[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Our next case is number 24, 1977, Shopify Inc.

[00:00:04] Speaker 04:
versus Express Mobile Inc.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Okay, Mr. Lamkin.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
I'd like to begin with the post-trial decision overturning the infringement verdict on the 755 patent with respect to the user interface object limitation in particular before turning to summary judgment on the 395 patent family and the runtime limitation at issue there.

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
This cloud would apply

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
to the method claims as well, right?

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
This ground would apply to the method claims as well.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
Yes, and we would address the method claims as well, although the district court had an alternative holding the method claims or whether they're in practice.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
But the same issue applies to the method claims.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
Yes, it would.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
In terms of whether or not there is a user interface object that both receives the input from the user, sends it up to the web service, receives a result from the web service, and then displays that as an output back to the user.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
And that applies to all the asserted claims?

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
All the asserted claims in the 755 patent.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
We would have to prevail on that.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
There's the alternative holding on method claims also with respect to whether they're actually practiced.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
But I was proposing to turn to that later.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
and starting with the user object limitation.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
And I think, as I described, there's two things that this thing has to do, that the user object has to, user interface object has to do, which is to send the information up, accept an input, send it up to the web service, and then display the output.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
It's the big issue.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
hear whether the jury heard the infringement theory that it's the page that is the object, as opposed to, for example, the ad cart.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
Is that the object?

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
I think that might be the issue that Judge Andrews was focused on.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
And so I think there's two different pieces we'd have to look at.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
One is for the YouTube video service, which is one of the input outputs, one of the user object interfaces.

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
And then there was also the add to cart.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
And whether or not we're talking about the page or the add to cart, those are two different terms for the same thing, frankly, Your Honor.

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
If your court were to turn to page 18 to Aston, 19, 18.019 in volume two.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
Page 18019, which is volume 2.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
This is the construction page that you use in Shopify to build what's called your product page.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
And if you look on the left-hand side, there's all these attributes that you can click about what you want, size, etc.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
And then what you get on the right is your product page, which is actually different from the full page.

[00:02:39] Speaker 04:
Because if you compare it to the top.

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
You're presenting a lawyer argument as to why this satisfies the claim limitation.

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
But what did your experts say?

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
Where did your experts say that the page was the UI object?

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
So page 18685.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
18685?

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
Yeah, 18685, line two.

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
He's talking about these very images.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
And he says,

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
This is volume three.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
Volume three now, yes.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
And he describes this as customizing add to cart functionality.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
So this, everything that comes over, what you're customizing is add to cart.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
18685.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, which lines, just so that we follow?

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
Line two.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
He's talking about this as customizing the add to cart functionality.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Well, where does he say that the page is the defined UI object?

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
What he's describing, this is the image he's talking about.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
Does he ever say that?

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
No, he doesn't, right?

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
Well, he describes the add to cart, and I think the add to cart amplifies

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
qualifies, whether we call it as the page as the lawyer described it in closing, or you just call it add to cart, which is what he called it throughout.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Add to cart, sometimes add to cart feature.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
And whether you draw a box around this entire product page, which isn't the entire page that's displayed, or just around the right-hand side, which is the colored rubber bands, that is a user interface object.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
What the other side's review was, was that if you press the add to cart button was one object, and then the pop-up that you get is a separate object.

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
But our expert was very careful.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
So he never explicitly says that the page is the UI object.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
I think he equates the page with the add to cart, but I don't think, and on page 18.065, or see 18.685 when he talks about this image as customizing add to cart functionality, but I don't think he ever says the page is

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
It doesn't matter, because we're looking at sufficient evidence.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
Maybe it does matter.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
We're looking at sufficiency evidence.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
And could the jury understand that the add to cart feature, add to cart, not the add to cart button, not the result that pops up, is the user interface object?

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
I have a question for you, which is the question here that is provided with this answer is, so once the products have been identified by the merchant, what else can you do?

