[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Technology versus Click Brands, Inc.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
18-1090.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
Mr. Johnson, I understand that you're resuming five minutes for rebuttal?

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
Johnson.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
You may proceed.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
Good morning, and may it please the Court.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
Mr. Johnson, let's start with Alice, step one.

[00:01:11] Speaker 04:
In the blue brief at 22 and 23, you argue that the district court erred by comparing the asserted claims to an information kiosk in a

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
in a shopping mall.

[00:01:23] Speaker 04:
But why isn't an information kiosk sufficiently analogous where the kiosk attendant uses product codes, has a little computer, uses product codes to find product catalogs and shops within the mall that contain those products for the shopper when they come to the kiosk and ask, what specific

[00:01:51] Speaker 04:
portion of Claim 1 isn't covered by that brick-and-mortar comparison?

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
The question is sort of two-part, Your Honor.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
We think that the kiosk analogy breaks down in the same way it broke down in the DDR Holdings case.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
And in that case, the Court recognized that due to the Internet nature of the claims at issue in that case,

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
Tell me about this case.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
My question was, what specific portion of claim one?

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
Several portions of claim one.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
The two most important of which are the creation of the first information request message and that is directed, well, it contains the product code and it's directed to the cross-referencing database and returns not just product information, it returns

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
a redirect message to another website.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
And so that, in essence, is just like in DDR holdings.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
If you look at a kiosk analogy, the user is instantaneously and magically transported to another kiosk or outside of the kiosk that that user is at.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
That's the first message.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
And then the second message... You're not carrying me along with that first one, so let's go to the second.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
And then the second message

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
is directed to that outside website.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
And again, just like in DDR holdings, you would have to be transported to another kiosk, if you will.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
And that's the way conventional hyperlinks work.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
That is the way conventional hyperlinks work.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
In this case, though, the claim

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
The recitations of the claim are contrary to a conventional operation of a hyperlink.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
But your kiosk operator sitting there using a conventional hyperlink makes that magic jump without anything else, don't they?

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
Not in the context of a 101 analysis.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
And if you look at, again, we're relying primarily on DDR holdings for the same reason there.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
this instantaneous transportation outside of the kiosk is exactly what would happen if you didn't have the claim elements.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
I have a difficulty in understanding your argument that DDR holding applies.

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
When I look at DDR and all the cases that surround DDR, in DDR, we had a particular technological problem.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
And we had an improvement in the computer technology.

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
as a result of the invention.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
Here, it seems to me that all you're doing is passing information along.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
I don't see any limitation that shows how that information is passed along or what happens.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
All we're doing is just getting information from point A and moving it to point B. And there's plenty of case law that stands against you if that's the situation.

[00:05:10] Speaker 03:
So explain why that is not what we're looking at.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
Again, Your Honor.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
This is a database invention, correct?

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
This is a database.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
You're passing information along.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
There's no improvement of computer technology involved in this invention.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
We strongly disagree.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
Well, what is it?

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
What's improved?

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
What computer technology is improved?

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
The computer technology that's improved is the functioning and steps that the processor takes in which

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
It automatically generates a first message to go to a data cross-referencing database.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
We're not talking about the cross-referencing database itself as being the improvement, but the automatic generation of that message that goes to that cross-referencing database, the particular information that it retrieves, which is the internet website that's outside of where the user is.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
So far you've just described passing information along.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
Where is the improvement in computer technology?

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
What is it that's been improved here in computer technology?

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
It's enabling a user to find product information in a way that is, that was not done or not achievable in the prior art.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
And that's where the kiosk example comes in.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
You go to a kiosk and you say, can I have information on oranges?

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
And they hand it to you.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
There's no

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
there's no improvement here in that technology, not along the lines of DDR.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
If you were modifying the way the computer was built, if you had a new chip that made it do this in a different way, that's not what you're describing.

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
You're describing standard computer technology arranged.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
Well, we're certainly not describing a new chip, Your Honor.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
No, you're not.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
But you're not describing a new anything, as far as I can tell.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
Well, our view is that you would be hard-pressed to find claims of a more identical scope to the claims in DDR holding than you can in this case.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
But DDR, as Judge Rainer was saying, DDR is part of a line of cases

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
in which the functioning of the system is improved, the functioning of it, not its utilization, its functioning.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
It's not the same thing.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
And we had similar holdings in ENFISH, data engine, core wireless.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
That's a whole line of cases where we do find that computer programs or shifting transmitting information and database programs

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
do satisfy step one of section 101.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
But, you know, I don't see it in your claims.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
You're not using a specialized computer, correct?

