[00:00:00] Speaker 02: Our final case this morning is ARENA IP versus the New England Patriots, 2024-1750. [00:00:07] Speaker 02: Mr. Ramey. [00:00:13] Speaker 04: Good morning. [00:00:13] Speaker 04: My name is William Ramey, and I represent ARENA IP LLC. [00:00:17] Speaker 04: And if it pleases the court, may I begin? [00:00:20] Speaker 04: ARENA is asking the court to reverse the district court's finding that the claims of the 820 patent were directed at patent ineligible subject matter. [00:00:29] Speaker 04: The district order made this determination based on what we believe is a misapprehension of the focus of the claims and a failure to consider the actual claimed elements. [00:00:39] Speaker 04: There simply is nothing abstract about self-contained pods that can enable video and data communications with multiple wireless handheld devices. [00:00:49] Speaker 04: Those are physical devices. [00:00:50] Speaker 04: Those are actual claimed devices. [00:00:52] Speaker 04: This is a system claim. [00:00:54] Speaker 04: All the independent claims of 820 Patton. [00:00:56] Speaker 00: Our court has held that even system claims that have physical structure can be directed to abstract ideas and ineligible under ALICE, where the claim doesn't say [00:01:16] Speaker 00: you know, more about how to solve a technical issue, a technical problem, or somehow improve upon the hardware or software, and instead is just at a high level of, I want to do this and I want to do that. [00:01:31] Speaker 00: As in, I want to have all these pods that will allow people to be able to use [00:01:37] Speaker 00: Wi-Fi in a stadium environment, right? [00:01:41] Speaker 04: Yes, your honor. [00:01:42] Speaker 04: I think that the claims could be drafted in such a way that they could be patent ineligible. [00:01:47] Speaker 04: But these claims, these claims claim to meaningful limitations that take it out of that ineligible area. [00:01:53] Speaker 04: They don't preempt all communications. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: Let's go to what the patent actually talks about. [00:01:58] Speaker 04: The H2O patent, this is appending 0030 at column 3. [00:02:03] Speaker 04: lines 35 to 45. [00:02:04] Speaker 04: It talks about what it does differently. [00:02:07] Speaker 04: The systems that were building wireless access points in the near term, in the recent years, were building land. [00:02:14] Speaker 04: They had hardwired wireless access points in there. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: That's when they built the stadiums. [00:02:18] Speaker 04: The claimed invention are for these self-contained pods that could be put into stadiums without drilling new holes or pulling wire to run all the land equipment. [00:02:28] Speaker 04: So these are not wired wireless access points or wireless. [00:02:32] Speaker 00: wireless access. [00:02:33] Speaker 00: It's the wireless aspect that makes this different, you think, or makes this so that it's not directed to an abstract idea. [00:02:41] Speaker 04: Correct, Your Honor. [00:02:44] Speaker 04: That would be one of the points. [00:02:45] Speaker 04: And the claimed elements in there, if we go, I guess let's just go straight to the claims, if that's okay. [00:02:50] Speaker 04: Here, we believe the preamble is limiting. [00:02:57] Speaker 04: We didn't get to claim construction in the case, but we believe the preamble is limiting because [00:03:01] Speaker 04: The claim term is user, referred to in the body. [00:03:03] Speaker 04: So it's grabbing antecedent bases from the preamble. [00:03:07] Speaker 04: So we start off with a system providing communications capacity. [00:03:11] Speaker 04: So it's claiming something that provides enhanced video and data capacity, supporting video and data, and it's wired up with wireless devices. [00:03:20] Speaker 04: And then it goes through, and then the next element is at least one server managing data. [00:03:24] Speaker 04: It's limited by what it's doing. [00:03:26] Speaker 04: It's managing the video coming back from video cameras at the venue. [00:03:30] Speaker 04: Then we go down to the one or more than one self-contained pod, and it includes certain elements. [00:03:36] Speaker 04: It includes wireless communications electronics and an integrated antenna. [00:03:40] Speaker 04: In the self-contained pod, it operates as a wireless access point, sustaining bi-directional communication with that at least one server. [00:03:49] Speaker 04: And then more than that, it's further limited that that self-contained pod, there's more than one of them. [00:03:54] Speaker 04: They're deployed as a matrix of communication nodes throughout the venue to provide that, going back to what the preamble calls, that enhanced capacity for data transfer. [00:04:08] Speaker 04: So it allows video data transfer back and