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
And then the answer is, next is customizing the add to cart functionality.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
I mean, it's not immediately clear that this is a mapping of the accused product to a particular claim limitation, right?

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
So how was the jury to know that?

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
Well, the jury has two things that were very important that show that this is, when he's talking about add to cart, not just one button or another, add to cart.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
One, as he goes through, he's actually very careful to repeatedly say add to cart, not add to cart button.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
the add to cart functionality, and if the court were to turn to in particular, I think it is page, I'm gonna have it tagged right here, 18732, and this is where he's talking about the input and output.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
If you look at the very bottom, 18732, line 25, he says, you've got the output value, which is seven, and then the add to cart has been updated

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
so that there's now seven values.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
If you're trying to page 33, we have an image there, which is actually Shopify's image, so I'm not in love with it, but it's adequate for this.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
You can look and you can see that the seven update is in that upper right-hand corner, and the input is right in the middle there.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
So he's saying that these two pieces, the output, number seven,

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
and the input are both part of Add to Cart.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
The Add to Cart has been updated, so there's now seven values.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
He's not saying, oh, one button is the user object and another button is the user object.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
And it's even clearer still when he talks about the alternative, which is the video component, because he testifies, again, that he's asked, does Shopify's YouTube web service, not a button to start video, not the video itself, receive an input symbolic name

[00:06:54] Speaker 02:
in connection with the user input.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, it does.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
When you click on the play button, the code supports reading the input.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
That's at 818-716.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
So the YouTube video interface is receiving the input.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
And what does it do?

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
It gives an output in the form of the video.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
And if the court were to turn to the very last page of that volume three, you can actually see a picture of what this user object interface looks like.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
And this jury has experience using the internet.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
They have experience with phones.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
And they look at this and they can tell, this is an object.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
The whole thing is something you interface with.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
Usually the jury's looking to the expert to tell them sort of clearly what the theory is.

[00:07:31] Speaker 04:
And the problem is your expert didn't do that.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
I think the jury, the question is, first, sufficient to the evidence is what the jury could understand the expert to be saying.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
And when you have a user interface object that has to have two features, receive an input, send it to the web service.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
Second feature, take the output from the web service and display it.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
And the expert says, this is what the object, this is what the

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
the video interface is doing, or when he says, this is what the add to cart is doing, it's pretty clear that he's saying that's the interface.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
But he actually does a little bit more than that, Judge Dyke.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
The claim also requires the UI object to be associated with a symbolic name.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
And this comes up earlier in the discussion.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
But that's on appendix 413, column 37, lines 26 to 27.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
So you have to have a UI object with a symbolic name.

[00:08:20] Speaker 02:
And the expert testified earlier in that

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
on 18,007 rate, you need that, or 1875 he says that, UI object, symbolic name, and what does he identify as having a symbolic name?

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
Line 20 on 18,007 rate, there is the symbolic name for a video, so he's identifying the video component as having a symbolic name.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
On lines 12 to 13, same page, he says the add to cart has symbolic names that are now linked up.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
So he's identifying,

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Your UI object has to have a symbolic name.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
And what is he identifying as having symbolic names?

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
The video component and the ad department on it.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
Not particular buttons, but those components as a whole.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
And it's especially important because- Were these specific pages identified to Judge Andrews?

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
Pardon?

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
Were these specific pages identified to the district court in response to the Jamal motion?

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
I don't know if those specific pages were identified, but if you read the transcript, I mean, the judge identifies all of it and says, oh, you identified the object as it, and the jury heard this.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
But you look at the actual evidence the judge is citing in the opinion, always saying the add to cart, or sometimes add to cart functionality, or sometimes add to cart component, but never does our expert say the add to cart button is itself the UI object, or the output is the add to cart object.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
Quite the opposite.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
when he's discussing it, and use the page 33 of our brief, and he discusses it, that picture on page 33 of our brief, he says, the add to cart has been updated, you have the seven, and that's the pop-up.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
And that's consistent with the specification, which describes what's called a launch bar as an object, and then says, the launch bar can have a pop-up.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
It says that the object can have a pop-up.

