[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Final pace for today is 2-0-1-7-2-2-4-8, fast ship versus United States.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hogue, is it Hogue?

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hogue, please proceed.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
I'd like to spend my time discussing why the LCS-3 should have been included in the royalty base.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Judge Letow found that the impeller assembly had not been undergone its final step of installation at the date of expiration.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
He found that the ship could not float at the date of expiration.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
He said that the degree of completeness was immature.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
said that the LCS3 at that date was not an operable assembly as a whole, citing Deep South.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
And that's simply not the law.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
The LCS3 was ready for assembly on the date of expiration.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
It had no useful non-infringing use.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
And that's a paper converting case of this court.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
And that should have authorized the inclusion of that ship in the royalty base.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
It was one of the primary issues

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
here is the Minium Manufactured as it's used in in section 1498.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
Have you identified any alleged history informing our interpretation of Manufactured?

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
And we go back to 1918.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
No, we have not.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
I don't think the legislative history is all that helpful.

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
At the time in 1918,

[00:02:15] Speaker 04:
the definition of manufacture included to work as raw or partly raw materials into suitable forms for use.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
Several dictionaries have similar.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
Should we interpret manufacture in 1498 to require that the product be made suitable for use?

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
I certainly don't see anything wrong with that.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
But what we have here is a patent expiration date case.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
And we ought to be giving the full force and effect of the patent extent period for that.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
If we're going to be in a paper converting situation where the competitor, or in this case, the Navy, can assemble a patented item past the points of testing, and then the last year is gone.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
You have some arguments, but they don't seem really strongly supported about

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
nefariously shipping parts to San Diego and so on.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
Obviously, a party could game the system, but you don't support that.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Well, unfortunately, this motion was brought during written discovery early in the case, and we were still in document production.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
The case developed, and we did find

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
exactly that kind of evidence, Your Honor.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
We found subterfuge to hide the patent infringements, at least six of them.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
You can look at footnote 11.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
They're in Judge Leto's memo order, and you find a fraudulent model that was made by the Navy, tested to develop misleading low-pressure data near the transom strut, and they actually

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
tried to use that data at trial until we called them on it.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
And the picture shows the transom stern area convex instead of concave.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
And that translates, that difference of one and a half inches translates to 18 inches on that ship.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
And that ship has a hook stern that develops high pressure.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
We also had them try to do a

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
CFD analysis at trial, where it was computer simulation and trying to say that the ship sunk.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
And it turns out they didn't sample the right hull.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
It didn't have the hook.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
Didn't have stern on it.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
Where does footnote 11 say from?

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
It says it was wrong.

[00:05:03] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
The footnote 11 says that it

[00:05:08] Speaker 04:
The model, stern of the model didn't accurately represent the stern of the LCS-1, but it doesn't say anything about fraud.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
Right, it doesn't.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
That's in the record where we went.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
There is no such thing as willful infringement in this case.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
And that's another thing, that we didn't litigate that, but this is a grievous misconduct typified by willfulness.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
They copied the patent.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
They lied to us at the early stage when we were still on the design team that they weren't going to use the patent.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
They told us that the design was originally going to be a speedboat named the Destriero and some Italian ferries.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
That was false.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
We were actually told in a letter from the Navy in the rejection letter that they had evidence that there was no high pressure under the hull and that there were simulations and tests.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
to show that, and that was false.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
They didn't have any.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
All the data shows high pressure under that hall.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
We've learned out later that the bow section, which arguably shouldn't be considered part of the claim, it's not in the claim, but he wanted to import that limitation into the claim to show that it hadn't been completed.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
That work on the bow had stopped in February.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
and had progressed not one whit until after the patent expired.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
As we said, the nozzle assemblies were sitting dockside for two months waiting to be assembled.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
They were bolt-ins.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
There were eight hours of bolt-in, and it was done.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
The bow had about another week of welding, because these were hand-welded.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
And that's basically it.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
They were slow.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
up till the patent expiration date, and then it was open field running building this thing.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
All these arguments, though, that this thing wasn't complete as of the date, those arguments were rejected in the Hughes aircraft case.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
Those thrusters were not coupled for receiving control signals.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
The thrusters were dummies for weight and balance determinations.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
Patent converting case was a situation where

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
They were just assembly of parts or ship offshore.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
And so those are the two expiration date cases.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
We ought to be strengthening our patent system and not giving, you know, messages to patent infringers that they could just maintain their inventory in a disassembled state until the patent expiration date and then skate.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
That's not the situation here.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
The patented lifting sternal is done.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
A pioneering lifting stern was completed and it was miraculous.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
It violated the square cube law of Galileo.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
The Royal Navy, the U.S.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
Navy said it was impossible that it was going to do this.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
And that was done.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
That was the novel part of this, is the stern haul.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
And so that's why it should have been done.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
We chase the... That makes no sense.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
Your position equates to, if you've built the novel part of my invention, you therefore have a complete assembly.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
I mean, there's no dispute that there were other claim limitations that hadn't been assembled or built at the time the patent expired.

