[00:00:10] Speaker 00: We have four cases on our calendar this morning. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: Two patent cases from district courts, an employee case from the American System Protection Board, and a veteran's case, which is being submitted on the briefs and not argued. [00:00:29] Speaker 00: Our first case is Virginia Innovation Sciences versus HTC Corporation. [00:00:40] Speaker 00: et al. [00:00:41] Speaker 00: 2017-1482, Mr. Devlin. [00:00:44] Speaker 00: And I should say, first to Sam is on as well. [00:00:58] Speaker 06: Thank you, may it please the court. [00:01:01] Speaker 06: The inventions of the 492 patent family are not abstract. [00:01:05] Speaker 06: They're quite specific. [00:01:07] Speaker 06: Here's one. [00:01:08] Speaker 06: It's my phone. [00:01:10] Speaker 06: It's not just any phone. [00:01:11] Speaker 06: A phone can receive a signal from a cellular network. [00:01:16] Speaker 06: It can process and convert that signal in ways that were unheard of at the time of the invention using components that were unheard of at the time of the invention. [00:01:26] Speaker 06: And it can send a new signal out to a big screen TV so I can watch a movie in full HD glory while at the same time receiving power from the TV back to the phone to charge it through the same cable. [00:01:40] Speaker 06: That's not an abstract idea. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: But don't the claims essentially recite receiving data, processing data, and providing and displaying data? [00:01:50] Speaker 06: Well, this is the fundamental game we play without. [00:01:53] Speaker 06: We always have to look at the claims as being, what's some essential idea? [00:01:57] Speaker 00: Well, you could call it a game, but it's a Supreme Court precedent that we have to follow. [00:02:02] Speaker 06: We do have to follow it, and indeed we shall, and we do. [00:02:05] Speaker 06: The issue and the problem is whenever we distill that out, Alice has a couple catches for us. [00:02:10] Speaker 06: Alice has some filters, step one and step two. [00:02:12] Speaker 06: And the first filter is the thing we filter out is that abstract. [00:02:16] Speaker 06: And here, if you filter out something like the court just said and like the district court found, that is receiving a signal, processing it, and sending it out, that by itself is abstract. [00:02:26] Speaker 06: The question is, is that a fair distillation of the claims? [00:02:29] Speaker 06: That's step one. [00:02:31] Speaker 06: And then step two says, whether it is or whether it's not, [00:02:34] Speaker 06: When you distill that out and you compare it to the actual ordered combination of each of the individual claims, does the individual claim connote something more? [00:02:45] Speaker 06: Is there something inventive there? [00:02:47] Speaker 06: So of course, the district court found a distillation of the claims. [00:02:51] Speaker 06: What I would submit, what VIS submits, is that distillation was not a fair abstraction. [00:02:56] Speaker 06: So under step one, there is no abstract idea here. [00:02:59] Speaker 06: But if that is the abstract idea, [00:03:01] Speaker 06: and the claims do not meet step one each individually, then when you look at any one of them as an ordered combination of elements and compare that to the abstract idea, you see something considerably more, as the Supreme Court said. [00:03:14] Speaker 02: So what's wrong with what Judge O'Grady said when he said it looks like the core concept here is prepping a video data signal so that it can be used [00:03:30] Speaker 02: on some other monitor, other than a mobile phone monitor. [00:03:35] Speaker 02: And everything recited in the claim is just conventional components used in conventional ways. [00:03:44] Speaker 02: There is the videos coming in compressed. [00:03:49] Speaker 02: You decompress it. [00:03:51] Speaker 02: You need to prep it, encode it, either for a digital monitor or an analog monitor. [00:03:59] Speaker 02: You know, it can be done, these communications can be done wirelessly or wired. [00:04:06] Speaker 02: And the actual conversion of how you take a video signal that's designed for some very little screen and then convert it somehow in this magic conversion module box so that it can be blown up on a screen that's maybe 20 times bigger, that's not really explained in the spec. [00:04:29] Speaker 02: nor in the claim other than just a reference to something called the conversion module. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: So taking all that into account, what was wrong with Judge O'Grady's analysis in concluding that this is just an idea of converting a signal for one format to another format and then everything that's recited in the claim to apply that idea is just conventional stuff. [00:04:58] Speaker 06: Let me take that in parts. [00:05:00] Speaker 06: There's a lot there. [00:05:00] Speaker 06: The first is the idea that everything's conventional. [00:05:03] Speaker 06: What Bascom says is that in combination, in the ordered combination that's invented, even of conventional elements can be invented and patent eligible under Section 101. [00:05:13] Speaker 06: So the notion that something is just a collection of conventional elements isn't sufficient to find ineligibility under Section 101. [00:05:22] Speaker 06: The second, I think, sort of [00:05:24] Speaker 06: Assumption inherent in the question is that there really is nothing in the patent that describes this so-called magic box. [00:05:30] Speaker 06: And that harkens back to the internet patents case where there was functionality described, but no real description of how that takes place. [00:05:38] Speaker 06: The district court here really ignored evidence. [00:05:41] Speaker 06: When the district court analyzed this conversion module, it looked specifically at figure two. [00:05:50] Speaker 06: of the patent. [00:05:50] Speaker 06: And figure two of the patent is quite generalized in how it appears of its description of the conversion module, this MTCSM. [00:05:59] Speaker 06: And for the record, I'm looking at the district court's opinion on appendix 26. [00:06:04] Speaker 06: And the district court says, an examination of this figure confirms that the MTSCM indeed describes an end rather than a means. [00:06:12] Speaker 06: The problem is there's more description in the patent. [00:06:14] Speaker 06: The very next figure, figure three, has a very detailed [00:06:18] Speaker 06: picture and associated description of all the components and features that actually make this work. [00:06:25] Speaker 06: And that conversion module is a new component. [00:06:28] Speaker 06: It's something that was not known in the art. [00:06:30] Speaker 06: The collection of these elements is something that was not known in the art. [00:06:32] Speaker 06: So it meets that VASCOM standard of a new and unconventional ordered combination of elements. [00:06:39] Speaker 06: And figure three, just one example of it in the record, would be at appendix 66. [00:06:46] Speaker 06: That's in the 492 patent, the primary patent. [00:06:50] Speaker 06: And it describes an interface buffer, a video compression decoder. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: What I'm wondering is if you were at node A and you had a compressed video signal and you wanted to transmit that to node B, which would be for a digital monitor, you would necessarily have to do the conventional step of decompressing. [00:07:15] Speaker 02: and you would necessarily have to do the conventional step of encoding it for that specific standard for that particular digital monitor. [00:07:25] Speaker 02: I don't understand where the invention lies in prepping a signal that is compressed to be displayed on a digital monitor where you necessarily have to decompress the compressed signal and then encode it according to the [00:07:45] Speaker 02: standards for that particular digital TV? [00:07:49] Speaker 06: Well, I guess that begs the question here, is that now are we at a real abstract idea or not? [00:07:54] Speaker 06: We've all walked in with the assumption in some ways here that taking information from a cell phone, that I somehow have a right to have the movie Avatar come to my cell phone in a way that I can now convert it to my HD TV. [00:08:08] Speaker 06: And that was actually a very new concept back at the time. [00:08:11] Speaker 06: The whole collection of these elements, I would submit, is not abstract. [00:08:16] Speaker 02: is a new concept. [00:08:20] Speaker 02: Isn't that still a concept? [00:08:24] Speaker 02: I guess what I'm saying is a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, which is impermissible under Section 101. [00:08:32] Speaker 02: I mean, our court has said that much. [00:08:35] Speaker 06: And that is true. [00:08:36] Speaker 06: That's right. [00:08:36] Speaker 02: Right. [00:08:37] Speaker 02: And so a new abstract idea running on a generic computer network would also be an abstract idea. [00:08:45] Speaker 06: That I don't know. [00:08:46] Speaker 06: I think you have to think about... Okay, let's accept that it is. [00:08:50] Speaker 02: A new abstract idea running on a generic computer is invalid under 101. [00:08:58] Speaker 06: If that's all you have. [00:09:00] Speaker 02: Right. [00:09:02] Speaker 02: And then if you said a new abstract idea running on a Dell computer, that would also fail under section 101. [00:09:12] Speaker 02: And then if you tacked on [00:09:14] Speaker 02: using a Samsung monitor with that Dell computer running that new abstract idea, that also wouldn't pass muster under Section 101. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: The idea, the focus has to be the abstract idea itself, whether it's new or not, to what extent are there details in the claim that implement that abstract idea in a way that we have now converted that otherwise very broad concept into something [00:09:42] Speaker 02: more concrete that we can say, aha, now that's an inventive concept, that's an inventive implementation, or at least an implementation of said new abstract idea. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: So that's what we're looking for in this claim at this point. [00:09:56] Speaker 06: Understood. [00:09:57] Speaker 06: Just to address something inherent in the question, there is other disclosure in the specification that talks about the specific implementations of how this works. [00:10:06] Speaker 06: For example, at Appendix 73, there's [00:10:09] Speaker 06: buffer sizes, and various buffers that are provided, throughput rates, and so forth. [00:10:15] Speaker 06: Some of those throughput rates are actually recited in the claims. [00:10:18] Speaker 06: Some of the more narrow claims recite specific combinations of features that involve, and I'll pull up one, I'm gonna pull up claim 51 of the 451 patent, and that's at appendix 111. [00:10:30] Speaker 06: 51 depends from 50, 50 depends from 49, 49 depends from independent claim, [00:10:38] Speaker 05: Which claim are you pulling up again? [00:10:39] Speaker 06: Thank you. [00:10:40] Speaker 06: It is claim 51 of the 451 pattern. [00:10:43] Speaker 06: That's 8903451. [00:10:46] Speaker 06: And it's on appendix 111, 111. [00:10:52] Speaker 06: And obviously, we're deep into the dependent claims here. [00:10:55] Speaker 06: But that's the point. [00:10:55] Speaker 06: Each of these dependent claims is an ordered combination, including all the claims that it depends from. [00:11:00] Speaker 06: And if you look at it, it has some conventional computer components, a processor, a memory, et cetera. [00:11:06] Speaker 06: It has a high definition digital output interface. [00:11:09] Speaker 06: Now query whether that was something that it would use with a cell phone, whether that combination itself, whether you've removed yourself from an abstraction. [00:11:16] Speaker 06: I think you have. [00:11:17] Speaker 06: There's not an assumption in life that we get to watch HDTV from our cell phone. [00:11:22] Speaker 06: There is a million ways that I can look at content on my TV. [00:11:25] Speaker 06: There are a million ways I can use my cell phone. [00:11:27] Speaker 06: This patent claims a very specific combination of components and features that was heretofore unknown [00:11:32] Speaker 06: And it's quite specific. [00:11:33] Speaker 06: When we think about it now and you call it a generalized abstract idea, you can call it that. [00:11:38] Speaker 06: And the district court did that. [00:11:39] Speaker 06: It talked about a generalized problem with sending the video from your cell phone to a larger screen. [00:11:46] Speaker 06: It's not really a generalized problem. [00:11:47] Speaker 06: It's a very specific problem that these inventors foresaw, that these inventors uncovered and thought about, and they came up with a specific solution. [00:11:56] Speaker 06: And as we go down to, I'm still in claim 47, which is the independent claim. [00:12:00] Speaker 06: That's that HD output interface. [00:12:01] Speaker 06: It talks about a cellular system, not just any system. [00:12:05] Speaker 02: That's an inventive concept? [00:12:07] Speaker 06: Sorry? [00:12:07] Speaker 02: Using a cellular system is the inventive concept? [00:12:10] Speaker 02: No, no, no. [00:12:10] Speaker 06: Not at all. [00:12:11] Speaker 06: I'm just saying when you start to confine the invention with this combination of features, the collection of them says something significant more than the abstract idea. [00:12:20] Speaker 02: Well, I guess the Bilsky's claim was a hedging method, right? [00:12:23] Speaker 02: And if that was done on a computer, that would still be no good. [00:12:27] Speaker 02: And if the communications back and forth to set up the hedging contracts was done using a cellular network, that would also be no good, right? [00:12:39] Speaker 06: Well, I'm not sure about that. [00:12:40] Speaker 06: It depends on what you would need to do to implement that on a cellular network back at that time. [00:12:45] Speaker 06: It may very well have required new technology, new components in a collection that was unconventional. [00:12:52] Speaker 06: And that would meet the VASCOM standard. [00:12:54] Speaker 06: So without knowing more information, we just don't know. [00:12:56] Speaker 06: And here, we do have that information, which leads to another problem with the district court's analysis, which I'll get to in one second. [00:13:02] Speaker 06: But if you go down to claim 51, there's even more features here, including a maximum throughput rate. [00:13:07] Speaker 06: So there's a specific throughput rate that's recited. [00:13:09] Speaker 00: Well, Counselor, you're into your rebuttal time, which you wanted to save. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: So you have a choice. [00:13:15] Speaker 06: I will note one other point, which is the preemption analysis here. [00:13:18] Speaker 06: The district court actually [00:13:20] Speaker 06: grouped all of the claims together, the entire family, and said, that family covers certain technology. [00:13:26] Speaker 06: It's like saying, Qualcomm's portfolio, I can't even make a call without infringing it, so all those patent claims are invalid. [00:13:33] Speaker 06: It doesn't work that way. [00:13:34] Speaker 06: Each individual claim recites a very narrow subset of technology that's quite different. [00:13:40] Speaker 06: An ordered combination of features that's far different from the very broad abstract idea that the district court utilizes in analysis. [00:13:47] Speaker 06: Thank you. [00:13:48] Speaker 06: And thank you for the reminder, John. [00:13:50] Speaker 00: Mr. Haddon, you're going to take eight minutes. [00:13:55] Speaker 01: May I please record Dave Haddon for Amazon? [00:13:57] Speaker 01: I'm splitting the argument with HTC's counsel. [00:14:00] Speaker 01: I will address primarily step one, and you'll address step two. [00:14:03] Speaker 01: But I'm happy to answer any questions you have. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: The idea, and there's no real dispute that these claims are directed to the idea of sending video from a mobile device to another screen. [00:14:17] Speaker 01: That's what the patent says in the first sentence of the abstract. [00:14:20] Speaker 01: You and your co-defendant have different articulations for the abstract idea, right? [00:14:24] Speaker 01: They're different, but I think equivalent, right? [00:14:26] Speaker 01: One is sending video from a mobile device to a different screen, and the other is converting the video for use on a different screen or words to that effect. [00:14:36] Speaker 01: Both describe the same idea, which is, it would be cool if I could watch what's on my phone on a bigger screen. [00:14:43] Speaker 01: And that, what I hear from BIS's counsel, [00:14:46] Speaker 01: is the claimed new concept. [00:14:50] Speaker 01: But as Your Honor pointed out, a new abstract idea is not a patentable invention. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: What is required under step one is a specific means or mechanism for achieving that result, and not just the result itself. [00:15:08] Speaker 01: In that regard, this case is indistinguishable from TLI, affinity labs, or two-way media. [00:15:16] Speaker 01: And the idea of sending video from a mobile device to a different screen is no more of a concrete solution than sending a digital image from a mobile device to a server or sending media from a server to a mobile device. [00:15:33] Speaker 02: Well, what more would you want than what is shown in Figure 3 for the conversion module? [00:15:39] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:15:40] Speaker 02: It's doing the decompression. [00:15:41] Speaker 02: It's doing the encoding according to whatever the needs are of a particular monitor. [00:15:46] Speaker 02: There seems to be some details inside the conversion module. [00:15:50] Speaker 01: Well, there is a diagram in Figure 3. [00:15:52] Speaker 01: And just to correct the record, it was addressed by Judge O'Grady. [00:15:55] Speaker 01: We discussed it at the hearing, and he refers to it in his order. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: But if we look at Figure 3, and this is Appendix 66, all it really shows is a signal coming in from a mobile device that is in some undisclosed compressed form. [00:16:14] Speaker 01: And coming out on the other end is a series of standard video outputs, either digital or analog. [00:16:23] Speaker 01: Basically, every kind of cable that at the time you could plug into the back of your TV. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: And in between, there is nothing but a box that says, two boxes really, one that says decompress. [00:16:37] Speaker 01: And of course, any video that is compressed has to be decompressed at some point. [00:16:42] Speaker 01: And there's no dispute that there is no new compression technology at issue here. [00:16:47] Speaker 01: And then there is the digital analog or digital video encoder. [00:16:52] Speaker 01: And that is really the magic box within the magic box. [00:16:56] Speaker 01: Because if there is going to be a specific solution here that actually converts a signal that is destined for a cell phone screen into something that you can show on an HDTV, it has to happen there. [00:17:11] Speaker 02: So they've shown us the full contents of their magic box, decompression and coding. [00:17:20] Speaker 01: And that is not the solution. [00:17:23] Speaker 01: The solution has to be, how do you actually take the compressed signal, decompress it, and then encode it in a new manner to fit the requirements of the new display? [00:17:35] Speaker 01: And that is nowhere described. [00:17:36] Speaker 01: Throughout the patent and the claims, what they say is, do what is appropriate. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: Output the power level that is appropriate for the display device. [00:17:46] Speaker 01: That is just an invitation to somebody else to create a solution. [00:17:50] Speaker 01: The same regard with the buffering. [00:17:53] Speaker 01: They say buffer and throughput are determined as desired by the designer. [00:18:00] Speaker 01: There is no solution here to actually perform what the claim requires to achieve that output. [00:18:07] Speaker 01: And much more importantly, there's no limitation on [00:18:10] Speaker 01: how that could be performed. [00:18:12] Speaker 01: So throughout this patent, they also refer to this being done either using conventional, well-known technology or to-be-developed technology. [00:18:21] Speaker 01: So they're actually trying to capture other ways to doing it that no one has even developed yet. [00:18:27] Speaker 01: So this is nothing but a box with intervening functional results that add nothing to a specific solution. [00:18:39] Speaker 01: And in that regard, it's no different from TLI and Affinity Labs, right? [00:18:44] Speaker 01: As this court held in Affinity Labs versus DirecTV, buffering content was conventional. [00:18:51] Speaker 01: It was conventional four years before this patent. [00:18:54] Speaker 01: And as far as compressing images, this court held in TLI that image compression and recompression was conventional eight years before this patent. [00:19:05] Speaker 01: So none of the inner boxes within figure three [00:19:08] Speaker 01: could provide an inventive concept. [00:19:11] Speaker 01: They're conventional. [00:19:13] Speaker 01: It's a matter of law. [00:19:14] Speaker 01: And acknowledged as conventional within the patent specification itself. [00:19:21] Speaker 01: So at the end of the day, this is an aspirational patent. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: It has basically four pages of written description, no actual solution for achieving the result. [00:19:32] Speaker 01: And like the patents in Affinity Labs and TLI, it claims every possible way to do it. [00:19:37] Speaker 02: Are you saying it's not enabled? [00:19:40] Speaker 01: I don't think it's enabled, but that's not the issue here today. [00:19:42] Speaker 01: The issue here today is whether there is a specific solution in the claim or just a claim to the concept. [00:19:49] Speaker 01: And here, all we have is a claim to the concept with some recitation of generic machinery, which, as this court said in McGrow and in two-way media, is specifically what fails in step one. [00:20:03] Speaker 01: In step one, you need a specific improvement to the technology [00:20:09] Speaker 01: not the result itself. [00:20:12] Speaker 00: You're almost suggesting it could be patent eligible with a little more disclosure. [00:20:16] Speaker 01: Excuse me, I'm sorry? [00:20:17] Speaker 00: You're almost suggesting that it could be patent eligible with a little more disclosure. [00:20:22] Speaker 01: No, I think if they had disclosed a specific algorithm for converting a signal in one format into a required format for a different device and had claimed that algorithm, that could be a specific solution that could be patented. [00:20:37] Speaker 01: But the idea of doing that generally, taking some input intended for a mobile device and somehow making it work on a bigger screen, that is nothing but an idea. [00:20:48] Speaker 00: So you're saying an algorithm, which is an abstraction, added to an abstraction might lead to a patent-eligible invention? [00:20:58] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:20:59] Speaker 01: I mean, ENFISH, right? [00:21:00] Speaker 01: ENFISH, a self-referential table and a 4-step algorithm. [00:21:03] Speaker 00: Doesn't it depend what's in the algorithm? [00:21:05] Speaker 00: Excuse me? [00:21:06] Speaker 00: Doesn't it depend on what's in the algorithm? [00:21:08] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:21:08] Speaker 00: It's inventive? [00:21:10] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: So in NFESH, there was an inventive algorithm and a new data structure. [00:21:15] Speaker 01: That was patentable. [00:21:17] Speaker 01: There's no such thing here. [00:21:18] Speaker 01: They don't even pretend that there's such a thing. [00:21:22] Speaker 01: The phone that he held up is nowhere described in this patent. [00:21:26] Speaker 01: All that's described in this patent is the use of a conventional existing cell phone and a magic box that is not disclosed. [00:21:36] Speaker 01: If you have no further questions, I'll turn it over to my co-counsel. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: Fine. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: Thank you very much, Mr. Tchaikovsky. [00:21:54] Speaker 03: If please, the court. [00:21:55] Speaker 03: George Tchaikovsky on behalf of HTC. [00:21:59] Speaker 03: Following up with some of the questioning just received by my co-counsel, [00:22:05] Speaker 04: Black box or the intermediary device that is claimed in this patent, it only exists in 26 of the claims that are identified. [00:22:15] Speaker 04: Most of the claims don't have it. [00:22:16] Speaker 04: And that goes to the issue that it's really functional claiming that we have here. [00:22:20] Speaker 04: Compression, decompression, as we've discussed, not a specific black box that is in figure three. [00:22:27] Speaker 04: That being said, if we even focus on figure three of the patent, that may be [00:22:32] Speaker 04: An example, that example is abstract, as stated in the 492 patent, column four, lines 49 through 55, which is A72. [00:22:43] Speaker 04: Any conventional or to be developed execution platform may be used for this black box, this MTSCM intermediate device. [00:22:51] Speaker 04: The processor, memory, and related elements, such as power supply, are well known and need not be described herein. [00:22:59] Speaker 04: Maybe lack of written description. [00:23:00] Speaker 04: to convey an understanding of the invention. [00:23:03] Speaker 04: That's what's told to us by this patent is it can be anything. [00:23:08] Speaker 04: It doesn't matter what it is. [00:23:10] Speaker 04: And so maybe there's a figure in there. [00:23:13] Speaker 04: But what we have in this patent is statements that clearly say it can be anything. [00:23:19] Speaker 04: And that applies to other elements. [00:23:22] Speaker 04: At the district court, before Judge Grady, we only had four elements that were identified by [00:23:29] Speaker 04: the patent holder as being somewhat perhaps inventive. [00:23:34] Speaker 04: That was the intermediary device and as I just say that it only existed in some claims and it's a conventional known technology. [00:23:41] Speaker 04: That's again A72 also replete in column four. [00:23:48] Speaker 04: The patent says it can be located anywhere. [00:23:50] Speaker 04: It can be located in either the mobile terminal, the external display. [00:23:55] Speaker 04: It can have fewer, greater, or differently named modules from those in the figure. [00:23:59] Speaker 04: So the figure is not demonstrative of what's in the claims. [00:24:02] Speaker 04: And we look at the claims given this court's jurisprudence as to whether we have an abstract idea, and we do here. [00:24:07] Speaker 04: That's, again, A74 and A7273. [00:24:10] Speaker 04: So they don't get to point to the black box that can be anything that is conventional and yet to be determined according to the specification. [00:24:21] Speaker 04: The other elements that they point to is district court level was compression, decompression. [00:24:26] Speaker 04: That was just using standard examples of MPEG compression, 1, 2, 3, 4. [00:24:32] Speaker 04: Nothing new there put into a yet to be determined or conventional box. [00:24:36] Speaker 04: That's in the 611 patent, column 6, 2233, 8209. [00:24:40] Speaker 04: And that applies for compression and decompression. [00:24:45] Speaker 04: Nothing new there. [00:24:46] Speaker 04: And the court, that is Judge O'Grady, stepped through all of that. [00:24:49] Speaker 04: In fact, we have slides in our appendix that step through each [00:24:53] Speaker 04: each one of these, A1435 through 1461, that give you a pictorial representation with the specification sites of how each one of these elements are conventional, generic, and in fact the ordered combination adds nothing new to the inventive concept. [00:25:13] Speaker 04: And as to the powering elements, which there are really two, adapting the power level and the ability to receive, [00:25:20] Speaker 04: That again in the patent says, at 8209, that's a 611 patent, column 5, 1 through 4. [00:25:25] Speaker 