[00:10:03] Speaker 02:
I see I'm almost into my rebuttal time, but I wanted to point out one last thing.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
Going back to this page 18109, one of the reasons the jury would understand this to be a single object, not multiple objects, is how it's created.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
You set the attributes on the left-hand side, and that whole thing comes over as a widget, one thing.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
So in the creation, it's one thing.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
In the erection, if you're going to buy something, you can't buy something without the pop-up, and you can't

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
have the pop-up without buying something.

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
So it's for the interface, for the individual using it, it's a unitary whole.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
Same thing with the video.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
You want to play a video, you're going to have to interface with one piece of the picture, which is the play button, and you can't have your video without the play button.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
Conversely, the play button doesn't do anything without the video.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
This is a unitary thing that jury's going to understand as a single

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
unified user interface object.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
It's what the user interface is.

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
I want to ask you a legal question.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
My legal question is, in our review of Jamal, is it OK for us to look beyond the evidence that was presented to the district court in responding to a motion for Jamal?

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
So if there's a waiver where the district court is not fairly apprised of what the evidence is and would not understand it, this court would not sandbag the district court and say, sorry, we found something in the record, which is different.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
But all of this, what was identified as the future, the abdicate, and the other pages that I'm citing, these are things that the district court had and was well aware of that we were not saying that it's individual buttons.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
These are things where our expert is very clear.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
Add to cart and video.

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
And I will have a more particular answer with respect to where you can find it in our opposition to the JMO motion when I get to rebuttal.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
Yeah, claim one of the 397 patent.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
That's been canceled, correct?

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
Claim one of the 397 patent.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
It's a summary judgment ruling on that.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, that's been canceled.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
I don't believe the claim one of the 397 has been canceled.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
There's one claim of the 755 that has been, that's at issue in the prior one.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
It has, okay, I'm sorry, it has, that has been canceled.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
But that would not have, obviously, collateral stoppable effect in the district.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
If I could reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
So I have a question, which is, was this product page theory argued to the jury in closing argument?

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
Yes, certainly in closing argument, there are two places where counsel made it very clear that he was arguing.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
Where is that?

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
Let's find that.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
Okay, page 19,438.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
Dr. Almaraz testified that the web... Wait, wait, wait.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
What page?

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
19,438, line 22.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
That's not the case.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
First, he's talking about how Dr. Schmand, Shopify's expert.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
What line?

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
Line 22.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
22?

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
And right above that, he's explained that Dr. Schmand, Shopify's expert, has said that the add to cart button or the play button, this is a separate UI object and the output is a separate UI object.

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
And he says, response, but that's not the case.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
Dr. Almaroth testified that the web component itself is the UI object.

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
and that the UI object does receive inputs and does have outputs for the display.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
So again, we've addressed all of that.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
And he also goes on to say, excuse Shopify, sort of chopping up the individual UI object into little tiny pieces, but that's not how the interface works.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
Is this the only place, or is there another place?

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
There's one other place, and that would be where he says that he accuses them of chopping it up into lots of tiny little pieces, and that would be

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
$19,494, I guess.

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
I think that's quoted in our brief in a block quote.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
And it says, this is another example of Shopify, line two, I apologize.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
This is another example of Shopify trying to draw little distinctions.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
Little boxes that are narrower than what the claims require and what ExpressMobile has said.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
UI object is this display.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
It's this thing around this, and it includes both the input and output.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
And the patent describes this.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
You define a UI object, and it can have other UI objects within it.

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
And it goes on from there.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
This is admitted, right?

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
I mean, I don't think this is affirmative contention.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
Even the red brief admits this, right?

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
I thought that if you look at page 35 of the red brief, I think that they admit that this argument was made in closing.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
Their position is that the evidence just hadn't been presented to the jury.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
I think that their argument is there's no evidence to support it.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
I think that's right.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
The argument's made.