forth from wireless handheld devices through a wireless device. [00:04:14] Speaker 04: And if we go back to what Patton was talking about, [00:04:18] Speaker 04: What it's talking about is it's talking about what existed at the time of this invention. [00:04:22] Speaker 04: People would build a stadium, put in a wireless access point, pull the wires. [00:04:26] Speaker 04: This is the solution around that. [00:04:28] Speaker 00: These kinds of wireless pods or wireless devices, they existed. [00:04:34] Speaker 00: This is not new technology, right? [00:04:38] Speaker 04: Well, wireless devices did exist. [00:04:41] Speaker 04: There was a wireless access point. [00:04:43] Speaker 04: But here, if you go back to what the examiner said in his reasons for allowance, [00:04:46] Speaker 04: putting the pods together in a matrix, like what was done by the patentee, the matrix did not exist. [00:04:53] Speaker 04: The examiner found that exactly as the reason for allowance, and that can be found in Appendix 0116. [00:05:01] Speaker 04: That was specifically, and of course, this even gets more basic going back to dismissal on a 12b6 motion. [00:05:08] Speaker 04: In the first submitted complaint in Appendix 0079 and 0078, we reference [00:05:15] Speaker 04: And the reasons for allowance is one of the reasons why the patent is patent eligible at the pleading stage. [00:05:22] Speaker 04: And so that was a factual assertion we made that the district court did not consider. [00:05:26] Speaker 04: And we believe that's one of the reasons why, at the pleading stage, this should be reversed and sent back for investigation into whether or not those factual assertions made by the Pat D. in the pleading are sufficient to sustain patent eligibility. [00:05:40] Speaker 01: How do the patents in? [00:05:43] Speaker 01: affinity labs and charge point get past section Or not get past section 101 where do you say that your patent does? [00:05:55] Speaker 04: Yes, sure, and thank you for that the affinity labs was was found patented because it claimed a proposition of our concept of providing out-of-market regional access to broadcast material right and then so and [00:06:11] Speaker 04: that was not tethered to a specific or concrete way of doing it. [00:06:14] Speaker 04: I believe this court in that case said that had it been tethered to a specific means or method, it might have been patentable. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: But because it wasn't tethered to a specific means, it wasn't patentable. [00:06:24] Speaker 04: In our case, we don't believe the claims are abstract to start with. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: But even if we're there, we believe the discrete claim elements that I walked this court through a few minutes ago are enough to take it out of the ineligible realm and put it back in the eligible realm. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: Because the fear of preemption, [00:06:40] Speaker 04: isn't there. [00:06:41] Speaker 04: You can still construct wireless access points that would not read on these claims. [00:06:46] Speaker 04: For one, we disclosed one of them, wired wireless access points that most people are going to build when they put in a stadium these days, when they visit a new stadium. [00:06:55] Speaker 04: That would not infringe these claims. [00:06:58] Speaker 00: Can I ask you a question about your claim scope? [00:07:02] Speaker 00: I do see where it's talking about the matrix of communication nodes, but it's more than one. [00:07:09] Speaker 00: self-contained pod deployed as a matrix of communication nodes. [00:07:14] Speaker 00: Would that include having two self-contained pods? [00:07:19] Speaker 04: More than one. [00:07:20] Speaker 04: More than one, yes, Your Honor. [00:07:21] Speaker 04: It would be a matrix. [00:07:22] Speaker 04: So two communication pods would be a matrix? [00:07:26] Speaker 04: In a particularly small venue, yes, Your Honor. [00:07:28] Speaker 04: I think it could. [00:07:29] Speaker 04: I think we've all been to weddings and stuff where they do put these up in small venues. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: And sometimes there's only two. [00:07:36] Speaker 04: That would be sufficient. [00:07:39] Speaker 04: If you're talking about a larger venue, it's going to vary with the venue, vary with the structures that are in there. [00:07:44] Speaker 04: And that, of course, is more of a 112 issue as to what is actually covered by that. [00:07:48] Speaker 00: Would your wedding environment infringe this claim? [00:07:58] Speaker 04: Only if it contained all the discrete elements of their claim that specifically don't. [00:08:03] Speaker 00: Let's say it had everything in the claim. [00:08:04] Speaker 00: But I'm really just trying to understand the preamble language, a sports and entertainment venue. [00:08:11] Speaker 04: There's other claims, Your Honor. [00:08:13] Speaker 04: It's not my apologies. [00:08:14] Speaker 04: So claim one, it probably wouldn't infringe. [00:08:16] Speaker 04: But if you go down to some of the other claims, it might infringe some of the other claims. [00:08:19] Speaker 04: Claims one, eight, and 15 are the independent claims. [00:08:22] Speaker 04: We all agree that claim one is representative for the patent eligibility test. [00:08:27] Speaker 04: But claim, well, sports and entertainment mentioned all of them. [00:08:32] Speaker 04: Claim 15 does more of a venue analysis. [00:08:34] Speaker 04: That could be a broader venue. [00:08:40] Speaker 01: Charge point, though. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: I asked about charge point before. [00:08:43] Speaker 01: How do you distinguish that case? [00:08:44] Speaker 01: Because I look at the Atten in that case, and at least at part two, or step two of the Alice test, not knowing the record in that case, but just the case opinion. [00:08:55] Speaker 01: It seems like it gets closer to the line as far as inventiveness. [00:08:59] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor, thank you for that. [00:09:20] Speaker 04: My apologies, Your Honor. [00:09:21] Speaker 04: I can't place that case right now in my head. [00:09:25] Speaker 04: But generally, the differentiation that we'd say [00:09:28] Speaker 04: with our claims, the claims that we have in the 820 patent, is that they do provide meaningful limitations to providing wireless access. [00:09:37] Speaker 04: And because it is designed for a specific problem in the art, providing wireless access points to increase or enhance data and video connectivity for people in older venues or in venues that are set up temporarily. [00:09:52] Speaker 04: These aren't hardwired in with the newer venues. [00:09:55] Speaker 04: And that's the big differentiation. [00:09:58] Speaker 04: While we think the patent claims are eligible at step one, the district court did get into step two. [00:10:18] Speaker 04: And if I could, I'd address that just briefly, that the district court [00:10:24] Speaker 04: conflated what we believe is novelty, obviousness, with the 101 analysis. [00:10:31] Speaker 04: And you can see this just by what he cites as the basis for that. [00:10:35] Speaker 00: What page are you looking at? [00:10:37] Speaker 00: You want to show us exactly what you're referring to? [00:10:40] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:41] Speaker 04: That would be appendix 0018. [00:10:44] Speaker 04: So what the district court says at its core, the 820 patents claim disclosed the idea that a system already in existence can be used on a larger scale. [00:10:53] Speaker 04: such idea does not constitute an evident concept, such claims are not patent eligible. [00:10:58] Speaker 04: I think that paragraph right there kind of summarizes everything that the district court did. [00:11:03] Speaker 04: The error was conflating the novelty obviousness with the patent eligibility. [00:11:08] Speaker 04: So we didn't do a proper eligibility analysis. [00:11:15] Speaker 00: pre-existed other environments in which wireless access points were used to extend data communication, right? [00:11:26] Speaker 00: Pardon me, Your Honor. [00:11:27] Speaker 04: I didn't hear that. [00:11:27] Speaker 00: Do you agree that prior to the invention, in this case, prior to the filing date of this patent application or its priority date, that there existed [00:11:40] Speaker 00: in other environments, other than stadiums or at big entertainment venues, using wireless access points to extend data communication? [00:11:52] Speaker 00: I think you're patented. [00:11:53] Speaker 04: Yeah, I think there were other wireless access points that were out there. [00:11:57] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: And so that's why we have to go back to the specific limitation. [00:12:01] Speaker 04: I don't think we can read out the venue, the sports entertainment venue, from this. [00:12:05] Speaker 04: I think that's what the claims are limited. [00:12:08] Speaker 04: I'd go back to what the examiner said in his reasons for allowance, that he, in his search, didn't find those limitations in the prior art. [00:12:16] Speaker 04: And that's what we were allowed to say, that it's not conventional technology at that point. [00:12:22] Speaker 04: And at least, because we put that into the first amended complaint, that's a factual assertion that would have to be resolved. [00:12:30] Speaker 04: And if it told me six ages, it's not properly resolved that without [00:12:33] Speaker 04: discovered into that matter. [00:12:35] Speaker 00: But the 12b6 stage statements that are made in the specification can be considered, right? [00:12:40] Speaker 00: Statements about certain things being conventional or not conventional certainly can be considered at the 12b6 stage, correct? [00:12:48] Speaker 04: Yes, your honor. [00:12:49] Speaker 04: In the patent specification. [00:12:50] Speaker 00: In the patent specification. [00:12:51] Speaker 04: Yes, sir. [00:12:52] Speaker 04: So let me go back and make sure that I clear that up. [00:12:55] Speaker 04: Because I think I understand from my colleagues on the other side's briefing that there may have been a misapprehension on what the patent actually says is in the prior. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: The patent does refer to what stadiums like the Dallas Cowboys did. [00:13:08] Speaker 04: But that's what I was talking about earlier. [00:13:10] Speaker 04: They call them three lines, 35 to 45. [00:13:13] Speaker 04: Those are hardwired systems. [00:13:14] Speaker 04: That's where they build a new stadium, put the wireless access points in hardwired. [00:13:20] Speaker 04: We weren't admitting that what we're trying to do is in the prior art. [00:13:23] Speaker 04: We were trying to differentiate our self-contained pods for what they do in the prior art for these wireless access points. [00:13:31] Speaker 04: This invention filled a need in the industry. [00:13:36] Speaker 04: This is a technological improvement in the area of wireless access points. [00:13:40] Speaker 04: wireless wireless access points on top of that, so it is very limited. [00:13:44] Speaker 04: It would not preempt much at all. [00:13:46] Speaker 01: What's your best case that supports your position? [00:13:48] Speaker 01: What's the most analogous case that goes your way? [00:13:51] Speaker 04: Well, Your Honor, I think I like Power Block the most. [00:13:55] Speaker 04: In that case, as this Court knows, ultimately this Court found the claims to be directed towards patent-eligible because of meaningful limitations that were put in. [00:14:06] Speaker 04: And that case, of course, is directed toward [00:14:09] Speaker 04: what might be considered automated weight stacking. [00:14:12] Speaker 04: And the court found that because of the connection of certain motors and the way that it selected the weights, the meaningful limitations, that took it out of patent eligibility and back into patent eligibility. [00:14:23] Speaker 04: We would say the same general analogy holds here. [00:14:27] Speaker 04: What we're talking about is we're talking about wireless, wireless access points. [00:14:31] Speaker 04: But we put meaningful limitations in through those self-contained pods that were not in the art to allow these larger venues to be covered. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: that takes us outside of the area of patent and eligibility. [00:14:42] Speaker 02: Counsel, your time has mostly expired, but let's hear from the other side. [00:14:48] Speaker 02: We'll give you two minutes for a bottle. [00:14:50] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:52] Speaker 02: Mr. Quillhouse. [00:15:01] Speaker 03: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Alan Bilharts for the New England Patriots. [00:15:08] Speaker 03: The Court should affirm the District Court's well-reasoned dismissal order. [00:15:13] Speaker 03: The claims of the 820 patent are directed to an abstract idea on their face, providing wireless communications access in a public venue. [00:15:21] Speaker 03: Beyond that abstract idea, the claims only recite generic computer components used in a conventional way. [00:15:27] Speaker 03: Thus, under the now-familiar Alice test, [00:15:30] Speaker 03: the claims are invalid. [00:15:31] Speaker 02: Well, they claim a system with a server and pods. [00:15:37] Speaker 02: There's something physical about that. [00:15:39] Speaker 03: Yes, correct, Your Honor. [00:15:40] Speaker 03: There is something physical about servers and pods. [00:15:44] Speaker 03: But I think Judge Solt may have pointed out that our case law, the case law of this court, indicates that having physical components alone is not enough. [00:15:55] Speaker 03: And one thing I would like to address, Your Honor, I heard this for the first time from the other side, that wireless versus wired being the distinction here between newer venues and older venues, I'd like to read from the patent itself, column one. [00:16:08] Speaker 03: So this is on appendix 29, column one, line 49. [00:16:13] Speaker 03: New sports and entertainment venues are now being designed and built to incorporate wireless data communications infrastructure in order to enhance spectator experiences. [00:16:23] Speaker 03: It's right there in black and white that the patent acknowledges that wireless technology was already present in sports and entertainment communities at the time. [00:16:32] Speaker 03: And you will see in columns