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
The hardware itself is not specialized.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
The way the hardware functions is non-generic.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
tell me if I'm misremembering, but in DDR, as I'm remembering, the key there was that there was a kind of picture in a picture on the screen with information from the interior picture coming from one place on the web and the exterior information coming from a different place on the web.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
And the invention was to make that possible without it even quite looking like a picture in the picture.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
Two different sources of information being integrated onto the display in a way that the different locations of the source of the information was made essentially irrelevant to the viewer.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
What's the closest to that kind of

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
technological, maybe even all software, but in any event, technological achievement of something in the display that you think you have here.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
It's that the user is at one web browser to begin with, and then on activation of the hyperlink, instead of the user being transported to another website, just as in DDR Holdings, the user was not transported to another website.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
the information wasn't really aware that he was being transported to in this case the user's not okay so what what happens here so the two information request messages first to the database just like in DDR holdings and information request message if you will was going to went to a database to retrieve the look and feel components of the of the website and look and feel components of the other website so

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
The first message goes to the database to obtain the internet address of the other website.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
And then the information is from the creation, from the return and redirect message in connection with that first information request message.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
The generation of the second information request message to go to that other website, pull the product description and the other product information, and bring it back to the original web browser.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
So the user, just like in DDR Holdings, is not transported to another website and is, in fact, not even aware that another website was involved.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
Let me take you to step two for a minute.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
You argue in the blue brief at 30 that the district court erred due to certain underlying factual issues.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
Where in your opening brief do you cite any underlying factual issues?

[00:11:15] Speaker 04:
that would make dismissal inappropriate.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
I couldn't find anything in the blueprint, an actual citation of an underlying factual issue.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
I don't have a page number for your... You should.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
Well, give it to me when you come back.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
But I believe what we have done is cited to the claim language itself and the fact that those claim elements that were either ignored or

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
we argue improperly dismissed by the district court were non-generic.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
Okay, while you're looking, tell me where you argued that those factual issues would have changed the result in this case.

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
So both those things when you come back up, please.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
Okay, you're into your rebuttal time.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
You can continue or preserve it.

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
I'll preserve it.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
But we'll restore you back to your full five minutes, okay?

[00:12:14] Speaker 03:
We took you over.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
So let's hear from the other side now.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
Counselor L. Jamal.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you a preliminary question?

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
You agree that only claims one through four are in this case?

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
Pardon?

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that only claims one through four are in this case?

[00:12:38] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
Otherwise, we'd have a final judgment problem.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
So a couple of things I'd like to address in.

[00:12:48] Speaker 04:
I have another preliminary question for you.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
In the red brief at 5 to 8, you argue collateral estoppel because of a stipulated judgment in the District of Delaware.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
But when you read that joint stipulation, it says PAT reserves the right to appeal the dismissal if the Federal Circuit reverses the judgment of invalidity in the click of the thumb.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
So why doesn't that joint stipulation indicate the intent of the parties was for collateral estoppel not to bar the present appeal?

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
Well, I think if you read the stipulation, the first paragraph says they stipulate to entry of judgment of invalidity of claims one through four.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
And then he reserves the right to appeal that final judgment, and he never does.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
But Section 101 was never litigated in the Delaware proceeding.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
It was.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
And that's a requirement.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
It was fully briefed.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
Excuse me.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
That's a requirement under collateral estoppel.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
And yet, don't you agree that Section 101, what we're talking about here right now, Alice, Steps 1A, that was never litigated in the Delaware proceeding?

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
They fully briefed, and the briefs were pending when the stipulation... But it was not litigated.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm not sure how you look at that term, but it seems to me like when you have a situation where if I had filed a brief in that case, same exact brief, and the other side conceded and judgment was entered as a result of that, isn't that effectively a litigation?

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
Now, there's only a final judgment once it's entered.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
By definition, that's a judgment upon which an appeal can be made.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
You didn't discuss the language I quoted to you.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
Which language is that?

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
The reserve the right?

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
Pat reserves the right to appeal the dismissal if the Federal Circuit reverses the judgment and validity and click.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
So how can you have collateral estoppel?