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
And the evidence is there because, one, the jury can look at it themselves.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
Two, it comes from one place as an object.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
And 3RX identified the add to cart, or the video YouTube interface, or the video YouTube service, the entirety of that service, as the web component that is the user interface object.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
They identified the entirety of it, not little components as the user interface object.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
I think I have about 17 seconds.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Give me two minutes for a model.

[00:15:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you so much, John.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
Mr. Saunders?

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
So on the defined UI object, I think, as the colloquy showed, we don't have testimony from the expert at trial saying, I am identifying the product page here as the defined UI object.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
Now, it's with good reason that you weren't seeing that testimony as we said in our brief, page 5147 of the appendix through 5148.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
That's his expert report.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
They can't recite it in open court.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
But you can see it very much is a granular theory of what the objects are in terms of the text field for quantity.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
I wonder if expert reports being more confidential.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
I don't understand that.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
We are not going to mark that.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
But you can see for yourself, it's a granular theory on this.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
They come to trial.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
These are long and complicated claims.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
The defined UI object runs through multiple limitations.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
And in connection with that, it has to be the different.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
What page is the expert reporting?

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
The expert report is 5147 and 5148.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
Line 2?

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
Line 2 of the event.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
And I do think it is worth just pausing here so we have all on the same page going into trial.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
You can see right at the top of 5147.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
In my volume, by the way, this isn't necessarily marked as being confidential because it's not highlighted in here.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
Am I confused about that?

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
It's not highlighted.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
OK, well then, so you see the discussion of the text boxes, buttons, multimedia content, these UI objects.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
And then if you look at paragraph 460 and talking about the add to cart web component, it's the discussion of the add to cart web component includes various UI objects, such as the quantity text field and the add, AKA add to cart button.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
So it is looking button by button for the UI object.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
The testimony at trial doesn't say, oh, how we have a new theory.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
It's the entire page.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
Is there anything?

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
I didn't see anything in the testimony that I reviewed that specifically referred to the text field or a button as being clear that that's the UI object.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
But do you think there is testimony that's clear as to what they're pointing to for the UI object?

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
I think it's difficult because with the color coding of the limitations, we end up with Judge Andrews saying, yeah, there's not the usual one-to-one correspondence.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
So I think there's a lot of- So it's like this shows that this meets the green limitations and the gold limitations.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Some things we do have is,

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
You have to, for the other limitations, we have to associate the selected symbolic name with the defined UI object.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
You'll see them talking about the symbolic names in the plural.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
The application has to include the selected name of the defined UI object at 18.714.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
The experts talking about the different symbolic names that go into that.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
So that only makes sense as a mapping.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
If you have different symbolic names for that same page, you're not talking about the symbolic name for the defined UI object of the whole page.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
That's a mapping that's going on to the individual columns.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And it is an overview, but Judge Andrews sat through the entire trial, reviewed the record, and found in Grant and Jamal that there wasn't the expert testimony on this issue.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
So it was an appropriate grant of Jamal

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
And this is not a circumstance.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
Some of the pleas that are made in the brief in terms of, oh, well, the jury could just be looking at the screenshots.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
This was something where Judge Andrews finds this isn't within the ordinary knowledge of the jurors, their own inventor.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
and corporate representative says, quote, it will be a challenge for anybody to really understand the patents unless they listen carefully to the experts.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
And at every step of the presentation on these claims, they have to go to the source.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
That doesn't.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's not going to be something that we're going to say.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
The experts said that it's hard to understand.

[00:20:19] Speaker 01:
So therefore, I mean, I don't know.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
So on page A18714, you're focusing on the fact that it says the application has to have a symbolic name.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the demonstrative that was being referred to, what's being referred to there is text buttons and different things like that, not the entire page.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
Is that what I understand?

