[00:00:46] Speaker 04: Our next case is the Chamberlain Group versus Technonic Industries et al. [00:00:54] Speaker 04: 2018-2103 and 22-28. [00:00:55] Speaker 04: Mr. White. [00:01:06] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:01:07] Speaker 00: May it please the Court. [00:01:08] Speaker 00: We identified a number of errors from the proceedings below, but I intend to focus on three issues related to the 275 patent this morning. [00:01:16] Speaker 00: Ineligibility under Section 101, invalidity based on Menard, and non-infringement. [00:01:23] Speaker 00: The claims of the 275 patent are ineligible because they recite an abstract idea of collecting and transmitting information about a moving barrier. [00:01:32] Speaker 00: And under step one of Alice, this fails to satisfy the test of doing something else. [00:01:36] Speaker 04: Captain Teague says it's a claim to a machine. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: Understood, but the claim to a machine does not save it from being an abstract idea. [00:01:46] Speaker 00: Just because it recites some components, this court has repeatedly held that that's not enough to take it out of the context of an abstract idea. [00:01:52] Speaker 00: And here, if you look at the claims, it really does just require collecting information and then transmitting it. [00:01:58] Speaker 00: And that has been found repeatedly by this court to be an abstract idea. [00:02:02] Speaker 00: Turning to step two of the ALICE analysis, the claims do not recite anything that transforms that abstract idea into something that is patent eligible. [00:02:10] Speaker 00: There is no inventive concept here. [00:02:12] Speaker 00: The only argument that Chamberlain has raised about an inventive concept is, quote, a new type of mobile barrier operator that includes an integrated controller and a wireless transmitter to transmit a signal. [00:02:24] Speaker 00: And that's from page 28 of my brief. [00:02:26] Speaker 00: The specification and both sides experts agree that the claims require nothing more than off-the-shelf conventional components to use in a conventional manner. [00:02:35] Speaker 00: That's present in the specification, the descriptions of the controller and the transmitter being routine and conventional and well known. [00:02:42] Speaker 00: And though Dr. Ryan, Chamberlain's expert, conceded that, and our expert Dr. Foley testified likewise. [00:02:48] Speaker 02: Well, are there factual issues as it relates to step two that were not fully resolved below? [00:02:55] Speaker 00: The district court did not reach step two in its JMAAL analysis, but we don't believe that there's any disputed factual issues here that would require remand, for example. [00:03:03] Speaker 00: We believe on the record the consistency between the specification and the expert testimony that there are no factual disputes, that this court can resolve this issue and decide it for us here. [00:03:13] Speaker 03: I guess the other side is saying that there's some kind of improvement or technical improvement to this claimed movable barrier operator because [00:03:26] Speaker 03: Because it's doing the communication wirelessly. [00:03:30] Speaker 03: And maybe that's the hook. [00:03:33] Speaker 00: That's the twist. [00:03:35] Speaker 00: We obviously disagree with that, Your Honor. [00:03:36] Speaker 00: The claim is basic and simple. [00:03:39] Speaker 00: It requires a controller that's coupled to a transmitter, a wireless transmitter. [00:03:44] Speaker 00: And the controller has to be coupled to a movement-bearer interface, nothing more. [00:03:47] Speaker 00: So the fact that you're transmitting something wirelessly is not inventive. [00:03:51] Speaker 00: It's not transformative. [00:03:52] Speaker 00: It's not an inventive concept here. [00:03:54] Speaker 02: What about the fact that this [00:03:56] Speaker 02: can both send and receive signals. [00:03:59] Speaker 02: Isn't that? [00:04:00] Speaker 02: Doesn't that distinguish itself from the prior? [00:04:03] Speaker 00: It does not. [00:04:05] Speaker 00: Merely transmitting information using a conventional transmitter is the abstract idea. [00:04:10] Speaker 00: And so the fact that BSG tells us if the claims only inventive concept is the application of an abstract idea using conventional well-understood components, it hasn't been transformed into anything that's actually patentable. [00:04:23] Speaker 00: So I think BSG is definitive on that. [00:04:25] Speaker 00: And the only other argument that they raised is supposedly some new ordered combination, but they haven't specified what that combination is. [00:04:32] Speaker 00: And again, if you look at the claim language, it merely requires a controller that's operably coupled to a transmitter and a mobile bearer interface. [00:04:41] Speaker 