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
Under those circumstances, how did the court err?

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
Well, the patent, the operable assembly as a whole

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
language of the Supreme Court in Deep South applies to combination patents, where the individual parts of the assembly are not patentable in and of themselves.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
It is only as a whole does it become a patented thing.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
And that's where that language came from.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
I understand where this claim came from, but your argument that you just made a minute ago was they basically had already manufactured the novel part of our claims.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
Therefore, it's an operable assembly or a nearly complete operable assembly.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
I don't understand.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
There seems to be no dispute that at least one water jet had not been the at least one water jet limitation.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
had not been assembled yet.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
There were power source limitations.

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
It seems like there were other things, components of the claims, that had not been assembled that this was not operable at that time.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, Your Honor, but the only thing that was not assembled was the nozzle assembly going in the water jet tunnel in the claim.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
The engines were there, the prop shafts were there.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
The hull was there?

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
The hull was there your own.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
Hulls have bows, don't they?

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
Well, you know what?

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
That's true.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
It's on ships.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
But this claim is much better read without bow in it.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
The claim says hull, right?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
The claim says hull.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
A vessel with a hull.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
It does say that.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
And so you wouldn't expect a court to read the word Hull to exclude a bow, would you?

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
I would.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
You would?

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
I would.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
You would?

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
The bow is not part of a Hull.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
No, a bow is part of a Hull.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
It's not part of this claim though.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
This is an open claim.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
This has a list of features.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
and you took it as built out to sea and to get it up to speed, would it float such that the bow would be unnecessary?

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
I am not saying that.

[00:11:12] Speaker 01:
I'm just saying that this is an open claim.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
And wherever you find that list of features, that's an infringement.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
And there's a whole lot of things, Your Honor, that make that ship go that isn't in this claim.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
There are decks and there are bulkheads and there's a bridge

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
And there's rudders.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
The claim doesn't recite a bridge.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
The claim doesn't, I know.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
It recites a hull.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
And a hull has to have a bow.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
Well, that's where we're going to disagree because I think you import that limitation into the claim to defeat this.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
But in any event, it was another week of welding and assembly to put the bow on.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
And that's pretty close.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
It's over 95% complete.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
Whether we follow the law of paper converting or not, or the law of Hughes aircraft, there is no other patent expiration date case cited.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
The Degraff and Reed case is the only other one that the government cited, the Clan and Corps case, and that was an infringement.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
And with the receiver station outside of the country.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
Do you want to save time for rebuttal?

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
I would like to, yes.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
Mr. Walden?

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
Why did the Navy drop Fast Ship from the design team?

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I don't think that has any relevance, but I don't believe it was the Navy that dropped Fast Ship from the design team.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
I believe it was Lockheed Martin that made that decision.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
Why was that?

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
I'm not exactly sure.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Fast Ship seeks to expand paper converting beyond its specific facts

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
contradicting the Supreme Court's holdings in Deep South and in Warner Jenkinson.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
The trial court correctly rejected fascist argument, and it correctly held that the unassembled LCS 3 could not have been manufactured within the scope of 28 USC 1498 before the patents expired.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
Judge Wallach, I know that you previously mentioned the... Yeah, I have the same questions for you.

[00:13:28] Speaker 04:
And can you identify a binding case

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
that interprets the term manufactured as it's used in 1498.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
I think you do have to look at the legislative history, Your Honor.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
That's the first thing you ask opposing counsel.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
So you have the 1910 Act, which did not include the word manufacturer.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And then there was the William Cramp case, which basically held this is a strict waiver of sovereign immunity.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
It doesn't include the word manufacturer.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
And as a result, Congress came in and specifically waived sovereign immunity in 1918 to use the word manufacturer.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
Now, as far as the specific definition of manufacturer, I don't think there has been one.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
I think that the courts have traditionally treated it the same as make under 271A, which is essentially a complete assembly of the whole that's ready for use.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
And that is not present in this particular case under Deep South

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
or under any of the other court's precedents that always require a complete assembly of the whole.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
In paper converting, it seems to be a unique case where there was a scheme to avoid infringement, where there was an injunction against MagnaGraphics.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
Are you familiar with Zoltek?