04: That power supply is well known. [00:25:28] Speaker 04: And you use an appropriate level. [00:25:30] Speaker 04: It doesn't even tell you what level to use of power. [00:25:32] Speaker 04: That's 8208 in the 611 patent, column 4, line 33 through 36. [00:25:40] Speaker 04: Moreover. [00:25:40] Speaker 02: I'm sorry. [00:25:41] Speaker 02: Could you give me those two sites again? [00:25:44] Speaker 04: The power level sites were column 5, 1 through 4, 8209. [00:25:48] Speaker 04: It says the processor memory and related elements such as a power supply are well known and need not be described to convey an understanding of the invention. [00:25:56] Speaker 04: And with respect to the output signal, which is column four, lines 33 through 36, 8208, the MTSCM, which again is yet to be determined device or conventional, processes the video signal to provide a converted video signal that has a display format and a signal power level appropriate, right? [00:26:15] Speaker 04: Whatever level that's appropriate for an external display. [00:26:18] Speaker 04: going to what Your Honor Judge Chen said earlier in terms of taking a signal. [00:26:22] Speaker 04: The claims are directed not to any display device or new intermediate device. [00:26:28] Speaker 04: The claims are directed to a signal, an intangible item, an abstract notion, a signal that is taken from one device, happened to be here a mobile terminal, and converted to another device, a TV. [00:26:42] Speaker 04: And the claims can be a television, some limited to an HDTV. [00:26:46] Speaker 04: That's all it is. [00:26:47] Speaker 04: I take it a signal, a traditional abstract idea given this court's jurisprudence, whether I start with Supreme Court, Dilski, Alice, Ultramershal. [00:26:57] Speaker 04: We look at the claims and what the claims are directed to. [00:26:59] Speaker 04: And the claims are clearly directed to that abstract idea, that signal. [00:27:03] Speaker 04: And the fact that we've ensconced it in a technological environment pursuant to Alice doesn't change the outcome of the result. [00:27:13] Speaker 04: I mean, more so on the power level, the patent cites to IEEE 1394, which the court may know as fire wire technology, which was available in 1995. [00:27:24] Speaker 04: We provided on Appendix 1457 to the district court that that standard allowed for power conversion and power signals to be sent from one device to another on a serial bus. [00:27:36] Speaker 04: And if the court looked at A1457, 1458, you can see. [00:27:40] Speaker 04: So that was conventional, well known, [00:27:43] Speaker 04: Not something that was invented here. [00:27:47] Speaker 04: So we really don't have anything in individual elements that save this patent from the abstract idea. [00:27:52] Speaker 04: We don't have a combination. [00:27:54] Speaker 04: Even if we look at the dependent claims, which counsel for VIS would like to point to in Claims 51, there's nothing there. [00:28:00] Speaker 04: But all of these elements and the district court judge of Grady did consider them. [00:28:05] Speaker 04: And again, I'd say that some of this is waived because of the district court. [00:28:09] Speaker 04: They only raised the four issues. [00:28:10] Speaker 04: you see that we put in the slides in our appendix. [00:28:13] Speaker 04: And now they point to additional items. [00:28:16] Speaker 04: More so, as we look at dependent claims, the secured bail case is exemplary, right? [00:28:22] Speaker 04: It's just going to design choice. [00:28:25] Speaker 04: And the fact that we have design choice of these conventional elements doesn't all of a sudden save the claims, as was stated. [00:28:35] Speaker 04: Oh, it was affinity labs versus direct TV. [00:28:36] Speaker 04: My apologies. [00:28:37] Speaker 04: All recite functions that are not inventive but simply constitute particular choices from within the range of existing content or hardware. [00:28:45] Speaker 04: And that's what's taken here, is these generic elements that don't give you the how, internet patent score, don't give you the specificity in the claims, and again, going, maybe I've got a new abstract idea, but it's still an abstract idea, and I haven't taken it out of the abstract by appending a Dell computer [00:29:06] Speaker 04: or a Samsung HTTV. [00:29:09] Speaker 04: And that's what we have here. [00:29:11] Speaker 02: Are all 300 plus claims, is there a case for controversy here on all of them? [00:29:17] Speaker 04: Absolutely, or there is, Ron. [00:29:19] Speaker 04: In both cases, all that matters is, for example, one case, and then the claims are invalidated. [00:29:25] Speaker 04: In the Amazon case, the claims were asserted at least one of or at least more than one of, and there was no limitation as to