00: Nothing more. [00:04:41] Speaker 00: There is no ordered combination that transforms this. [00:04:44] Speaker 02: But wouldn't we be better off here if, in fact, the court had talked about what those factual [00:04:52] Speaker 02: Arguments and debates are, as it relates to step two? [00:04:57] Speaker 00: Wouldn't you be better off here? [00:04:58] Speaker 02: I mean, for purposes of our review. [00:05:01] Speaker 00: I don't think it's necessary. [00:05:03] Speaker 00: Based upon the statements and the specification on appendix page 217, column three, it describes the controller and the transmitter both. [00:05:11] Speaker 00: And so we don't think that there's any necessary underlying factual determinations that need to be made. [00:05:15] Speaker 02: And there were no factual determinations that were submitted to the jury? [00:05:20] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:05:21] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:05:22] Speaker 00: I want to transition and talk about invalidity under Menard. [00:05:26] Speaker 04: Well, I'd like to have you talk about 966 patents. [00:05:32] Speaker 04: Why we're not pretty much obligated to accept the jury verdict? [00:05:38] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:05:39] Speaker 00: So with respect to the 966 patent, the issue that we've raised on appeal is whether there is anticipation when you've got a piece of prior art that discloses all of the elements that are required from the claims. [00:05:51] Speaker 03: In two different embodiments, in two different figures, right? [00:05:53] Speaker 00: Understood, yes. [00:05:54] Speaker 00: That's true. [00:05:55] Speaker 00: But this patent in particular, when out of its way to say that these are exemplary embodiments and modification is anticipated and expected, [00:06:03] Speaker 00: And Mr. Reynard, I'm sorry, Mr. White himself, the inventor, testified at trial and explained just that. [00:06:09] Speaker 02: But you're not objecting to the jury instructions, are you? [00:06:13] Speaker 00: We're not objecting to the jury instructions. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: So why isn't that a factual finding that the jury was entitled to make? [00:06:17] Speaker 00: Because if you look at the decision, the Microsoft case that we cite, the district court in its Jamal decision simply got it wrong, saying that just because- The district court gets it wrong in its Jamal decision, but that wrong [00:06:31] Speaker 02: analysis was harmless because that issue was never presented to the jury that way. [00:06:37] Speaker 00: The issue was presented to the jury that the references disclose all limitations. [00:06:44] Speaker 02: But the language that you object to in the JMO was never in a jury instruction, was it? [00:06:50] Speaker 00: The testimony from our expert about the white reference was absolutely submitted to the jury. [00:06:57] Speaker 02: That's not my question. [00:06:59] Speaker 02: The language that you complain that the judge used when citing Microsoft in the JMO was never in a jury instruction submitted to the jury, was it? [00:07:09] Speaker 00: I think that's correct. [00:07:10] Speaker 00: I don't know for sure. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: And you don't raise any issue with respect to the jury instruction? [00:07:13] Speaker 00: That's correct. [00:07:14] Speaker 00: We don't hear. [00:07:14] Speaker 02: So the question that we have to analyze is whether or not substantial evidence supports the jury's finding under the instructions as given, right? [00:07:23] Speaker 00: You do. [00:07:24] Speaker 02: So the fact that the district court might have misspoken in the JMAW doesn't answer the question, does it? [00:07:30] Speaker 00: Well, I think it does. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: I think because there is no substantial evidence to support the other side of this. [00:07:35] Speaker 00: If you look at what's in the disclosure, that's undisputed. [00:07:39] Speaker 00: It's undisputed what's in the disclosure. [00:07:40] Speaker 00: The simple question is whether legally those two things go together in anticipation. [00:07:45] Speaker 00: And we think the judge got it wrong, and that's why it should be reversed here. [00:07:49] Speaker 00: I want to go back to the 275 patent and talk about Menard. [00:07:53] Speaker 00: Because Menard here, to anticipate, only needs to disclose what's in the 275 patent claims. [00:07:59] Speaker 00: And it does that using almost identical language and terminology. [00:08:02] Speaker 00: The district court's denial of the J-MAL on the 275 patent with respect to Menard rested on two issues. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: First, whether Menard disclosed a signal corresponding to an operational status condition defined by two status conditions being experienced by the controller. [00:08:17] Speaker 00: And the second dealt with the physical components about the movable barrier operator. [00:08:21] Speaker 00: I want to take those in reverse order and talk about the movable barrier operator requirement first, because Menard does, in fact, disclose the movable barrier operator that comprises a controller and a transmitter just as required by the claims of the 275 patent. [00:08:34] Speaker 00: We don't have to look any further than figure 31, which is appendix page 12292, and the corresponding disclosure. [00:08:43] Speaker 00: It shows a movable barrier operator in the form of what it calls system 10,000 coupled to GDO 1,000. [00:08:51] Speaker 03: So why wasn't it reasonable for the jury to look at GDO 1000 as being the corresponding claim notation and seeing that, well, you know, there's that box 10,000 that's outside of GDO 1000? [00:09:06] Speaker 00: Even Chamberlain concedes that they don't have to be in the same physical housing. [00:09:10] Speaker 00: And the specification undeniably says that the system 10,000 is coupled to, using the exact same language required by the claim, GDO 1000. [00:09:20] Speaker 00: That is found on appendix page 12238. [00:09:25] Speaker 00: That shows that the processor, the controller is coupled to the transceiver. [00:09:28] Speaker 03: I was just trying to figure out what would be a reasonable interpretation of that figure by the jury. [00:09:34] Speaker 03: And as I understand it, the jury could have looked at box GDO 1000 and said, OK, that's the corresponding claim limitation. [00:09:45] Speaker 03: And outside of that is this system box 10,000. [00:09:49] Speaker 03: That's not part of the GDO. [00:09:51] Speaker 03: So therefore, all of those things inside of system 10,000 aren't part of the node's GDO. [00:09:59] Speaker 00: So I think the simplest answer to that is the claims don't claim a garage door opener. [00:10:03] Speaker 00: They claim a movable barrier operator that comprises three things. [00:10:08] Speaker 00: A controller at the center coupled to a movable barrier interface, which is the gears and the motors and the rail. [00:10:15] Speaker 00: and the transmitter. [00:10:16] Speaker 00: And Menard discloses that. [00:10:17] Speaker 00: The processor 12,000 is the controller. [00:10:20] Speaker 00: It says it is coupled to the transceiver 1,300, I'm sorry, 13,000, which is the transmitter. [00:10:28] Speaker 00: And it also is coupled to the GDO 1,000, which is the movable interface that has the motor, the gears, and the rail that actually move the door. [00:10:34] Speaker 00: So it is the same configuration. [00:10:36] Speaker 02: But apart... You're not actually objecting to the claim construction, correct? [00:10:41] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:10:42] Speaker 00: We are not. [00:10:42] Speaker 02: And to the extent that that went to the jury, you're not you're not objecting to that. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:10:48] Speaker 02: Right. [00:10:48] Speaker 02: So don't you have a really heavy lift on this, given that anticipation is a question of fact? [00:10:55] Speaker 00: I don't think so, because the only evidence that the jury heard was testimony from Chamberlain's expert. [00:11:02] Speaker 00: But the case law tells us if that language is contrary, the testimony is contrary to what's actually in the claim or it's contradictory, that it is not substantial evidence. [00:11:10] Speaker 00: And I think it's both here. [00:11:11] Speaker 00: If you look at the claim, it requires a controller coupled to nothing more, operably coupled to a transmitter and a movable bearer interface. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: So why didn't you put on any expert testimony to rebut that? [00:11:23] Speaker 00: Oh, we did. [00:11:23] Speaker 00: We absolutely did. [00:11:24] Speaker 02: Well, but the jury had the right to disregard that, right? [00:11:27] Speaker 00: I understand that. [00:11:28] Speaker 00: But if his testimony being Chamberlain's expert is contrary to what's in the claims, that is not substantial evidence. [00:11:35] Speaker 00: And I want to take it just to one step further. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: If there was some sort of requirement that these things had to be integrated or combined in a physical housing or something like that, there is an express disclosure of that in Menard. [00:11:47] Speaker 00: This is on Appendix Site 12238. [00:11:49] Speaker 00: It says, other embodiments of the system are also contemplated, one of which includes the garage door opener as part of the system. [00:11:58] Speaker 00: So if there was any concern about whether these things had to be integrated, it is expressly disclosed as an alternative embodiment. [00:12:05] Speaker 00: I'd like to move and talk briefly about the second requirement, the operational status condition. [00:12:10] Speaker 00: Menard discloses that. [00:12:11] Speaker 00: The specification is very thin on the 275 patent about what it requires. [00:12:16] Speaker 00: But under Chamberlain's theory, if you transmit a signal that says simply the light is on, that signal is defined by the light being on, and it's also defined by the light not being off, a condition that's not present but possible. [00:12:28] Speaker 00: Menard discloses that. [00:12:29] Speaker 00: It discloses multiple conditions with multiple discrete operating states. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: And at a level that at least is as great as what's in the 275 patent. [00:12:37] Speaker 00: So Menard anticipates the claims. [00:12:38] Speaker 02: Are there any differences between Menard and your redesigned product? [00:12:44] Speaker 00: Between Menard and the redesign, the GD2000A? [00:12:48] Speaker 02: Yeah, I mean, that's one of your arguments is that if we practice essentially what Menard does, [00:12:55] Speaker 00: Well, I think there are, because we transmit one piece of information at a time, and our disclosure is transmitting multiple pieces of information at a time. [00:13:01] Speaker 00: So it is a distinction that makes it even less likely that we can infringe, and in fact shows that we can't infringe. [00:13:08] Speaker 00: And I want to talk about that. [00:13:09] Speaker 00: I'm into my rebuttal time. [00:13:10] Speaker 00: But I do want to say, for non-infringement, the problem with the JMAW ruling here is that it did not adhere to the district court's construction from claim construction. [00:13:19] Speaker 00: that the signal be defined by at least two states being experienced. [00:13:24] Speaker 00: Being experienced was the key. [00:13:26] Speaker 00: And you can see this by comparing the jury charge, which requires that same analysis with the JMAW ruling. [00:13:32] Speaker 00: The JMAW ruling on appendix page 115 to 116 says that such a signal, this is what the judge relied upon to find infringement, for example, light on, so the signal is just light on, is defined by both the status condition it carries [00:13:49] Speaker 00: and the potential but not present condition it necessarily precludes. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: So the district court told us in claim construction the signal has to be defined by two states being experienced by the controller. [00:14:01] Speaker 00: But that for infringement, because there was no evidence of that happening in the redesign, the district court let the infringement verdict stand based on a signal that was defined by a condition it carried and a potential but not present condition. [00:14:14] Speaker 00: That is absolutely something that's not being experienced and cannot comply with the district court's claim construction. [00:14:19] Speaker 00: With that, I'd like to stop and reserve what I've got left for rebuttal, please. [00:14:22] Speaker 04: We will do that, Mr. White. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:27] Speaker 01: May it please the Court? [00:14:29] Speaker 01: With the Court's permission, I'd like to start where counsel started, which is on the 101 issue. [00:14:35] Speaker 01: And as one of Your Honors began, the questioning is, [00:14:40] Speaker 01: Isn't our claim to a specific physical device? [00:14:44] Speaker 01: And the answer is yes, it is. [00:14:46] Speaker 01: And that contrasts our claim with every case from this circuit finding unpatentable subject matter. [00:14:55] Speaker 01: Our claim begins. [00:14:56] Speaker 02: Alice, didn't Alice have a physical device involved? [00:15:00] Speaker 02: I mean, there was both a method claim and there was a system claim. [00:15:04] Speaker 02: Why wasn't, I mean, that was obviously one of the things I said in dissent in Alice was, [00:15:09] Speaker 02: Okay, it might be obvious or something else, but it's to a machine. [00:15:13] Speaker 01: And what's the distinction between that and this? [00:15:17] Speaker 01: The distinction is that every claim where it was to a system that had to be performed on a machine, what they said in Alice and what this court has said repeatedly in all the other cases finding unpatentable subject matter is that the problem is it's a generic machine. [00:15:32] Speaker 01: It's a generic computer. [00:15:34] Speaker 01: Every case that this court's found unpatentable points out what's missing is there is no improvement. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: There's no improvement to the computer or there's no improvement to the database. [00:15:44] Speaker 01: I'm citing, for example, affinity labs, or in BSG there was no improvement to the way databases store, or if we look at TLI communications, there's no new physical combination of the two. [00:16:00] Speaker 01: Here's what we have. [00:16:02] Speaker 01: We have a movable barrier operator, so it's a physical device. [00:16:06] Speaker 01: How has it improved? [00:16:07] Speaker 01: It's improved over the prior art, because until this claim, [00:16:11] Speaker 01: There were no movable barrier operators. [00:16:14] Speaker 01: Where integrated within the movable barrier operator were three things, a controller, a movable barrier interface, and a wireless status condition data transmitter. [00:16:23] Speaker 03: Okay, so let's take that into pieces. [00:16:26] Speaker 03: I mean, we know from your own specification that the claimed controller was a known conventional thing for movable barrier operators. [00:16:34] Speaker 03: We also know from your spec that the interface was just any known conventional interface that used the movable barrier operators. [00:16:44] Speaker 03: So all of that is just conventional, old, basic, generic technology as planned in the client. [00:16:52] Speaker 03: Then we have this wireless data transmitter, which is all about [00:16:59] Speaker 03: issuing notification messages as to the status of the movable barrier operator. [00:17:07] Speaker 03: And that's ultimately the advance over prior art that's offered in this patent. [00:17:16] Speaker 03: the idea of sending out these notification messages. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: And so that's where I get worried for this claim, is that feels like an abstract idea. [00:17:29] Speaker 03: Sending out notifications about the status of something. [00:17:35] Speaker 03: Here it happens to be a movable barrier operator. [00:17:40] Speaker 03: But nevertheless, sending out status messages about a particular thing sounds like an abstract idea. [00:17:49] Speaker 03: And I don't see any kind of improvement here in any underlying technology as to how one transmits data or how one connects a data transmitter, generically claimed, to [00:18:08] Speaker 03: a movable barrier operator and so the question is why isn't this just directed to an abstract idea of communicating information? [00:18:19] Speaker 01: because the improvement is that all of these, they may be traditional hardware, wireless transmitter, a controller and a moveable barrier interface and a wireless transmitter, never before were they integrated into a moveable barrier operator. [00:18:40] Speaker 02: Is that a step two issue or a step one issue? [00:18:42] Speaker 01: Well, as this court has recognized, it's sometimes a gray area when you go from step one to step two, when you should do that. [00:18:50] Speaker 01: In this case, the court found it was a step one issue, and the improvement is in the specification. [00:18:56] Speaker 01: It is detailed at length, actually. [00:18:59] Speaker 01: Starting with column one, one of the problems is until you integrated it, you would have to hook up things physically. [00:19:07] Speaker 01: And so you would have various modules, which by the way is Menard. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: That's why we are not Menard or anticipated by Menard, is the garage door opener was physically coupled to this Menard system 10,000. [00:19:18] Speaker 01: What our system does is by having everything integrated into the MBO, you avoid all of these physical hookups that you have to do. [00:19:26] Speaker 01: That's number one, and that's pointed out in the specification. [00:19:29] Speaker 01: The second thing that it does is it gives you the flexibility of not having to do this physical interface [00:19:35] Speaker 01: where you might want to hook up to a peripheral, you might want to transmit to a peripheral that doesn't even exist yet. [00:19:42] Speaker 01: And that was a huge benefit. [00:19:44] Speaker 01: This patent was filed in 2003 and today those transmissions that are received from the movable barrier operator letting you know if you forgot to close your garage door, for example, [00:19:54] Speaker 01: you get on your iPhone that didn't even exist until 2007. [00:19:58] Speaker 01: And so this invention enabled seeing into the future five, ten years and being able to transmit to peripherals that didn't even exist at the time. [00:20:10] Speaker 03: It was already pretty well known by 2003 that devices could [00:20:16] Speaker 03: communicate with each other wirelessly. [00:20:20] Speaker 03: They could communicate by text, they could communicate through wires, they could communicate by fax, by telephone, by all kinds of known [00:20:32] Speaker 03: communication schemes and now this particular one in this claim calls for it just to be done wirelessly. [00:20:42] Speaker 03: So that's my concern is what we're doing here is taking already well-known