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
How is it final if they reserve the right?

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
Well, they never appealed.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
They reserved the right to appeal the final judgment, and they never appealed that judgment.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
And so that... Well, okay.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
Supposing we reverse here.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
Can they then appeal under that stipulation?

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
How could they?

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
I don't know any mechanism by which they could do that.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
Remind me, what was the sequence

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
literally in dates between the judgment here and the, was it Delaware, is the other case?

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
The Delaware judgment.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
So both parties filed the same motion at about the same time.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
In the California case, that motion was decided first while the Delaware case was fully briefed.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
They then settled out

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
and entered into this joint stipulation seeking final adjudication and the stipulation.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
First of all, were you involved in the Delaware case?

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
Pardon?

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
Were you involved in the Delaware case?

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
No.

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

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
Well, then do you happen to know, once the California invalidity judgment decision was reached, did the defendant in Delaware

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
say issue preclusion and therefore there's nothing to litigate here in Delaware.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
Could have.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
They could have, potentially they could have because you can use issue preclusion even though.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
Yes, absolutely.

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
But I'm not privy to those conversations.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
And you're not aware of something that was on the record saying that.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
I can speculate but I'm not aware.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
Okay, let's assume because

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
It's kind of a natural explanation for what happened in Delaware.

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
That is, we just lost the same issue in California.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
That one's going to go on appeal.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
There's no point in our wasting any resources here.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
We know this case is resolved by issue preclusion, the Delaware case, if we're, if we end up being wrong in California on appeal.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
In the ordinary course, I think it is true.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
I think if you'll find this in Wright and Miller, that you don't need to take an appeal in that second case.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
Rule 60B5 allows you to come back and get relief in the second case if you win on appeal in the first case.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
Well, here they dismiss with prejudice and here they... Well, so I'm not sure why that makes any difference.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
Well, they sought a final judge.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
They could have went to the Delaware court and said, look, let's stay the case while the case was pending.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
They may have had several options to keep their potential for undoing a 101 adverse judgment at bay.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
But one of them appears to me to be Rule 60B5, which doesn't require an appeal.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
and Rule 60B is about post-judgment relief, not relief on appeal.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
Well, they never appealed the final judgment in the Delaware case.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
They reserved it.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
They expressly reserved their right to appeal, and they never did.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
Do I understand right that

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
You do not need to win on your collateral estoppel point here in order to get an affirmance of the 101 dismissal.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
We raised it because it seemed to us like it was something that the court might want to consider.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
Can you get to the Section 101 issues?

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
The second 101 issue.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
Section 101 issues.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Oh, yeah.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
The DDR case, which the plaintiff seeks to analogize.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
In that case, the claim specifically, the last element of claim, specifically included a limitation that created a composite web page.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
And the limitation read, using the data retrieved automatically, generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and a plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
It tried to create a look and feel as if you never left that web page.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
And it was trying to solve a problem that was unique to the internet.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
Much of the argument was about look and feel.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
And this has nothing to do, there is no technological improvement that is disclosed in this patent.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
In fact, the patent expressly states that it is leveraging two very highly successful and well-known technologies, the UPC system and the internet system.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
And database management.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
Yeah, and the web browser that is identified in

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
The claim, there's no description of it being unique.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
The web servers that are identified in the claims, there's no description of it being unique.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
The internet is well known.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
So they're using conventional hardware and software and protocols to effectuate a longstanding abstract idea of disseminating product information.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
We see no technology here at all.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
And so that's been our position from the start.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
I think it's well briefed in our briefs.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
And I think Judge Wu got it 100% right.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
So those are our positions on the 101.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to dig in deeper if you have any questions.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
But I think they were well briefed.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
And I think that's all I have to say unless you have any other questions.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
This case was dismissed on Rule Toby 6, correct?

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:21:39] Speaker 03:
Does Brickheimer play a role here in any way?

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
No, I don't think it does because there are no underlying factual issues here.

[00:21:48] Speaker 02:
They're all admitted in the patent.

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
Well, your opposing counsel, when I asked him that, said, well, the language of the claims, that's his fact.

[00:21:59] Speaker 04:
And I've asked him to speak to that if he can when he stands back up.

