[00:00:00] Speaker 01: This is GoDaddy, 2023, 2265. [00:00:42] Speaker 03: Good morning. [00:00:45] Speaker 03: May it please the court. [00:00:48] Speaker 03: This appeal relates to at least two errors made by the district court below. [00:00:53] Speaker 03: The district court erred in determining on summary judgment that the defendant did not infringe the 397 and 168 patents, including its construction of runtime engine. [00:01:03] Speaker 03: And the district court also erred in entering judgment after verdict of non-infringement relating to the 755-287-044 patents denying plaintiffs renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and new trial. [00:01:17] Speaker 03: With respect to the first issue, [00:01:19] Speaker 03: the 397 and 168 patent, that decision should be reversed for two separate reasons. [00:01:25] Speaker 03: First, the court incorrectly construed runtime engine to require reading from a database. [00:01:30] Speaker 03: And second, even applying the court's construction, the court improperly found summary judgment, further limiting the claim to directly reading and excluding reading from a database using an API, which is the only way to read from a database. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: Can I just be sure I understand one thing? [00:01:47] Speaker 00: Does everybody agree that on this question, the runtime engine and what it has to do by way of interacting directly or indirectly with the database has the same answer regardless of which claim language we're talking about in the 397 or 168? [00:02:05] Speaker 00: One of them has utilized. [00:02:07] Speaker 00: One of them has do something from the data that has been extracted. [00:02:12] Speaker 00: Those are the two bits of language. [00:02:14] Speaker 00: Is that right? [00:02:14] Speaker 03: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:02:15] Speaker 00: Is that right? [00:02:18] Speaker 00: I mean, everybody thinks that those have to be. [00:02:20] Speaker 03: Certainly, plaintiff's position is that it doesn't matter between the claims. [00:02:24] Speaker 03: The 168 patent requires, actually says runtime engine. [00:02:28] Speaker 03: and what that construction is, whether it's reading or utilizing. [00:02:32] Speaker 03: And the 397 patent refers to a runtime file, which includes runtime engine. [00:02:38] Speaker 03: I think GoDaddy has made some arguments on appeal about the extracting language from the 168, but from our perspective, that doesn't change the plan. [00:02:44] Speaker 00: So I guess one other thing, again, I'm a little bit confused about this. [00:02:47] Speaker 00: I would have thought that this question of the interaction of the engine with the database was addressed not by [00:02:56] Speaker 00: the phrase runtime engine or runtime files, but rather by the verbs being utilized or do something from that has been extracted or extracted from. [00:03:10] Speaker 00: I'm interpolating that has been. [00:03:13] Speaker 00: Why is the focus just on the term itself, or did everybody understand that the term was going to somehow be understood in light of other language? [00:03:27] Speaker 03: I think it's obviously had quite a history. [00:03:29] Speaker 03: There's been a lot of cases, a lot of arguments, but the decision stems from the word reading. [00:03:35] Speaker 03: What does reading mean? [00:03:36] Speaker 03: That's not in the claim. [00:03:38] Speaker 03: It's not in the claim. [00:03:39] Speaker 03: In our position, it shouldn't be in the claim or in the construction. [00:03:42] Speaker 03: The patents are all about storing user settings in a database and having a runtime engine that generates a web page at runtime. [00:03:51] Speaker 03: And all it has to do is use or utilize those settings. [00:03:54] Speaker 03: It's a 100-page patent. [00:03:55] Speaker 03: The focus is not on [00:03:56] Speaker 03: How does the runtime engine get that information from the database? [00:04:01] Speaker 03: It's the fact that it's using those two things, user settings in a database and a runtime engine that goes at runtime. [00:04:06] Speaker 02: Do you agree that the patent specification does disclose an embodiment in which the runtime engine is reading the information from the database? [00:04:16] Speaker 02: I take it your position is that the claim itself doesn't recite it because it uses different verbs. [00:04:22] Speaker 03: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:04:23] Speaker 03: The specification does disclose embodiments where it describes a runtime engine that reads from a database. [00:04:28] Speaker 03: And it does that in different ways. [00:04:30] Speaker 03: But the claim's specifically different than that. [00:04:32] Speaker 03: And it says it utilizes information. [00:04:35] Speaker 03: Prosecution history has a lot of arguments where it's talking about the runtime engine is using this information. [00:04:41] Speaker 03: It amended the claims to specifically recite utilizing information. [00:04:48] Speaker 00: I guess I just want to go back one more time to what I remain puzzled about. [00:04:56] Speaker 00: If the construction here was of the phrase runtime engine, then why does it matter what the other [00:05:06] Speaker 00: claim language, language in the