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
Yes, I am, Your Honor.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
Neither party nor the court federal claims seem to address it.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
And I believe the reason is... What does it teach us about the meaning of manufacture, if anything?

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
I think the only thing that Zoltec teaches us with respect to the meaning of manufacture is that it has to include the definition of make under 271A, which I've already described.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
But as far as what Zoltec considered, Zoltec considered the meaning of use.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
And with respect to use, the court held that

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
direct infringements covered by 271-G could come within the meaning of use.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
But use is not at issue here.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Sale is not at issue here.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
Sale's not under 1498.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
And use and sale were never alleged or argued by fascia.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
We're strictly talking about manufacture here.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
And when you're talking about manufacture, you have to look at what the Supreme Court said in Deep South and what this court said in other cases like the Centillion data case where they said,

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
the court said that in order to have a manufacturer, you have to have a complete combination of all the elements.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
Fatship says that LCS3 was over 74% complete.

[00:15:59] Speaker 04:
And the red brief says LCS3 was 49% complete.

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
How do we reconcile those conflictions?

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
That dispute is not material.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
your honor, because what we really have to look at here is the claimed combination.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
Was the claim combination complete?

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
We can have an argument as far as what percentage, but I think the fact that everybody agrees that the claim combination wasn't 100% complete makes it undisputed that there was no complete combination.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
But paper converting the device there wasn't 100% complete at the time of expiration, right?

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
That's correct, your honor.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
you know, under our controlling case law, we have to move off the notion of 100% completion, don't we?

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
So no other cases seem to have ever followed paper converting.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
But even in paper converting, each... Did we just think of paper converting as a one-timer?

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
I think it's best read as limited to its unique facts.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
And in paper converting, you had a sale, you had a scheme to avoid infringement,

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
and you had each of the components were completely manufactured and tested, essentially, as a whole.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
Here, the hull was not a component that was complete.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
As you noted, it has no bow.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
The claim requires coupling between the inlet and the water jets and the power source.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
That wasn't complete either.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
Even if you use paper converting, this case is nowhere near paper converting as far as the... On May 18th, the patent expires.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
On September 17th, the final module is welded into place and the vessel's complete.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
I actually believe that it's December before the grand bow module was completed, but yes, Your Honor, it was December several months after.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
Pretty convenient.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, I think you're reading too much into the implication as far as when these very specific aspects of the components were completed.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
The ship wasn't even launched for several months after, and even at that time, the power source doesn't seem to have been connected or tested or anything else.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
I don't know exactly when the ship was manufactured, but I know that as of May 18th, the ship was not manufactured.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
And the court correctly concluded that that was not a manufacturer that could be held liable.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
Both parties agree that there is one error in the way that the lower tribunal calculated damages.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
How exactly, if we were going to modify the awarded damage award, would we state the correct damage award?

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
I believe it's in the briefs, Your Honor, but both sides have stipulated that if the court upholds

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
the trial court's decision in all respects, then it's that 7.1 million number that the parties have stipulated to the president.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
As well as delay compensation?

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
Can we modify without a remand?

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
I think you could remand with instructions to modify according to the party's stipulation.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
Yeah, you say it should not necessitate.

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
At page 80 in the Red River, you say that it should not necessitate a remand.

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
And I can't figure out how to do it without a remand.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
I'm not an expert in court procedures, so I apologize if we've been unclear.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
If it requires remand simply to state what the parties have stipulated to, then we're fine with that as well, too.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
If we were to do the modification right here at this level without remand, could you give us a little more information as to just why it is that the read-upon number, which is different from Judge Leto's number, is the right number?

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, what went into the adjustment?

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
It's a minor adjustment, relatively speaking, but nevertheless, it's a different number than the trial court below calculated.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
So my understanding is that the court based the royalty base on the expected costs as of a particular date.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
And he cited a sheet that had the expected costs on it, but he actually cited the incorrect number for the expected cost.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
The wrong column, I understand.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
Yes, exactly.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
If there are no further questions, let me turn to the government's cross appeal in this action.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
In Liberty Ammunition, this court held that a term of degree fails to provide sufficient notice if it depends on the unpredictable vagaries of one person's opinion.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
The trial court correctly construed increases efficiency of the hall as a term of degree, but then when it applied the term of degree,

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
It applied in an indefinite way by relying on the opinion of Fastship's inventor.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
Now, the trial court clearly erred by letting Fastship satisfy its burden of proof using an attorney-created chart in its post-trial reply brief based on the unsupported testimony of its inventor 26 years after the patents were first filed.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
And the dispute boils down to

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
whether figure 11 is phrased in terms of kilowatts or whether it's phrased in terms of horsepower.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
There is no reference in the intrinsic record to kilowatts as a unit of power.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
In fact, the intrinsic record shows that power is uniformly referred to as horsepower.