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
But you're going to have to anticipate them if you think there's anything you want to discuss.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
So there was one claim limitation that Judge Wu looked at.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
It was the last limitation about whether you redirect it, transport it to another web page, or whether it automatically displays the web page on the browser.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
And Judge Wu said, look, I'm going to take

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
your construction plaintiff, and I'm going to use that.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
I don't find any material difference at the end of the day, because it's still the same non-inventive concept of using conventional, well-known technology to implement this abstract idea of disseminating information.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
So we don't see it.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
We don't see any disputes.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
There were no factual disputes.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
Judge Wu, in his order, I think in Appendix 4,

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
noted that neither party points to claim construction disputes or facts outside the intrinsic record, support their arguments about patentability.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
There were no expert declarations submitted.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
And the claims are on their face are clearly abstract.

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
And so the only issue that came down to was whether the implementation of that abstract idea was using conventional, well-known routine technology.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
And it's clearly, it was.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
There was nothing in there, and they admitted in the patent.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
So I don't think the issue is whether there's a factual dispute.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
I think the issue is whether, what the import of those facts are.

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
And I think they're clear here that this is a one-on-one invalidity case.

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
So, is there any questions?

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you, sir.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
Mr. Johnson, we'll restore you to five minutes.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
If you need the time, five minutes, go ahead.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor was asking earlier about where in the brief, I believe the question was, where in the briefing we argued that claim elements were non-generic.

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
Actually, no.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
I asked you two questions.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
One was, where in your blue brief did you cite any underlying factual issues that would make dismissal inappropriate?

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
And two, where did you argue that those factual issues would have changed the result in the case?

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
I asked you both those questions, and you had time to sit and look.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
I don't know that we cited factual issues, but we certainly argued that on an element-by-element basis.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
Well, we can do the same.

[00:24:47] Speaker 04:
We do the same thing on EEL as to reading the claims.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
If that's all you're saying.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
We're citing to the patent

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
in its claim language and its specification.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
So there's no other fact that you want to raise?

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
Did you want me to answer the second part of that question?

[00:25:14] Speaker 04:
Well, no, because once you say there's no other fact, then it's purely a legal question up here.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
Well, we think it is a legal question, Your Honor.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:25:28] Speaker 04:
Wait, wait, wait.

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
The reason I asked that question is I started with a preface saying you argued the district court would properly dismiss the claim on 12b6 due to certain underlying factual issues.

[00:25:44] Speaker 04:
That's a quote from you, from your brief.

[00:25:47] Speaker 04:
So you're abandoning that argument.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:25:52] Speaker 01:
What I answered the first question was the facts that we are citing are the claim language itself

[00:25:58] Speaker 01:
and the patent and its specification, those are... Okay, that's a question of law.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
Those are... Okay, fine.

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

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
We're doing semantics, I think.

[00:26:06] Speaker 03:
And just to be clear, there's no expert declarations here or any other evidence that was submitted in the 12b-6 inquiry to back your Section 101 argument?

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
There were no expert declarations on either side of this issue, Your Honor.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
Okay, good.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
Just I have a couple minutes just want to summarize that basically we are asking this court to reverse the district court's decision based on two primary reasons.

[00:26:47] Speaker 01:
The first being that the district court in the way in its arrival at an abstract idea and the way it arrived at that abstract idea

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
was doing exactly what this court is cautioned against and overgeneralizing claims and stripping out claim limitations in a way that can be done with almost any claim.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
If the district court wanted to, it could simply say, well, this is internet commerce, and there's an abstract idea.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
Almost any claim these days can be stripped of the claim elements and be labeled an abstract idea.

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
And it's almost as if the district court

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
assume because we have a 101 motion before us that the job is not to determine whether there's an abstract idea, but let's assume there's an abstract idea and then just backfill and create the language for that abstract idea.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
That's the first reason, primary reason that we're asking for reversal.

[00:27:43] Speaker 01:
And the second is, as I said before, we believe that these claims are almost identical in scope

[00:27:52] Speaker 01:
to the claims in DDR Holdings, particularly, I think, is claim one of the 339 patent in the DDR Holdings case, at least insofar as Section 101 analysis is concerned.

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
And all of that coupled with the very high hurdle that's associated with invalidating a patent under Section 101 leads us to argue that that hurdle has not been met in this case.

[00:28:22] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:28:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:23] Speaker 03:
We thank counsel for their arguments in this case.

[00:28:29] Speaker 03:
Our next case is