three and four, there's a long discussion there of wireless technology and how it is conventional. [00:16:38] Speaker 00: What do you think is the best parts of columns three and four, just even a couple sentences or one sentence, for showing that these wireless repeaters are conventional? [00:16:50] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:16:51] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:16:53] Speaker 03: I would point to column three. [00:16:54] Speaker 03: approximately lines 40 through 45 that's on appendix page 30 and that's where the spec talks about 802 11 1 repeaters are on the market and they will be referred to in here in as communication systems nodes [00:17:12] Speaker 03: or simply as communications nodes. [00:17:14] Speaker 03: That's the terminology that appears in the claims. [00:17:16] Speaker 03: So the patent is equating those nodes with known wireless technology. [00:17:21] Speaker 03: It goes on and discusses further. [00:17:23] Speaker 00: So when it talks about a self-contained pod deployed as a matrix of communications nodes, it's referring back here to these wireless repeaters? [00:17:33] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor, it's referring back to at least some conventional technology. [00:17:38] Speaker 03: I don't know if it's actually limited to that, but at least that is within the scope of what the claims cover. [00:17:43] Speaker 03: I would also point out to Your Honors, in the appendix at page 221, [00:17:51] Speaker 03: Council for Arena IP has already admitted that the improvement is not in the pods themselves. [00:17:57] Speaker 03: I'll read from the appendix. [00:17:58] Speaker 03: It's page 11 of the oral argument before the district court. [00:18:03] Speaker 03: I'm quoting now. [00:18:04] Speaker 03: The improvement is not in any one pod and not within the ability of any one pod. [00:18:09] Speaker 03: The improvement is having the server that communicates with multiple of these pods that's unable to transmit high capacity video and data to multiple wireless handheld devices across the sports venue. [00:18:19] Speaker 03: That system is what's being claimed. [00:18:22] Speaker 03: So it's not the improvements in any one pod. [00:18:26] Speaker 03: So we're not talking about the pods here. [00:18:27] Speaker 03: We're talking about, at best, the arrangement. [00:18:29] Speaker 03: That's how I understand their argument. [00:18:32] Speaker 00: How many pods did the claims require? [00:18:35] Speaker 03: The claims actually do require more than one, if I'm remembering that correctly. [00:18:39] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:18:39] Speaker 03: Column 8, so this is appendix 32, column 8, line 62, says more than one self-contained pod. [00:18:50] Speaker 03: there could be two pods. [00:18:52] Speaker 03: It could be two pods, Your Honor. [00:18:54] Speaker 03: So it's not the pods. [00:18:57] Speaker 03: Now, Council, ARENA IP argues that it is the arrangement of the pods, the matrix. [00:19:02] Speaker 03: But I would point out that the term matrix doesn't appear anywhere in specification. [00:19:05] Speaker 03: There is no support for the matrix or the arrangement. [00:19:09] Speaker 03: There's no discussion [00:19:10] Speaker 03: of how these things need to be arranged in an inventive capacity. [00:19:14] Speaker 03: And that puts us squarely within Affinity Labs. [00:19:18] Speaker 03: I think this case is on all fours with Affinity Labs in that you don't have the how. [00:19:26] Speaker 03: You have this concept at best of [00:19:30] Speaker 03: even taking their argument, assuming that their argument is correct, which we disagree with. [00:19:34] Speaker 03: But at best, you have the concept of arranging these things in a matrix. [00:19:38] Speaker 03: There's no discussion of how or what would qualify. [00:19:40] Speaker 03: And in fact, the dependent claims as well. [00:19:43] Speaker 03: So matrix appears one time in each of the independent claims. [00:19:46] Speaker 03: And one limitation of 102 words, that limitation is 102 words long. [00:19:50] Speaker 03: Matrix appears once in each of those. [00:19:52] Speaker 03: The dependent claims do not elaborate on this concept at all. [00:19:54] Speaker 03: They focus on other conventional technology. [00:19:57] Speaker 03: So I think it defies the intrinsic record to say that the matrix is the focus of this invention. [00:20:04] Speaker 03: And under Infinity Labs, we look to the focus of the invention to understand or to resolve ALICE step one. [00:20:11] Speaker 00: Should the district court nonetheless have discussed the examiner's reasons for allowance, which seem to mention the matrix? [00:20:20] Speaker 03: Your Honor. [00:20:22] Speaker 03: I believe counsel talked about conflating novelty and patent subject matter