[00:21:59] Speaker 04:
Can you show me where in the record you argued that figure 11 is plotted in metric units rather than

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
kilowatts.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
We have never argued that figure 11 was plotted in metric units.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
We've always contested that figure 11 was plotted in horsepower and imperial units, but that's been our position since claim construction.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
But the question is why is it necessarily

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
understood to be referring to imperial units rather than metric units.

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
The term horsepower itself isn't exactly self-defining necessarily when it comes to what type of unit it's using.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
Well, there is such thing as metric horsepower, your honor, which actually represents less power than an imperial horsepower.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
But I think the phrase horsepower in and of itself

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
raises an implication that you're talking about imperial units, and especially once you read the specification.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
And in the specification, they talk about different water jets being rated in different horsepowers.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
There's never an indication that they're talking about kilowatts as a measure of power or shaft power.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
And you look at the different figures in the specification, and the different figures in the specification are phrased in terms of horsepower as well, too.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
So I think

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
The overall implication of the intrinsic record is that these are imperial units of power.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
These are horsepower.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
And so to take one comment from trial that this could have been plotted in kilowatts, which represents a 34% increase of power, making a conventional hall appear much less efficient, and thus making LCS1 appear infringing, was clearly erroneous.

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
This is more of a common sense question.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
Why would a semi-planning monohull with water jet propulsion to lift the boat be less efficient than a conventional displacement hull?

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
I mean, essentially, that's what you're arguing.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
A semi-planning monohull with these water jets to increase hydro lift is less efficient

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
than your Garen variety displacement hull.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
Tom Waters, who testified at trial, he's the technical warrant holder for the Navy for surface ship hydrodynamics.

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
I mean, isn't the whole point of a semi-planing monohull with this increased hydro lift designed to decrease drag and thereby increase efficiency?

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Well, Mr. Waters testified that he didn't actually view this as a semi-planing monohull, that it offended his sensibility as a hydrodynamics expert.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
Even putting that aside, this once again goes back to the elements rule.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Jerome?

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
Are these vessels faster than their predecessors?

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
I believe so.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
They use more fuel or less fuel?

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
They use more fuel.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
And once again, if you turn to the testimony of Mr. Waters, he said that these vessels go fast.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
because they have more force power than any other ship in the United States Navy other than aircraft carriers, essentially.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
That to me does not sound like an efficient vehicle.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
You're into your rebuttal time.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
Do you wish to save it?

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:25:26] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:25:28] Speaker 03:
Mr. Howard.

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
There's no scientist, naval architect, or physicist that

[00:25:39] Speaker 01:
subscribes to their theory on their graph.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
This ship did 43 knots in fresh water, meaning that that ship sits six inches deeper in fresh water.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
And if you plot 43 knots on their graph, the horsepower required to do 43 knots is over 140,000 horsepower.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
Their graph is absolutely 100% absurd.

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
They never, ever one time in the court

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
contested the fact that figure 11 was in kilowatts.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
Figure 11 is in volume one, discussed in volume one.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
showing their conception of horse powers referring to Imperial units, not kilowatts.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
Clearly on the face of the figure, it doesn't say either way.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
But at a minimum, it was notifying you that their view of Figure 11 is Imperial units.

[00:26:40] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
So it wasn't a surprise to you?

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
No, we corrected that in trial.

[00:26:49] Speaker 01:
The inventor who created that graph, and it is a unique graph, testified that it's shaft horsepower in kilowatts.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
And that's on volume one of the appendix, page 495, line 16 through 18.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Are we correct?

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
That was never contested.

[00:27:05] Speaker 03:
He claims Ford expressly fined that ship's expert and Mr. Guile's testimony to be more reliable?

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
It is a fact.

[00:27:16] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:27:19] Speaker 04:
That's all she wrote, as they say in the affiliate world.

[00:27:22] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:27:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:23] Speaker 03:
I have no further... Okay.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
He did not touch on the cross-appeal, so there is no rebuttal.

[00:27:34] Speaker 03:
That case is taken under submission.

[00:27:36] Speaker 03:
We thank Work Council for their arguments.

[00:27:38] Speaker 03:
All rise.