
What exactly is the novel part about the boot?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
There's never been a vehicular boot with a coded vehicular lock before.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
A coded lock.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
There's no vehicular boot with a coded lock.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
There were keys before.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
There were keys before.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
So respectfully,

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
We'll get into this in step two.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
Those are not inventive steps, right?

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
Are you saying coded locks are a new invention or are you saying using them for this purpose is a new invention?

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
I'm saying that the vehicular boot with a coded lock was new and never been done before.

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
Now, if there's skepticism, Your Honor, about the coded locks,

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
Skepticism, respectively, belongs under a different statute.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
The question that we're faced here in the Alice context is, was this conventional?

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
Was it conventional to have a vehicular boot with a coated lock?

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
Well, it can't be conventional if it's never been done before.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Conventional means something that's commonplace.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
That's what the word conventional means.

[00:04:39] Speaker 03:
Your view is that whether something's abstract requires us to look at whether something was conventional?

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
What do you think the test is that we are supposed to apply when we're asked to identify whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea?

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
The test is whether or not, and this is I'll take it right from the micro case, whether the claims focus on a specific means or method, and this is step one, whether the claims focus on a specific means or method or whether they're directed to the abstract concept itself.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
That's the test.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
And there is a specific means.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
There's this novel, mechanical, specific boot in the center of all these claims, and there's a specific method.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
All these claims talk about how you go about to use that boot.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
So the test under step one, is it focused on a specific means and method?

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, of course it does.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
It's a very specific means and method, so respectfully, Your Honor, I don't think that this gets past step one.

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
How do you define the

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
How did the court below define the abstract idea?

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
Pardon me?

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
How did the court below define the abstract idea?

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
I mean, a lot of it requires consideration of if there is an abstract idea, how do you define it?

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Well, what the district court did below is it just said, look, all we're doing is just following the trend of self-service.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
And so we're just following the trend of self-service.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
So the district court said the abstract idea here for all these claims is just self-service in the vehicular booting.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
I'm paraphrasing, of course.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
But that's basically what the district court did.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
And that was vastly oversimplifying these claims.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
That's just vastly oversimplifying them.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
It's ignoring the novel mechanical structure that's in the center of all the claims.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
Are you familiar with our case in Smart, a case called Smart Systems Innovations?

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
Your honor, there's a lot of cases.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
I know.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
This is the one with the paying for a subway or metro car.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
Oh yeah, that's recent.

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
With the credit card.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
That's quite recent.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
I think it's pretty close to this case in my view, so I wonder if you're familiar with the case.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
I don't want to hit you.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
I know there are a lot of cases out there and this is recent, but if you could tell me why you think this is distinguishable.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
I think it's different because here we have a novel specific mechanical device.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
There was no such in that

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
If, as I recall that case, it was just basically you were able to swipe for the Chicago Transit through a credit card, and they found that you were able to use your credit card.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
So you're talking about a step two differentiation, not a step one.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
Well, it could be, Your Honor.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
It could be.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
I mean, I've said my piece about a step one, but it could be a step two differentiator.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
But ultimately, it comes down to this.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
If these claims were a little different, if, well,

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
significantly different.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
But if they were different in the sense that they said, we claim a vehicular boot with a coded lock for the vehicles of scoff-flies, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
No one would say that's abstract.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
And respectfully, that result doesn't change just because you put that apparatus in the middle of a step for process for its use.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
I think another great way to look at this under step two as well is the machine or transformation test.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
I mean, we know that's not the sole test.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
We know that under Bilsky.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
But Bilsky also said that the machine or transformation test is an investigative tool, and it's a useful tool, and it's an important tool.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
So if we employ that important tool here, where does it get us?

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
It leads us directly to the result that this is not abstract.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
All these claims are inextricably tied to a new apparatus.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
It's not an apparatus in the sense that so many cases try to say where

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
You know, yeah, we've got an apparatus that's a computer.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
It's not tied to a computer or a PDA.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
It's tied to a specific new mechanical structure that's never been done before.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
Bilsky leads to the conclusion that these are not abstract.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
They truly aren't.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
What the district court said was, and we're on step two now, what the district court said is, and in step two, of course, you look to each individual limitation as well as the ordered combination,

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
And what the district court said was just commercially available, conventional stuff.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
That was just factually wrong.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
It's just factually wrong.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
You can't go down to the local Walmart and pick up a vehicular boot with a coded lock.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
It's just not correct.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
Same as the district court's conclusion that this was conventional.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
No one's ever, certainly nothing in this record, no one's ever used a vehicular boot with a coded lock so that the people who own the vehicle can