eligibility. [00:20:28] Speaker 03: The examiner's reasons for allowance were addressing novelty, not subject matter eligibility. [00:20:35] Speaker 03: In fact, these claims were allowed two years before Alice even decided. [00:20:38] Speaker 03: Of course, we had 101 at that time. [00:20:40] Speaker 03: But the examiner was not evaluating eligibility when the examiner made that determination. [00:20:46] Speaker 02: If our law had gone in a different direction, we'd be dealing with section 103 here. [00:20:51] Speaker 03: Perhaps, Your Honor, perhaps. [00:20:53] Speaker 03: But the issue before the court today is patent subject matter eligibility. [00:20:57] Speaker 03: So I want to go back to that statement of the examiner. [00:21:01] Speaker 03: I'd also point out the word matrix does literally appear in there, but the examiner is pointing to that same 102 word limitation that I'd also point out recites the abstract idea, which is providing wireless communications access in a public venue. [00:21:15] Speaker 03: If you look at it, it's not the exact same verbiage, but that's in the limitation. [00:21:19] Speaker 03: It's talking about providing enhanced capacity or capabilities for wireless communications. [00:21:24] Speaker 03: I can read it to the court. [00:21:27] Speaker 03: The language, it appears on PINIX 33, column 9, starting at line 1. [00:21:33] Speaker 03: The claim actually literally recites, to provide enhanced communications capacity for and data network access by said handheld wireless devices being used by spectators located throughout the sports and entertainment venue. [00:21:48] Speaker 03: So the claims are reciting this concept of [00:21:52] Speaker 03: providing wireless communication access in a sporting venue. [00:21:56] Speaker 03: And I believe there were some questions before about, well, what if it's a wedding, right? [00:22:00] Speaker 03: The claims are limited to a sports and entertainment venue, at least claim one and claim eight are. [00:22:06] Speaker 03: Claim 15 is only limited to a public venue. [00:22:09] Speaker 03: So perhaps that would read on a way, depending on how public it is. [00:22:15] Speaker 03: But it's black letter law, including in Alice itself, that you can't take an abstract idea and limit it to a particular field of use or a particular technological context and then have a patent eligible claim. [00:22:29] Speaker 01: I asked Councilor Lombolt what was his best case to support his position, and he made reference to Power Block. [00:22:36] Speaker 01: And I didn't see that case cited in any of the briefings. [00:22:39] Speaker 01: Do you know what he's referring to? [00:22:41] Speaker 03: Thank you for that question, Your Honor. [00:22:42] Speaker 03: I had the same reaction. [00:22:45] Speaker 03: table of authorities, and I did not see that case cited. [00:22:49] Speaker 03: I am not familiar with that case, at least not this time. [00:22:54] Speaker 03: So I didn't see that case cited. [00:22:55] Speaker 03: I think it's outside the briefing, Your Honor. [00:22:57] Speaker 03: But in terms of the cases on point, I believe Affinity Labs is directly on point. [00:23:02] Speaker 03: I would also point to Chamberlain. [00:23:05] Speaker 03: Chamberlain talks about these physical claim elements not being enough to save claims from abstractness. [00:23:11] Speaker 03: And also two-way media as well. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: We're in this situation where we're dealing with claims that are nominally technological. [00:23:20] Speaker 03: But if you strip that all away, it's just claiming a concept of solving a problem. [00:23:24] Speaker 03: And going back to counsel's statement about there's a factual allegation in the specification. [00:23:33] Speaker 03: I believe he was pointing to the discussion in Columns 1 and 2, which talks about the problem of older stadiums versus newer stadiums. [00:23:43] Speaker 03: Let's assume for a second that it is a factual allegation properly preserved. [00:23:47] Speaker 03: That's just talking about the problem. [00:23:48] Speaker 03: It's just talking about the problem to be solved. [00:23:50] Speaker 03: That's not actually providing an inventive concept or invention. [00:23:53] Speaker 03: It's just saying, here's the problem. [00:23:56] Speaker 03: The present invention solves it. [00:23:58] Speaker 03: That's an abstract idea. [00:24:06] Speaker 03: Your Honor, if I may briefly touch on the claim construction question. [00:24:10] Speaker 02: It's your time. [00:24:12] Speaker 03: OK, thank you, Your Honor. [00:24:12] Speaker 03: Well, it's going to be hard to beat the earlier counsel in terms of sitting down quickly. [00:24:17] Speaker 03: So I will say, Your Honor, the claim construction argument was not presented to the district court in the briefing before the district court. [00:24:26] Speaker 