[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
It is 17 to one nine five inch in.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
Versus.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
We're ready whenever you are.

[00:01:10] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:01:11] Speaker 04:
May I please the Court?

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
The Board erred and it misunderstood the technology in this case when it ruled that a melting point depressant is the same thing as a solvent.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
It based this ruling on unsupported, conclusory, expert opinion of

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
Petitioner's expert Dr. Gribble, particularly paragraph 95.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
Can I just start, before you start to get into that, can you put what you're saying in context so that I can understand the significance?

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
Is the significance that GARDA was limited to DCM, DCA,

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
interchangeability only with respect to the melting plot?

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
Is that the point you're making?

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
The underpinning of the Board's obvious mis-holding was its conclusion that GARDA taught that DCA and DCM are equivalent interchangeable reaction solvents, and therefore it was obvious to substitute

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
DCA for DCM as the reaction solvent in the EP117 primary reference.

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
Is the red break correct that DCA can be employed as a substitute for DCM without TCA?

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
Not in Garta.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
Garta makes very clear that his solvent is TCA and that the only reason for adding DCA to TCA is to depress the melting point

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
of the TCA, which otherwise is a solid.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
He wants to depress its melting point to 10 degrees because that's where he conducted his reaction.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
Garda, if anything, tells the reader that if you don't have TCA, which is his solvent, there is no reason to have DCA.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
DCA is only there to depress the melting point.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
And as I

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
started out, and I apologize, Your Honor, for sort of jumping into the middle of this issue.

[00:03:18] Speaker 04:
But this really is a central issue to the office.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
I understand the issue.

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
The question I have is that didn't the board also rely heavily not just on the teachings of Garda, but on the testimony that it credited by Dr. Gribble?

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
And the board credited his testimony over your witness's testimony.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
And they seem to cite his declaration and his testimony in addition to Garda for the proposition that you're saying they aired.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
Dr. Gribble's testimony was primarily that Garda's disclosure of DCA and DCM as melting point depressants was the same thing as saying they are reaction solvents.

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
And that's where we think there was absolutely no support.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
Well, it says the citation, for example, just picking one of them out of the board's decision at APPX 11, we are persuaded that one skilled in the art would have understood that Engarder DCA is acting as both a solvent and what is referred to Engarder as a melting pot depressant.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
And they cite to the Gribble declaration, and they go on to talk about the disagreement between

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
your witness and their witness and why they're crediting their witness.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
Well, the fact is there was actually no disagreement because our witness provided extensive testimony on what a melting point depressant is and why that's different from a reaction solvent.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
In fact, he testified that they were the exact opposites.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
And I would refer you to Professor Curran's... Well, and the board says they have presented conflicting testimony on this point.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
And they credit Dr. Gribble, right?

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
I mean, I know your view is that this is wrong.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
I just want to know if I'm reading what the board said correctly.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
I think you've read what the board said correctly.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
My point, Your Honor, is, first of all, I guess I would go back to what is substantial evidence.

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
That's really what we're talking about here.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Is your point that their expert is wrong?

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
Their expert is wrong.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
But I also wish to make the point that there is no substantial evidence to support.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
I thought the expert agreed with your expert.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
Are they both wrong?

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
I don't know what you're saying.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
You said there was no disagreement.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry?

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
You said there was no disagreement between experts.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
No, no.

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
If I said that, I misspoke, Your Honor.

[00:06:02] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
The experts did disagree, but the point here

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
First of all, let me ask you this, because the standard review on us overturning the board's reliance on their expert for being incorrect is almost impossible for you to make.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
So let's assume their expert is correct, that what he said is we're not going to challenge the veracity of that.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
Why isn't that substantial evidence for this point?

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, this court is held in the PharmaStim versus Biocel

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
and most recently in Erickson versus Intellectual Ventures, that when an expert opinion is a conclusory opinion that is inconsistent with the record, inconsistent with the prior art, that will not be treated as substantial evidence.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
Well, that's not Judge Yu's question, as I understand.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
I must have misunderstood your question.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
He's assuming that we're going to accept that.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
And so what do you have left?

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
we accept the expert's testimony, or at least we accept that the board has substantial evidence based on the expert's testimony to reach its conclusion?