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
remove it themselves.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
That structure has never been known before.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
You can't say something's conventional.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
You're talking about the combination of those two things.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
And Your Honor, if there's skepticism, I said this before, but if there's skepticism about that, about whether or not it would be obvious or not to combine those two things, I really think that skepticism belongs under a different statute.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
If we're going to step onto that path and say,

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
Okay, you came up with a new device and you combine these two things in the art, but it's still conventional.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
That's a very slippery slope.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
I mean, the next person that comes up here to this podium for the analysis issue, and they have a new mechanical device that's never been done before, maybe they combine three elements or four or 10.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
You can't say it's conventional if it's never been done before.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
This is something very different from all these cases that have

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
PDAs and computers, and all they're doing is taking stuff that's been done before and saying, look, we're throwing a computer at it.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
Does your patent specification emphasize the novel, unconventional nature of the lock boot having this release code?

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
I don't remember.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
It says that it distinguishes the prior boots.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
I know that, Your Honor, and I do believe that there's... Do you know where that's at?

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
It would be in the background section.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
I think maybe the 570, but you're testing my memory, Your Honor.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry to flip this around, but really the way to look at this is we have to flip it around.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Is there anything in this record or in the patents or anything else saying it was conventional to have a vehicular boot with a coded lock?

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
And no, so there's nothing here, especially on a 12C motion.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
That's a factual determination the district court made, and it was just factually wrong.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
You can't say something's conventional that's never been done before.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
So respectfully, we've talked about some of the cases.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
I've read countless cases preparing for this.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
It's impossible to keep them all straight.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
But I can tell you one thing.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
I don't remember seeing any case where you had a novel mechanical structure in a claim and any court saying that that's abstract.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
It's a mechanical boot with a code.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
You hold it in your hand.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
There's absolutely nothing abstract about that.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
Just have 15 seconds.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
I'll talk about the presumption very briefly.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
But I don't think we should even get there because we need to get there because this factual determination shouldn't be here.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
282 says patents are presumed valid, period.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
That should be the end all be all.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
Courts interpret statutes.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
So I'm past my time.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Unless there are questions, I'll reserve you.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
Initially, I thought it might just very briefly mention that when the city of New Orleans asked SP Plus to provide this self-release service, SP Plus went out and purchased, I think it was 108 Titan grip boots, which are patented.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
That fact alone is not relevant, but I just wanted to mention the background because it's something that we obtained certainly

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
different from the boot, the apparatus that Paylock uses.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
And I just mentioned that because in getting to know this case it was something that I was, it was just questions that I naturally had.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
In other words, I think as the court may have noticed, Paylock uses a digital keypad, punch pad, to unlock a boot.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
And the Titan grip boots that SP Plus went out and obtained in order to fill the request by the city remind me of the

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
the bike lock that I had when I was a boy, where you turn the bolts in order to get to a code.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but your friend is saying you take, OK, the boots are in the prior art and the lock is in the prior art, but the combination of the two is invented.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge.

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
And I just mentioned that, the background, because I was learning about it, I wanted to mention.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And because I think it's consistent with what the 046 patent says, and I'm reading it Appendix 53 from the record,

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
And this is down under background, quote, background of the invention.

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
Did you say appendix page 53?

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
53, appendix 53.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
I think you're looking at reading column two of the- I'm in column one.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Of the 046 patent.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
As in that appendix page 60.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Judge, I apologize if I've said it wrong.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
I just want to make sure I'm on the right page.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
Yeah, maybe it's because of the two different appeal numbers or something.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
On appeal, 2151, Judge.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
That might be right.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
It wouldn't be the first time I've cited something wrong, but I thought I'd just mention it because I think it went to one of your colleagues' questions.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
Again, what I have in front of me is appendix 53, and if everything's right, I'm looking in the left-hand column under number one and background of the invention.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
Third paragraph.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
starting one solution, and I'll fast forward for the sake of time to the third sentence, which says, the second sentence says, such a boot as a device which is attached to a vehicle to make operation of the vehicle impossible since the wheel is no longer able to roll.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
Third sentence, such boots are commonly used and widely available, period.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
Such boots are typically cumbersome and heavy, period.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
For example, such boots are disclosed in Japanese patent, and there's a number listed there, all incorporated by reference.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
I mention that because I think there was a, the court asked and tried to understand this and how unique the claim is here.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
I have a question, though.