conventional technologies and using them for their already well-known established purposes. [00:20:54] Speaker 01: But in an unconventional way. [00:20:56] Speaker 01: Until this was done, movable barrier operators only received transmissions. [00:21:01] Speaker 01: Open my garage door, close my garage door. [00:21:04] Speaker 01: Until they were all integrated in this movable barrier operator invention, they only did the one-way transmission and the court actually... But it still doesn't change the fact that it's step one. [00:21:14] Speaker 02: this invention is directed to improving the wireless transmission, right? [00:21:21] Speaker 02: Or improving the transmission of signals. [00:21:25] Speaker 01: No, I would just respectfully disagree. [00:21:27] Speaker 01: And I think the court, the lower court found that it was actually the focus is exactly what the preamble says. [00:21:33] Speaker 01: It is improving a movable barrier operator, a physical device that didn't exist before this invention. [00:21:41] Speaker 04: Now, if we don't agree with you, [00:21:43] Speaker 04: and find 275 patent to be abstract and invalid. [00:21:49] Speaker 04: But if we do agree with what you wrote in your briefs and were about to say, that we should uphold the other patent, would we have to send the case back on damages? [00:22:01] Speaker 04: Because most of the damages seem to be attributable to 275 patent. [00:22:10] Speaker 01: I assume that you would, Your Honor, but I'm going to urge the Court not to have to get there, because even if Your Honor should find that the Court was wrong on step one, even if this is a Baskin situation, for example, and the Court was wrong on step one, then we go to step two. [00:22:29] Speaker 01: And then we ask ourselves, what is the inventive concept here? [00:22:35] Speaker 01: What is the improvement? [00:22:37] Speaker 01: What is the difference over the prior art? [00:22:39] Speaker 01: And the court, Your Honor asked, are there factual findings? [00:22:42] Speaker 01: There were factual findings made by the court. [00:22:45] Speaker 01: Now you can view them in the context of Alice step one, which is what the court did. [00:22:50] Speaker 01: But if you take them and move them into Alice step two, now you've got actual factual findings made by the court. [00:22:57] Speaker 01: And then the question is, were they clearly erroneous? [00:23:00] Speaker 01: Was the court clearly erroneous in saying that this movable barrier operator had never been done before? [00:23:07] Speaker 01: And if that's the case, if this is not patentable, where you've got a physical device that had never been done before and had all these advantages over the prior art. [00:23:18] Speaker 04: That's a question of novelty. [00:23:20] Speaker 04: What we're talking about now is abstract. [00:23:23] Speaker 01: Well, in Alice Step 2, though, you're also looking at, has there been an improvement? [00:23:29] Speaker 01: Is there something concrete here versus abstract that has been done in this invention? [00:23:36] Speaker 01: And what we're saying is, and what the court said, only he did in the context of Alice Step 1, but if he'd done it in the context of Alice Step 2, what the court is saying is, yes, this is a new invention with [00:23:48] Speaker 01: improvement over the prior art, if we look at Appendix 101, for example. [00:23:52] Speaker 01: But are any of those improvements other than generic, combination of generic components? [00:23:59] Speaker 01: There are no non-generic components in the moveable barrier operator. [00:24:04] Speaker 01: The transmitter is generic, the controller is generic. [00:24:07] Speaker 01: What we have, though, and what many cases have found, for example, Baskin and the most recent one by this core Fitbit, is it's the combination of taking generic known components and [00:24:19] Speaker 01: combining them in a non-generic way. [00:24:22] Speaker 01: And if you can't do that, I mean, KSR recognized that almost all inventions are starting with what's already known. [00:24:29] Speaker 01: That's how you build the building blocks of what's already known, and you do something unconventional with them. [00:24:35] Speaker 01: So what we have here is an improved machine, which is not abstract. [00:24:38] Speaker 01: You can actually see it, feel it, touch it. [00:24:42] Speaker 01: known conventional components put together in an unconventional way. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: And that's why, whether it be ALICE Step 1, which is what the district court did, or ALICE Step 2, what we have here, as the district court found it, is absolutely patentable. [00:24:59] Speaker 01: If it's not, I'm not sure what's going to happen with inventions down the road. [00:25:06] Speaker 01: If it's patentable, then why doesn't Menard anticipate it? [00:25:11] Speaker 01: The reason Menard doesn't anticipate is that Menard is a modular device. [00:25:16] Speaker 01: So again, for the very reason that we're a new invention, which is everything is, it says a movable barrier operator comprising. [00:25:24] Speaker 01: So all of these components are in the movable barrier operator. [00:25:28] Speaker 01: Menard is just the exact opposite. [00:25:30] Speaker 01: Menard is a modular. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: So you've got garage door opener 1,000. [00:25:35] Speaker 01: That would be the movable barrier operator. [00:25:38] Speaker 01: And this whole system that Menard describes at 10,000 in figure 31, which we can find at appendix 12292, that whole system is separate from, it's not only not integrated, it's completely separate from the movable barrier operator. [00:25:56] Speaker 01: You could take Menard and you could put it on your dishwasher, or put it on your refrigerator, or you don't have to use it in conjunction with the movable barrier operator. [00:26:05] Speaker 01: And that's where we're different. [00:26:06] Speaker 01: And in fact, if you look at figure 31, there is an actual physical coupling of the garage door opener to the system 10,000. [00:26:15] Speaker 03: And of course, the jury was instructed that... Isn't there something in Menard that says you can just [00:26:22] Speaker 03: stuff both boxes into the same box, the system and the GDO? [00:26:27] Speaker 01: Actually, that's not what you're on. [00:26:29] Speaker 01: There is something, but the something is that Menard says that the GDO-1000 can be [00:26:39] Speaker 01: incorporated into the system 10,000. [00:26:42] Speaker 03: So there wouldn't be some physical coupling between the two boxes. [00:26:46] Speaker 03: They'd be part of the same box, right? [00:26:49] Speaker 01: It would be part of the same box, but it would be the opposite of our invention. [00:26:53] Speaker 01: Our invention is that Menard system 10,000 needs to be integrated into [00:27:00] Speaker 01: GDO 1000. [00:27:02] Speaker 01: Menard is saying the opposite. [00:27:04] Speaker 01: Menard is saying, well, you could put the GDO 1000 inside the dotted line. [00:27:08] Speaker 01: It's saying the exact opposite of what our invention is. [00:27:11] Speaker 03: How's that a physical difference? [00:27:14] Speaker 03: I guess I don't understand. [00:27:17] Speaker 03: System 10,000 needs to be in GDO 1000, but Menard says GDO 1000 is inside system 10,000. [00:27:26] Speaker 03: It's going to look the same, isn't it? [00:27:29] Speaker 01: Not necessarily, Your Honor, and it may not act the same either, because what we're talking about then is the system that within it, one of the components is a garage door opener. [00:27:39] Speaker 01: What our claim is claiming is a garage door opener and the components within it are a transmitter and a receiver and a controller. [00:27:49] Speaker 01: Didn't you conceive that there doesn't have to be a physical coupling of those features? [00:27:56] Speaker 01: I'm sorry, concede in relation to Menard? [00:27:59] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:28:01] Speaker 01: No, actually, we're saying that in order to meet the claim limitation, you have to have all of the features, the transceiver. [00:28:09] Speaker 02: Yeah, but I thought you conceded there didn't have to be a physical coupling of those three features to satisfy your limitation. [00:28:18] Speaker 01: I don't believe we conceded that. [00:28:19] Speaker 01: We conceded they didn't have to be in the same housing, a physical housing. [00:28:22] Speaker 01: In fact, they couldn't because part of the movable barrier operator are the chains, for example, that are going to pull the movable barrier up and down. [00:28:30] Speaker 01: So of course, they can't be in the same housing. [00:28:32] Speaker 01: That wouldn't make sense. [00:28:33] Speaker 01: And so we didn't concede that they didn't have to be coupled together. [00:28:37] Speaker 01: In fact, they do. [00:28:38] Speaker 01: They have to be integrated all within the movable barrier operator in order to reach the claim limitations. [00:28:44] Speaker 01: But integrated does not include physical coupling. [00:28:47] Speaker 01: It doesn't have to include it being in the same housing, Your Honor, is how I would answer it. [00:28:50] Speaker 01: I'm not sure we ever talked about it in the context of a physical coupling, but we've always talked about it having to be integrated, because that's what the claim says. [00:28:58] Speaker 01: It's a movable barrier operator comprising. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: And in going back, just to finish up on Menard, remember, the standard that we're looking at is that the burden obviously was on the appellant by clearing convincing evidence. [00:29:11] Speaker 01: The jury heard unequivocal testimony from our expert that Menard is different, that it doesn't, in fact, it doesn't have the benefits [00:29:20] Speaker 01: of our invention. [00:29:22] Speaker 01: Because of the modular nature of it, there would have to be some form of physical connection made and you wouldn't have the flexibility that our invention has. [00:29:31] Speaker 01: In addition to that, of course, the jury was instructed that the burden was on the appellant and the jury found [00:29:40] Speaker 01: for us, they rejected the appellant's challenge. [00:29:44] Speaker 01: I would point out that the standard is no reasonable juror could have found that appellant failed to meet their burden by clearing convincing evidence. [00:29:53] Speaker 01: They certainly would. [00:29:53] Speaker 01: And the one language that Your Honor pointed out, when their expert was asked about that one phrase, he said he found it confusing. [00:30:00] Speaker 01: That is, I think, the exact opposite of clearing convincing evidence. [00:30:03] Speaker 01: I will touch on, I only have 35 seconds left. [00:30:08] Speaker 04: I think you've confused the color of the light. [00:30:11] Speaker 04: You have minus 35 seconds. [00:30:13] Speaker 01: I am. [00:30:14] Speaker 01: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:30:15] Speaker 01: Then I guess I shall finish if the court has no other questions. [00:30:18] Speaker 04: Thank you, Counsel. [00:30:19] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:30:21] Speaker 04: Mr. White has a rebuttal time. [00:30:24] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:30:25] Speaker 00: With respect to ALICE step one, we heard arguments about improvements associated with integration of components, but if you look at the claims, that's not a requirement. [00:30:34] Speaker 00: The claim is straightforward. [00:30:35] Speaker 00: It requires a couple things be coupled, operably coupled. [00:30:37] Speaker 00: It does not require integration. [00:30:39] Speaker 00: It's not in the claims. [00:30:39] Speaker 00: It's not even described in the specification. [00:30:41] Speaker 00: For step two, we heard something about a supposed new ordered combination, but it's just simply not there in the claims. [00:30:48] Speaker 00: If you look at the claims, again, the controller has to be operably coupled to two other things, a transmitter and a mobile barrier interface. [00:30:55] Speaker 00: That is not a new... [00:30:57] Speaker 02: Should we remand for a further analysis of step two? [00:31:01] Speaker 00: Again, I don't think you need to based upon this record. [00:31:03] Speaker 00: This is different from BASCOM, where you actually had a physical location of components. [00:31:07] Speaker 00: Here, there are none of those requirements. [00:31:09] Speaker 00: It's just two things, three things coupled together, nothing more. [00:31:13] Speaker 00: In terms of MNAR, you heard arguments about it's supposedly a modular system. [00:31:20] Speaker 00: That one thing is outside of the other, and we heard [00:31:24] Speaker 00: Chamberlain argued that the GDO 1000 is the movable-bearer operator. [00:31:29] Speaker 00: That's not accurate. [00:31:31] Speaker 00: The movable-bearer operator is the combination of system 10,000 and 1,000 together. [00:31:35] Speaker 00: The GDO 1000 is simply the movable-bearer interface. [00:31:38] Speaker 00: When you look at it from that context with the movable-bearer operator being the combination of 10,000 and 1,000, you can see all the components are there, and the language and the specification is identical to what's in the claims. [00:31:49] Speaker 00: It says the things are coupled to one another. [00:31:51] Speaker 00: The last thing I want to talk about is damages. [00:31:53] Speaker 00: You asked about that. [00:31:54] Speaker 00: I think the one thing that we would need you to address is enhancements in attorney's fees. [00:32:00] Speaker 00: That's an issue where it was not separated out. [00:32:03] Speaker 00: It was given globally across both patents. [00:32:06] Speaker 00: And here, we think you can decide the issue. [00:32:08] Speaker 00: There certainly isn't a basis given the ruling here from the preliminary injunction reversal, finding that Chamberlain had not shown a likelihood of success. [00:32:14] Speaker 00: There can't possibly be a basis under the read factors to support triple damages enhancement as well as attorney's fees. [00:32:20] Speaker 00: And so we'd ask you to readdress that issue and reverse on that. [00:32:23] Speaker 00: And I'm out of time, and unless you've got questions, I'll stop. [00:32:26] Speaker 04: Thank you, counsel. [00:32:28] Speaker 04: We appreciate it. [00:32:29] Speaker 04: Great. [00:32:29] Speaker 04: Thank you, your honor.