03: That came up at oral argument. [00:24:27] Speaker 03: It's the most superficial of arguments in that the preamble should be limiting. [00:24:30] Speaker 03: But I point out that that doesn't change the analysis here. [00:24:34] Speaker 03: The preamble, even if it were limiting, the preamble just recites the same abstract idea. [00:24:39] Speaker 00: Your view is because it gives, at most, it gives the environment that, as you said earlier under our case law, would not be sufficient to make something that's abstract non-abstract. [00:24:52] Speaker 03: Correct, Your Honor. [00:24:53] Speaker 03: And actually, looking to claim 15, I'm not sure it [00:24:57] Speaker 03: I guess it restricts it to public venues as opposed to private venues, but it's quite broad in terms of what it attempts to claim. [00:25:05] Speaker 03: But that idea, I would point out, as we discussed earlier, is recited also in the last limitation, that long limitation. [00:25:12] Speaker 03: So even if the preamble is limiting, it doesn't add anything new to the analysis. [00:25:16] Speaker 03: But then as a matter of law, of course, if you limit to a particular field of use or technological context, it's not enough. [00:25:23] Speaker 03: We made these arguments in our brief, and ARENA IP failed to rebut those arguments on reply. [00:25:29] Speaker 03: So they are unrebutted at this time with regard to the claim construction argument. [00:25:34] Speaker 03: unless there are further questions. [00:25:36] Speaker 02: Thank you, counselor. [00:25:37] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:25:40] Speaker 02: Mr. Ramey has two minutes. [00:25:42] Speaker 04: Yes, sir, if I may. [00:25:45] Speaker 04: First, if I could, Judge Shun, I want to apologize for charge point. [00:25:48] Speaker 04: I did now request my recollection about that case and what it stands for. [00:25:53] Speaker 04: And I think charge point's directly on point. [00:25:55] Speaker 04: It actually says what we're looking at, the focus, we're supposed to go back to the specification to find out what [00:26:01] Speaker 04: And you heard my friend on the other side bring up the fact of where the specification, where it does talk about retrofitting old venues, it talks about these pods, how they didn't exist. [00:26:10] Speaker 04: I think that's directly on point. [00:26:12] Speaker 04: But to address, I can just chamberlain the charge point in one aspect here. [00:26:17] Speaker 04: This court, in my oversimplification, found those claims in those two cases to be abstract because they weren't claiming the physical thing they were trying to control. [00:26:26] Speaker 04: They were claiming controls of those. [00:26:28] Speaker 04: So they weren't, like in chamberlain, [00:26:30] Speaker 04: that didn't claim the movable barrier. [00:26:32] Speaker 04: The court pointed out, had that been claimed, it may have been different. [00:26:35] Speaker 04: The claims may have been eligible. [00:26:36] Speaker 04: It claimed a status control for a garage door. [00:26:39] Speaker 00: Can I ask you one quick question? [00:26:41] Speaker 00: I want to ask you a quick question, which is simply, where in your claim does it talk about retrofitting any sports venues? [00:26:50] Speaker 00: I just don't see that. [00:26:52] Speaker 00: I think that your claim is broad enough to cover new venues as well. [00:26:57] Speaker 00: Am I wrong? [00:26:58] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:26:59] Speaker 04: I think that for the new venues, it's wrong if they're wired. [00:27:03] Speaker 00: What in your claim? [00:27:04] Speaker 00: What in your claim suggests that this is only for retrofitting? [00:27:10] Speaker 04: There's not that limitation in the claim itself, Your Honor. [00:27:14] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:27:15] Speaker 04: Sorry. [00:27:15] Speaker 04: And I wanted to address real quick the [00:27:18] Speaker 04: The power block case, I could not have put that in the brief because it was only issued August 11th. [00:27:23] Speaker 00: Did you file a Rule 28J letter? [00:27:25] Speaker 04: I did not. [00:27:25] Speaker 00: That's what you should do next time. [00:27:27] Speaker 04: OK. [00:27:28] Speaker 04: But that's the newer case. [00:27:29] Speaker 04: But it also goes back to McCrow. [00:27:32] Speaker 04: It relies a lot on that case. [00:27:34] Speaker 04: And that case is in the briefing, and that's for the same point. [00:27:38] Speaker 04: So the McCrow v. Bande case is cited in the case. [00:27:43] Speaker 04: So that's the strongest case in Maryland. [00:27:46] Speaker 04: I'm sorry about that. [00:27:49] Speaker 04: And with that, I thank the court very much. [00:27:51] Speaker 04: If you have any further questions, I can... Thank you to both counsel. [00:27:55] Speaker 02: The case is submitted.