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
That seems to be just talking about a regular boot.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
That passage you cited isn't talking about a locking boot with the boot release code, is it?

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
I believe it's talking about a locking boot, Judge, and does it discuss a release code?

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
No, it doesn't.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
But I think all boots are meant to be unlocked.

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
And if I understand correctly what you're saying... No boot is permanent.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you a question?

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge, sorry.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
I think that you were referencing what you had purchased when you were trying to fulfill the contract.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Yes, sure.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
And I think you said, if I understand correctly, it was a locking boot with like a

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
what you would find on a middle school or high school combination law.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
Is that what you were describing?

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
I couldn't.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
I was trying to describe that for the court.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
OK, thank you.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
Which is what SP Plus utilizes in its operations before it ceased doing this.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
Is there any evidence in the record of a locking boot with a boot release code other than what at all?

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
I guess other than what you mentioned, is there anything in the records talking about how

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
Locking boots with boot release codes were available or conventional?

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
We did cite into the record in support with the affidavit.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
It's how we fulfilled the contract and how we got there, which was what I was trying to explain for the court.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
Is that in the record before us today?

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
I believe it's in the trial court record in terms of the filings that we made before with the motion, the Rule 12 motion we made with the district court.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
I can't provide a citation at the moment, but that should be in the record

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
Because it's part of what we provided to this court in terms of the supported background.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
Do you have a particular page number in the appendix right now?

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
That's before we leave.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
My colleague who knows things better than I do, we're looking right now.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
But I believe it should be there, Judge.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
The court asked a little bit about step one under Alice and the question of whether we're looking at something that's not an abstract idea.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
And I think, again, this court's presidents have talked about

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
basic and long-standing business practices and long-standing commercial practices as the types of things that don't satisfy the step one analysis.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
Part of the claim is that the district court looked at was the question about someone making a deposit on the boot and the fact that SP Plus may change its locks.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
Long-standing business practices, whether on library books that are borrowed or on a canoe that's taken

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
on other devices.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
Those types of things are things that businesses have been using for generations.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
I know that council is focused on this apparatus, but I think it goes to the point that they've identified no way that using a law, excuse me, using an apparatus, although ours is different, somehow transforms us into an improvement.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
And I think one of the key holdings of ALIS is obviously that the use of generic computer technology

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
doesn't transform otherwise ineligible material into eligible patent material.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
And so our point on that was that under step one, these long-standing business practices are the type of abstract ideas that don't qualify for protection.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
But fast-forwarding to step two, we don't have anything that improves technology, as this Court has looked at.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
And I think NRA-TLI communications by this Court

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
The fact that something may make a process more efficient doesn't meet the Step 2 test.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
The fact that something may save time doesn't mean that that's an improvement on technology.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
What we're really using here is the type of technology or a process that men could use with pen and paper.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
And this Court has spoken on that before, that when you're dealing with a process that can and certainly in the past could have been done with pen and paper, then that shows that it's not

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
It's likely not going to satisfy at least a step one test.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
On the step two, the fact that we've got something with this apparatus is certainly not a technology improvement.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
There's no software that improves.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
There's no computer program that has become inventive or novel or different.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
in order to satisfy this court's task.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
One of the areas that the Supreme Court initially was involved with, and we cover in some and all of our cases, is this issue of preemption.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
And there's no real issue of preemption in this case here, if you're right.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
I mean, this invention has a very, very narrow lane that wouldn't foreclose others from doing other things, right?

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
I believe that's correct.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
We certainly were

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
received a cease and desist letter in subsequent demands that said, we can't enter self-release booting at all anywhere.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
And that was only an issue in obviously New Orleans.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
But I think the answer is yes.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
It's narrow in that sense, Judge, just to be clear that it wasn't using any particular type of boot or it wasn't.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
In fact, we asked questions about that when we first received the cease and desist letter and before we filed the action claiming invalidity and non-infringement, was what exactly is the

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
is it that the claim or your position that the claim would prevent?