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
Again, it's very unclear testimony.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
But the fact that we're talking about those different symbolic names in the plural

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
when the claims are the symbolic name for the defined object, I think is a clear indication, as clear an indication as you can get from the record, that the mapping is onto these individual objects.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
And so we end up having an input going into one object and then the output in a different object and the claim requires it to be in a single defined UI object.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
I think it's

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
It's straightforward in that we didn't get to the other issues.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to address anything else, questions the court would have on the other issues.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
Just for road mapping, the defined UI object disposes of all of the claims in those three patents.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
And so there isn't a need to get into the separate ruling on the method claim or the new trial ruling on that.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
And then for the other patents on summary judgment,

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
The downloaded or created ruling, that also resolves all of the claims.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
And so the most straightforward path in this appeal is if you affirm the grant of JMAH and affirm the summary judgment ruling on downloaded or created, then all the other issues in the appeal are moved.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
Mike, can I just ask you the legal question I asked, which is, even though our review is de novo, what do we do in a scenario where the evidence identified to us on appeal is more expansive and inclusive than the evidence that was provided in the opposition to the JMA before the district court?

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I mean, I agree in fairness to the district court.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't consider that.

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
And the case we cited for this in our brief is the Rembrandt case.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
And the pin site for that would be 725.

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
F3rd at 1383, where on appeal the Rembrandt wasn't allowed to rely on evidence.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
It hadn't pointed out in its opposition to J-Law.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
That's only a problem about the method claim argument, right?

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
Yeah, mainly.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
I mean, we raised that because on method claim, they've raised this exhibit, 1032, that wasn't argued at all to the district court.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
And so we were pointing to the Rembrandt case in connection with that.

[00:23:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
I'd like to begin.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
If you're looking for the evidence that was cited in response to the JMAW, that's at page 19,569.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
And it cites page 339 of the transcript, which corresponds to page 18715, and page 291 of the transcript.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
So those materials were specifically brought before the district court.

[00:23:46] Speaker 04:
and they talk about things such as, on 18705, he's talking about the YouTube web service, and he says that... I don't think there's a contention that it wasn't... the non-method claims weren't properly argued to the district court on the Jamel.

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
Pardon?

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
I don't think they're arguing that there was a failure to argue

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
the evidence in the non-method claims.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
I think he's responding to a question I asked.

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
Yes, I think that was with respect to that question.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
With respect to the method claims, I think we made it very clear that there was evidence of this use.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
And in fact, we cited to the fact that their own witnesses testify that everybody uses the Add to Cart, because this is an e-commerce website, and it's absolutely critical.

[00:24:31] Speaker 04:
So come back here to the expert report to Mr. Saunders.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
It seems to me that in the expert report, he's not saying that the page is the UI object.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
Quite the opposite.

[00:24:47] Speaker 02:
If I could ask the court to turn to page 5147, paragraph 459.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
Which volume?

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
This is in volume 2.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
And this is with respect to the YouTube video service in particular.

[00:25:01] Speaker 02:
The second line of paragraph 459.

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
Wait, wait, wait.

[00:25:04] Speaker 02:
5147, which paragraph?

[00:25:08] Speaker 02:
It's paragraph 459.

[00:25:09] Speaker 02:
And it says, the below are exemplary screenshots of the UI object singular for the YouTube video component and web service.

[00:25:19] Speaker 02:
And what do you see below?

[00:25:21] Speaker 02:
You see the entire screen together with the play button in the middle.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
It doesn't say these are multiples.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
And even if there are instances in which you point to multiples, the patent is clear and figure five makes this clear in the patent that you can have

[00:25:37] Speaker 02:
individual UI objects within a larger UI object.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
And that's why sometimes, maybe for abdicart for example, you might have a larger UI object but with multiple UI, smaller UI objects within it.

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
The figure five and the corresponding discussion on page 406 of the appendix describes that landing strip as an object and then specifies that the object can have other objects within it

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
and it's including things like pop-ups.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
So the notion that you are saying, oh, I have lots of separate different UI objects and therefore insufficient evidence doesn't work when the patent itself makes clear that you can have one UI object with other UI objects with their own symbolic names within.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
OK, I think we're out of time.

[00:26:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:26:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you so much.