what claims were at issue. [00:29:32] Speaker 04: nor at the hearing, and there were both two hearings, one for Amazon and Judge O'Grady held a separate one for HGC, was there ever a limitation of what claims were at issue provided by plaintiff's counsel? [00:29:44] Speaker 04: So we address all claims, and at the hearings Amazon and us treated all claims equally. [00:29:51] Speaker 04: So yes, I think all claims stand invalid, and by the way, they're all based on the same abstract idea. [00:29:57] Speaker 00: Thank you, counsel. [00:29:59] Speaker 00: Mr. Devlin has [00:30:02] Speaker 00: A couple of minutes for Roberto, if he needs it. [00:30:08] Speaker 06: Thank you. [00:30:08] Speaker 06: May I please the court? [00:30:09] Speaker 06: There are a lot of assertions being made here with zero evidence behind them. [00:30:15] Speaker 06: We just heard that not only is every feature conventional, the ordered combination is conventional, the ordered combination is not invented. [00:30:22] Speaker 06: We just heard that. [00:30:22] Speaker 06: The district court said the same thing. [00:30:24] Speaker 06: There is zero evidence in the record of that. [00:30:27] Speaker 06: And in fact, it flies in the face of what evidence is in the record. [00:30:31] Speaker 06: Patent Office allowed these patents over hundreds of prior references, many of which were directed to the same interoperability of devices, cell phones, other household devices. [00:30:42] Speaker 06: There was a ton of work going on in the industry directed to these very issues, and yet these inventors came up with something that the Patent Office has deemed new and non-obvious and therefore not conventional, not only in light of regular examination, but in the face of IPR petitions, which were overcome by the vast majority of these claims. [00:30:59] Speaker 06: So to say without a shred of evidence that there's nothing new here, that this whole combination was conventional, is not only wrong to do at the Rule 12 stage, but it's false. [00:31:11] Speaker 06: And that's what the district court did as well. [00:31:13] Speaker 06: The district court, throughout its opinion, makes numerous, what are effects, subsidiary factual findings, sweeping away dozens of claims in an analytical path that never actually looks at the ordered combination of any claims, but instead focuses on individual elements [00:31:29] Speaker 05: Let me ask you, does the ruling in your favor on the 101 issue automatically insulate and save all of the 492 patent claims, the 492 family claims? [00:31:43] Speaker 06: I think one of two directions could be taken here. [00:31:47] Speaker 06: I do think that the district court unfairly treated every single claim and that every single claim should at least go back to the district court for fair treatment. [00:31:56] Speaker 05: Even if we ruin your favor? [00:31:59] Speaker 06: I do think they're all patentable. [00:32:02] Speaker 06: That's number one. [00:32:02] Speaker 06: At a minimum, they're not unpatentable on this record. [00:32:06] Speaker 06: And then to get to your honor's question, at least some of them, there are distinctions. [00:32:10] Speaker 06: We heard again, only 26 of the claims actually recite the conversion module. [00:32:15] Speaker 06: Well, those are different than the others, and these claims should be looked at individually. [00:32:19] Speaker 05: Now, assuming one looks at it the other way, and you don't prevail on what you've argued on the 492 patent, what is there in the other claims? [00:32:28] Speaker 05: in the family that aren't specifically asserted, what is there that sets them aside differently from these claims, from the 492 patent? [00:32:43] Speaker 06: I'll know that beyond my time, so I'll try to be very quick. [00:32:46] Speaker 06: There's all sorts of collections of claims throughout the family, both within the 402 patent, there's variants, and of course with others. [00:32:52] Speaker 06: But I'll go back to where I started. [00:32:53] Speaker 06: Think about a collection of elements that involves not only just receiving some signal, processing it and sending it out, but an HD signal that's received over a cellular network in a certain way, processed in a certain way, sent out to an HDTV over an HD interface, and at the same time receiving power back from that interface to charge your phone, and having a certain buffering or throughput rate, it's all recited in a single claim. [00:33:21] Speaker 06: That's very, very different from this abstract idea we're talking about. [00:33:24] Speaker 00: Thank you, counsel. [00:33:25] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:33:26] Speaker 00: We have your case. [00:33:27] Speaker 00: We'll take the case under advisement. [00:33:28] Speaker 00: Thank you.