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
Well, I might just comment, though.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
You did refer to the fact that they stated that they were giving more credibility to the expert who testified for Adama.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
That was exactly the same issue that was present in the Erickson versus Intellectual Ventures case.

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
And the court said in that case that the expert opinion was simply inconsistent with the prior art.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Sure, but the premise of that conclusion is the court is not agreeing with the experts.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
testimony.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
They've met that very high burden.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
The premise, or at least the basis for my hypothetical was, I don't agree with that.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
I'm accepting the expert's opinion as true.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
If that's the case, isn't that substantial evidence for this point?

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
I guess if everything that Dr. Gribble said is correct, which we do disagree with, then that doesn't resolve the case, but it certainly bears on this issue.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
But I just want to point out.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
Let me take you back to my initial question about melting points, OK?

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
Because I asked you about the red brief's argument that DCA can be employed as a substitute without TCA.

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
And I want to direct your attention to European Pet 117, which is the primary reference.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
And that employs DCM without TCA according to the red brief.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Isn't that true?

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
It does.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
Then how do you deal with that?

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
Well, the claim of the 559 patent expressly says in the absence of TCA or DCM.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
The motivation that the board found for substituting DCA for DCM in the EP117 process was the Garta patent.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
The Garda patent teaches plainly TCA has to be there.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
It is the major component of the reaction medium there.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
And it is only modified by adding small amounts of DCA or DCM to depress its melting point.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
And so certainly EP117 doesn't say anything about DCA or TCA for that matter.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
And it certainly doesn't say you should avoid using TCA or TCPA.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
It simply is using one of the most common organic reaction solvents, most commonly used with MCPBA, which was the oxidant there.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
And there was no motivation to make this change.

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
If I can just finish my one point on the credibility point.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
This was exactly the same issue in the Erickson versus Intellectual Ventures case.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
The court there found that the expert opinion was contrary to the evidence.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
And the board said that they were crediting the other side's expert and concluded that Erickson's expert lacked credibility.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
This court dismissed that argument, or that holding by the board, saying this is not an issue of credibility.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
It's an issue of technology.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
And the same is true here.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
Just because Dr. Gribble says a melting point depressant is the same thing as a solvent doesn't make it so.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
He's trying to revoke decades or hundreds of years of physical chemistry.

[00:10:56] Speaker 00:
I'd like to turn to a couple of other points.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
Can I just make a general observation, and maybe I'm happy if you can respond to it?

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
It seems to me what drove the board here was the breadth of claim one.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
I mean, claim one puts in DCA, it doesn't describe or limit what DCA does.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
It doesn't describe or limit or cabin how much of it is doing anything.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
And it just seems to me that given that breadth, it's kind of hard to parse through the pieces of prior art and not say, well, there's enough here.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
to cover this unbelievably broad and somewhat ambiguous claim?

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, I guess I take exception that it was unbelievably broad.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
It is narrow where it distinguishes the prior art.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
It requires that the reaction be done in the presence of DCA and in the absence of TCA and TCPA.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't specify what DCA is

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
doing, what purpose it serves, right?

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't specify how much is doing anything.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
It's the presence of something.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
These arguments about the... Is that a fear characterization?

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
It does not specify the function of DCA.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
But the question here, I would submit, Your Honor, is not claim scope.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
This argument comes across almost like an inherent anticipation argument.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
They're saying, if

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
there was motivation to substitute DCA for DCM and EP 117, then EP 117 would produce results that fall within the scope of the claim.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
That's like an inherent anticipation argument, but this is not an anticipation case.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
This is an obviousness case.

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
And so the question is, would someone have been motivated to make that change in the first place?

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
And we argue that they wouldn't.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
Particularly, they wouldn't in view of the teaching away by the Garda reference.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
The Garda reference states about as plainly as can be stated that DCA is a poor medium for oxidation and that its only purpose is to depress the melting point.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
Well, without agreeing necessarily that this rises to the level of the teaching away,

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
You've also got the problem that this claim, the breadth of this claim, doesn't have any limits as to its efficacy, right?

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
No, but that was the point I was making.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
There is no dispute that this was an advance in the art, that you can practice this claim and get the very excellent results.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
That's why we're fighting over it.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
The point here is,

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
Why would you make a substitution into another claim if there was nothing to tell you that your results are going to be better, worse, or the same, which the Board as much as acknowledged in their, I think, page 11 of APPX 11.