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
And it's any and all self-release booting, which is why we filed the action in the Eastern District.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
I'm going to cite to an answer to Judge Stoll your question earlier, Appendix 2 and Footnote 2, excuse me, Footnote 1, apologize, Page 2, Footnote 1 that discusses SP Plus acquiring the

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
tighten grip boots that we were talking about earlier and that I brought up, not to confuse or make an issue, but just explain a little bit about the background when I heard how unique, quote, unique the apparatus was.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
That apparatus may be unique, but it's certainly different than the apparatus that SP Plus has been using pursuant to the city's request.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
Also, Appendix 28, which I think addresses the district court's comments, and that's specifically footnote 10,

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
that discusses the idea of the technology to effectuate the abstract idea of self-release booting.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
And I'm sure the Court's seen it, but that's Appendix 28, which also went to the Court's questions about this abstract idea and whether that satisfied the Step 2 analysis.

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
At the end of the day, I mean, I think when you look at what this Court has said in the content extraction case, the fact that you're using or collecting data is all fine.

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
But that's certainly not something to get past the abstract idea exception.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
And if we look at the TLI communications, again, Your Honor mentioned rightly so, there are many decisions out there, and I can't cite them all back.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
But I think those are settled decisions from this court that show that you have to show something more than just a process.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
Certainly a process that businesses and others have been utilizing for decades, if not generations.

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you, the first site that you gave me doesn't say anything about how the Titan Grip Boots work at all.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
Do you have anything else that's better that talks about them?

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
It just says that you acquired them.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Judge.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have the patent number in there.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
Well, and it doesn't say that they have self-release or anything else, or how the self-release works.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
no i just want to dress the artist question was there evidence in the record that we require these these foods i really was more interested in that self-release mechanism but i'm sorry judge i'm sorry site it but this is the best thing you've got this is the best side i have right now yes judge uh... i believe when we look at the the supreme court's decision analysis what it's caution then the the consistent decisions from this court about making sure that we go somewhere more make sure that we have something more than just an abstract idea

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
and something that's really novel and has an inventive concept.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
And that's been a touchstone, I think, of this Court's decisions, that we don't have that here.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
What we have is a telephone call in to get a boot released so that someone can save time.

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
And that's certainly laudable that the city wanted it and asked for it.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
But that's not an invention or enough to give a monopoly over this whole process nationwide.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
And that's certainly something that we've been struggling with here.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
in terms of the demands that we received.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
I also think it's... That wouldn't be a Section 101 issue.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
Were other aspects, other provisions, other potential grounds of concern?

[00:24:31] Speaker 02:
I'm thinking of the proposed reissue.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
For example, I'm not really sure what to do about that.

[00:24:38] Speaker 02:
But was Section 101 the emphasis, the focus of the argument?

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
It was, Your Honor.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
in section one was, you're talking about in the district court below?

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge, it was.

[00:24:50] Speaker 00:
We asserted that patents were invalid and that there was not infringement.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
That was the only focus?

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
That was the focus at the district court below, Judge.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
I think it's also worth noting when we talk about whether this is something novel or that there's truly been an invention, something, an abstract idea, it's worth noting that when we received the cease and desist letter, we've been able to provide services

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
without any self-release boot or mechanism.

[00:25:19] Speaker 00:
And what we've done is what we've always done, which is had someone go and release the boot.

[00:25:24] Speaker 00:
And I think any boot is meant to be temporary, not permanent.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
And our employees have been doing that since then.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
But I mention that because those are the types of conventional processes that we've always had.

[00:25:35] Speaker 00:
To say that merely by being able to call in and receive the lock on the boot that doesn't transform this into a, quote, technological improvement

[00:25:45] Speaker 00:
or an inventive concept or something that would satisfy what this court and the Supreme Court said need to pass muster in order to create a section 101, valid under section 101.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
And so I think when we look at the wealth of decisions from this court, including the ones that the court cited from even since our briefs were filed, the Simple Solutions case, I think that this certainly falls within it.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
I know it's the Novo review.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
But I think that this case was correctly decided by the district court, who fairly thoroughly analyzed it, all aspects of it, and his written ruling.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
So we would ask this court affirm under its precedence and that of the Supreme Court.

[00:26:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:35] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:35] Speaker 01:
I'll be very brief.

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
I think Judge Stoll asked the $50,000 question here, which was,

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
Is there any record evidence of a boot with a release code?

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
The answer is no.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
This is a new physical combination.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
It's a technology that did not previously exist.

[00:26:54] Speaker 01:
So under the Machinery Transformation Test, which the Supreme Court in Bielski has told us is an important test, and it gives us an important clue, these claims are all inextricably tied to this specific, novel, new mechanical device.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
And respectfully, they're patent eligible.

[00:27:13] Speaker 04:
if there are no further questions.