[00:14:13] Speaker 04:
But I would submit, Your Honor, that the... Am I down to...

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Yeah, you're into your rebuttal.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
I would just like to say that the claim teaches a way by saying it's a poor medium for oxidation.

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
The board had no evidence as to how a POSA would have understood that language at the time of the invention.

[00:14:36] Speaker 04:
And I also want to mention that the claim construction was legal error.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
There is plainly a disavowal of MCPBA here.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
Adama's expert admitted

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
that the specification tells you it's unsatisfactory.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
If MCPVA is unsatisfactory and excluded from the scope of the invention, then the whole primary reference, EP117, goes away.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
The obviousness decision falls.

[00:15:04] Speaker 04:
I'll reserve some time for rebuttal.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court.

[00:15:17] Speaker 03:
The problem we have here is that Finkimica has a very broad claim, as Judge Cross pointed out.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say what any of these elements do in this reaction.

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
It takes a standard process for making fipronil, a well-known product, and looks for an alternative.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
They claimed several elements that are thrown into a pot and

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
Well, even at that, and then whatever the prior... What is the motivation to combine the references here?

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Even if we're assuming the broad substitution ability of DCA and DCM, why would somebody have done that?

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
Well, yes.

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
Why don't we look at what the motivation to combine means here, Your Honor?

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
The motivation here is to make an alternative.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
It wasn't to make an improved product.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence here that there was any improvement in this product or in this process.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
There were a number of patents that are set forth in the background of the 559 patent at issue.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
Everyone was looking in that time for an alternative process so as to avoid other patented processes and make a standard insecticide known as Fipronil.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
So what they were seeking was not an improved product but simply an alternative.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
The motivation to combine to make the alternative is shown by

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
the fact that they just took all of these elements and they've claimed them all broadly, except for certain things they wanted to take out.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Council talked about the claim language.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
But the claim language doesn't say what he says it says, either in his brief or in his argument.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
It says you start with a sulfide precursor and you oxidize it.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
to form a sulfoxide.

[00:17:17] Speaker 03:
In the presence of DCA, as your honor noted, it doesn't say what that DCA does.

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
He's making an argument distinguishing between solvents and melting point depressants, but the patent doesn't make that distinction.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
What the DCA is doing is it's a halogenated acetic acid, and it's in there to

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
create a reaction medium.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
You have to make a liquid vat to make this product.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
That's what apparently it's doing.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
It could be a solvent.

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
It could be a melting point, depressant, whatever that means.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
In Garda, they're both referred to as solvents.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
And then you put in an oxidizing agent.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
But it could be any oxidizing agent because they use an open-ended term comprising.

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
And that oxidizing agent could be hydrogen peroxide.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
It could be another peroxide.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
It could be MCPBA.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
All of those are oxidants.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
They're all per acids.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
One would easily interchange one for the other if you're looking for an alternative process to make Fipronil.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
And the only other part of the claim is a disclaimer, but it doesn't say what counsel just said.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
It says in the absence of TCA and or,

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
TCPA and or.

[00:18:41] Speaker 03:
So if either one of those is missing, then the disclaimer so-called in the last part of the claim is of no benefit at all.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
Their expert witness, Dr. Curran, testified that no one has ever seen TCPA.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
They don't even know what it is.

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
It's a hypothetical or transient molecule.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
And since there isn't any TCPA that anyone can identify, the absence of TCPA would meet the limitation of that claim.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
Council said that MCPBA was clearly disavowed in the 559 patent.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
It was not.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
It's not mentioned at all.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
What it says is that there's general disadvantages to using

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
the process of the EP 117 patent.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
The patent trial and appeal board made the distinction as to what that means.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence that they were wrong.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
The substantial evidence upon which they relied was Dr. Ribble's testimony and his declarations.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
He was cross-examined at great length.

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
There was no expressed disavowal.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
There was nothing in the file of prosecution history.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
There was nothing else in the specifications.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
There was no mention of it in the claims.

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
In fact, they took the opportunity in the claim to make this kind of half-hearted disclaimer of TCA and or TCPA.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
If they wanted to disclaim MCPBA, they could have done that.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
But what they did is they tried to claim broadly a process for making fipronil.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
They tried to claim it broadly and then exclude bits and pieces of the priorities they came up.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
That got them into the trouble.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
If they had written the claim or if they had amended their claim in the IPR process to be more specific, to be more specific to state exactly what each of these elements did, what their percentages were, the temperatures or the speed or the yield or some other process characteristics

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
Then maybe they would have had a more specific claim, which would have withstood scrutiny.

[00:21:06] Speaker 03:
But they did not.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
They tried to claim it broadly.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
They ran into that difficulty.

[00:21:12] Speaker 03:
Counsel was arguing here about why you should not pay any attention to Dr. Gribble's testimony.

[00:21:19] Speaker 03:
Frankly, that argument, I don't recall ever seeing that in his brief.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
And the cases he was relying on are not cited in the brief.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
And I don't think that

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
the court should pay attention to an argument which was not made in the brief and is therefore waived.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
I think the bottom line is one looks at the claims of the patent, that's what they sought, that's what they got, they have to stand on those claims.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
We submit that those claims are obvious as found by the PTAB and that the

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
Judgment below should be affirmed.

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

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, Mr. Zubin started out by talking about others that were involved in the prior art.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
We pointed out in our brief, there were five or six other, four or five other

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
research groups who were trying to develop this process.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
Not a single one even mentioned DCA, except for Garda.

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
Garda had DCA in his hand.

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
But what did he say?

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
It's a poor medium for oxidation.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
Don't use it.

[00:22:41] Speaker 04:
Dr. Curran testified clearly that effect, and Adama presented no evidence whatsoever on how a POSA would have understood that teaching away statement at the time of the invention.

[00:22:56] Speaker 04:
The motivation to make, it's not enough that something just be equivalent or interchangeable.

[00:23:04] Speaker 04:
And this court has held that very plainly in the Belden versus Birktek case, in the personal Webtex case.

[00:23:11] Speaker 04:
There has to be some reason to motivate you to make this change.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
Why would you change from the most common preferred solvent used for MCPBA reactions to something completely different?

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
unless you had some reason to expect you were going to get a better result.

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
This is not a matter of claim construction.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
This is a matter of motivation.

[00:23:33] Speaker 04:
Was there a motivation?

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
If I can just go back to the last point Mr. Ziven made.

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
He said that MCPBA is not even mentioned in the 559 patent.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
Well, his expert disagrees with him.

[00:23:50] Speaker 04:
Dr. Gribble plainly testified

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
that the 559 patent describes the MCPBA reaction in EP 117.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
He agreed that the fair reading of that language at the beginning of the 559 patent is that MCPBA is unsatisfactory.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
Mr. Ziven and the board characterized that as a general criticism, but it wasn't a general criticism.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
They said it's unsatisfactory because MCPBA produces poor yields and is not reusable.

[00:24:33] Speaker 04:
Now, that is specifically directed to MCPBA.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
And the patent office realized, I think, that this teaching away was a problem.

[00:24:47] Speaker 04:
And so the patent office gave its own explanation for

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
why they understood that statement.

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
But they didn't point to any evidence in the record.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
And I'm jumping around a little bit, but going back to this claim construction point, the claim construction that the patent office, the reason they discounted that was they said,

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
There's another oxidizing agent that's mentioned in the 559 patent, hydrogen peroxide, and it's not reusable either.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
So the inventor's disclaimer of MCPBA was not necessary.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
It wasn't a valid disclaimer criticizing it because it was not reusable.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
This is exactly the kind of second guessing of the inventor's intent

[00:25:47] Speaker 04:
that this court has discouraged and said is not appropriate in the David Netzer versus Shell oil case.

[00:25:58] Speaker 04:
I know I'm done.

[00:26:00] Speaker 04:
Just finish the sentence if I may, Your Honor.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
That case said that if the inventor clearly expresses an intent to disclaim, that is dispositive.

[00:26:12] Speaker 04:
Here, I don't know how the inventor could have expressed an intent

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
to say MCPBA is not part of my invention than to say it is unsatisfactory.

[00:26:24] Speaker 04:
That's about as plain as it gets.

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

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

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
We thank both sides and the case is submitted.