claim, utilized or extracted from is. [00:05:11] Speaker 00: And then if that doesn't really matter, then there are some statements about what the runtime engine does, like, you know, what is it? [00:05:21] Speaker 00: Columns three and five that seem to say the runtime without saying in an embodiment. [00:05:29] Speaker 00: I mean, maybe that's implicit. [00:05:31] Speaker 00: You can have an argument about that, but at least not their saying. [00:05:33] Speaker 00: And then also in the prosecution history, where he said a couple of different times, the runtime engine reads. [00:05:41] Speaker 00: And if all we were talking about is runtime engine without regard to the other claim language I utilize or extracted from, then why isn't that a fair understanding of that term alone? [00:05:58] Speaker 00: Because you don't have to fight against an obviously broader set of claim terms, claim verbs. [00:06:06] Speaker 03: If I understand your question correctly, there's not disputes about the other claim language that the GoDaddy system uses these other terms. [00:06:16] Speaker 03: For example, in the 168 patent that the runtime engine uses user settings that were extracted from the database. [00:06:24] Speaker 03: The only dispute is whether or not the runtime engine reads from the database and whether or not that should be included in the construction of runtime engine or not. [00:06:33] Speaker 03: And our position is the claims are clear. [00:06:37] Speaker 03: The plain and ordinary meaning is you utilize information from the database. [00:06:41] Speaker 03: And there's no reason to read in reading from the specification. [00:06:47] Speaker 03: And even if you look at the sites of the prosecution history, there are arguments about the runtime engine reading. [00:06:53] Speaker 03: But the claims were later amended and overcame the prior art by using the utilizing information. [00:06:58] Speaker 03: And where they specifically said the runtime engine is using this information. [00:07:03] Speaker 03: And so we think it's clear that the claim construction was incorrect and that the case should be reversed and remanded on that reason alone. [00:07:12] Speaker 02: Is there any evidence at all that the word runtime engine, according to its plain and ordinary meaning, is something that has to be the memory? [00:07:25] Speaker 03: Not that we're aware of, and I don't think anyone's made that. [00:07:28] Speaker 02: Is there any evidence in the record on that? [00:07:29] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor. [00:07:30] Speaker 03: The arguments from the defendants on runtime engine were just the specification and some of the arguments in the prosecution history where they were saying it should be limited based on those statements. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: There is a statement in the prosecution history that says, it's one a statement. [00:07:44] Speaker 02: There are some statements that say information in the memory is read. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: It doesn't say who's doing the reading or what's doing the reading. [00:07:54] Speaker 02: But there's one statement that says runtime engine reads the memory. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: What is your best argument for why that's not limiting and why that shouldn't define where runtime engine is? [00:08:05] Speaker 03: Is there clearly was not, it was not a clear disavowal. [00:08:08] Speaker 03: It says our patent is only about a runtime engine that. [00:08:11] Speaker 03: reads itself in no other way. [00:08:13] Speaker 02: I would say this. [00:08:15] Speaker 02: You said clear disavowal. [00:08:16] Speaker 02: I guess clear disavowal works. [00:08:18] Speaker 02: Go ahead. [00:08:18] Speaker 02: So you're saying if the plain and ordinary meaning of runtime engine, or if the ordinary meaning, forget about the plain, it doesn't have to be something that leads from memory, then there's going to have to be something like lexicography or disavowal in the specification of the prosecution history in order to read that limitation into that noun. [00:08:40] Speaker 03: That's our position, Your Honor, and especially when you look at the other statements in the prosecution history where there were later amendments and there were other statements that clearly said the runtime engine can use information from the database. [00:08:54] Speaker 03: It talked about the runtime engine can be a template shell, and there's evidence in the record that one of skill in the art understands that that template shell can be filled in from other programs so that the runtime engine doesn't have to do that itself. [00:09:06] Speaker 00: So in particular prosecution history statements that you've just been discussing, is the art that's being distinguished by those statements art in which there's use of the database but not reading? [00:09:30] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor. [00:09:31] Speaker 03: The prosecution, those arguments were really focused on what these patents are about. [00:09:36] Speaker 00: Well, this is Fosini, I think, is one of them. [00:09:39] Speaker 00: Yes, correct, Your Honor. [00:09:42] Speaker 00: Fosini. [00:09:43] Speaker 00: Is it the T, Fosini? [00:09:44] Speaker 00: Sorry. [00:09:46] Speaker 00: How to understand what those statements that you made should be taken. [00:09:53] Speaker 00: is often affected by the nature of what you're distinguishing. [00:09:58] Speaker 00: And I'm trying to understand if this was actually something that needed to be distinguished on this reading ground. [00:10:05] Speaker 03: No, absolutely not, Your Honor. [00:10:08] Speaker 03: There was some runtime engine that was getting information the other way, and we said, well, ours reads directly from the database itself, and that's what's patentable. [00:10:16] Speaker 03: The arguments were, [00:10:17] Speaker 03: The prior art doesn't teach these user stored settings being stored separately, and then those user settings from the database being used at runtime to generate the web page. [00:10:28] Speaker 03: That was the real crux of the invention. [00:10:30] Speaker 03: That's what those arguments were about. [00:10:31] Speaker 02: My recollection, although I might have my cases confused, it's been a long week, but did the examiner have reasons for allowance? [00:10:42] Speaker 02: And what did they say? [00:10:44] Speaker 03: I don't recall any particularly helpful or actually any reasons for allowance, Your Honor. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: I don't know that answer off the top of my head, but I don't think we've ever cited them or either side has referred to them, so I don't have them in my record sites in front of me. [00:11:01] Speaker 00: For what it's worth, I too have in my head that in preparation for today, there is some reference to reasons for allowance. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: But maybe it's not this case. [00:11:10] Speaker 03: I will check. [00:11:12] Speaker 03: Unless there's further questions, I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal. [00:11:16] Speaker 01: That's fine. [00:11:43] Speaker 04: Good morning. [00:11:44] Speaker 04: May it please the court. [00:11:45] Speaker 04: It's always a pleasure and privilege to be before the Federal Circuit. [00:11:50] Speaker 04: I will address the summary judgment issues and move to the J-Mall and new trial issues following that. [00:11:56] Speaker 04: I would like to pick up on the claim construction issues and address a couple of the questions that were raised in particular about the prosecution history. [00:12:08] Speaker 04: So at Appendix 624 through Appendix 626, [00:12:17] Speaker 00: 625 to 6. [00:12:19] Speaker 04: 624 to 626, and also, importantly, Appendix 616. [00:12:25] Speaker 04: There is significant discussion by ExpressMobile that GoDaddy contends is sharply relevant [00:12:34] Speaker 04: to what the runtime engine does in the context of this other claim term utilizes. [00:12:42] Speaker 04: So what Express Mobile is saying to the patent office in part to overcome Faustini is that the runtime engine of Faustini is fully baked in settings, and there is no reading of a database to get the settings [00:13:02] Speaker 04: as the claimed runtime engine does. [00:13:05] Speaker 02: I read this language that you're talking about. [00:13:07] Speaker 02: I read these pages. [00:13:08] Speaker 02: And the only place where I saw that it said the runtime engine reads the database is on page 616. [00:13:16] Speaker 02: Am I wrong? [00:13:18] Speaker 02: I mean, there's other places I'd like to know. [00:13:20] Speaker 02: Because the other references are talking about the runtime file using that information, the runtime engine using that information. [00:13:29] Speaker 02: The only place where I saw where it said what was reading it was the runtime was on 616. [00:13:36] Speaker 04: Yes, but I understand your point, Your Honor. [00:13:40] Speaker 04: But on 624, the specific distinction is that Faustini [00:13:45] Speaker 04: runtime code, all of the information necessary. [00:13:49] Speaker 02: Can you help me out by telling me whereabouts on the page? [00:13:52] Speaker 04: Yes, of course. [00:13:54] Speaker 04: So I'm on Appendix 624. [00:13:57] Speaker 04: I'm in the middle paragraph, which is about the second complete sentence that begins. [00:14:04] Speaker 04: In particular, the web pages generated by Faustini result from a Faustini runtime engine. [00:14:12] Speaker 04: which is an interpreted or executable file, such as virtual machine commands, and which contain within the Faustini runtime code all of the information necessary to generate the display. [00:14:27] Speaker 04: In contrast, the claimed invention generates web pages using two features, a runtime engine and a database of user settings. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: runtime engine used to accept the attributes and generate virtual machine commands, which then generate the display. [00:14:47] Speaker 04: When you compare that with the second page that GoDaddy cites, which is Appendix 616, Express Mobile is saying that the [00:15:00] Speaker 04: The websites using the claimed runtime engine are generated by the runtime engine reading and interpreting the external database, and then building the web pages dynamically, which lead to the generation. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: And it could also be that in the prior, it wasn't in the database. [00:15:20] Speaker 02: But that is another distinction right there. [00:15:25] Speaker 02: Let me ask you something else. [00:15:26] Speaker 02: On the notice of allowance that I was asking, [00:15:29] Speaker 02: your adversary about it's on page a 4596 and it says that the prior art Faustini in which we do not show a runtime file utilizing user selected settings stored in a database to generate virtual machine commands so there's nothing about read there [00:15:53] Speaker 04: Yes, so our position on the juxtaposition of utilize and the runtime engine reading is that the [00:16:04] Speaker 04: The runtime files may utilize other data or data to help generate the virtual machine commands. [00:16:13] Speaker 04: But the actual settings to display the web page are as disclosed in the specification repeatedly in the context of the runtime engine [00:16:25] Speaker 04: The database is read to extract those settings and then enable the completion of the build of the website and the display of the website. [00:16:34] Speaker 02: What about the examiner's reason for allowance? [00:16:37] Speaker 02: I'm maybe more specific. [00:16:38] Speaker 02: Why should we win a claim that doesn't use the word read, but instead uses the word utilize? [00:16:45] Speaker 02: And then the examiner's reason for allowance says utilize. [00:16:48] Speaker 02: Why should we say that it has to read? [00:16:51] Speaker 04: Well, that's what the patent owner says the runtime engine does. [00:16:56] Speaker 04: So the runtime engine is part of the runtime files. [00:16:59] Speaker 04: The runtime files may utilize data for the generation of virtual machine commands, but to get the settings to display the web page, the database must be read. [00:17:11] Speaker 02: Sure, but it doesn't say who has to read it. [00:17:14] Speaker 02: The claim doesn't. [00:17:15] Speaker 02: Well, it doesn't even, I mean, anyway. [00:17:18] Speaker 04: I don't want to beat it. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: I want to make sure you get the benefit of my thoughts right now. [00:17:23] Speaker 02: And I want to have your thoughts and response. [00:17:26] Speaker 02: So that's why I interjected there. [00:17:29] Speaker 02: But I appreciate your response, which is that I think you're relying on the specification and the prosecution history. [00:17:38] Speaker 04: And it's not only the prosecution history, the specification as multiple jurists, including the PTAB in the appeal you just heard. [00:17:46] Speaker 02: Has this court reviewed that claim construction? [00:17:49] Speaker 04: This court has not reviewed the claim construction. [00:17:51] Speaker 04: But the appeal you just heard, the position of ExpressMobile was that reads the database is the appropriate construction. [00:18:01] Speaker 04: So they're asking. [00:18:01] Speaker 02: But did the board adopt that construction? [00:18:04] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: No, it did not. [00:18:06] Speaker 02: So if you look back at that other case in the board's decision, what it said was, we don't need to decide this dispute right now. [00:18:16] Speaker 02: That is, whether it's read or utilized, because we find the prior teaches it regardless. [00:18:21] Speaker 02: So they specifically said we're not deciding it. [00:18:24] Speaker 04: The point I want to emphasize is that in paper 19 in the meta IPR, it is clearly stated by Express Mobile that reads from the database. [00:18:36] Speaker 04: In that IPR should be the construction and that it comports with Phillips and that it is consistent with all of the other jurists. [00:18:45] Speaker 04: So our point is, if that's the position in that matter involving invalidity, it was the position in this matter. [00:18:54] Speaker 04: In fact, ExpressMobile agreed with ReEDS, the database below. [00:18:58] Speaker 02: Can I ask you, are parties bound by, even if you're right about that, are parties bound by positions they take that then the tribunal doesn't adopt? [00:19:09] Speaker 04: Well, I think for judicial estoppel, the point is that that's the position you took in the validity case. [00:19:15] Speaker 04: And as this court has ruled, uniformity is important. [00:19:17] Speaker 04: So that is that you should not be able to switch positions in another case because it suits you. [00:19:23] Speaker 04: Perhaps the most important part of this is the specification exclusively teaches. [00:19:28] Speaker 00: Just to be clear, I mean, judicial estoppel [00:19:31] Speaker 00: you know always or almost always requires that you get you got a benefit out of the first thing you said and Once you get that benefit you can't turn around agreed. [00:19:42] Speaker 00: That didn't happen. [00:19:43] Speaker 00: They lost the IPR [00:19:46] Speaker 04: Agreed. [00:19:47] Speaker 04: But the position has been taken by ExpressMobile in the invalidity context that it should be Reeds. [00:19:54] Speaker 04: The position was taken below by ExpressMobile that it should be Reeds. [00:19:57] Speaker 04: That was proposed as one of the alternative constructions, not merely utilized. [00:20:02] Speaker 04: The position was found to be the appropriate construction by other jurists, and I agree just well. [00:20:07] Speaker 04: It was not necessarily cited by this circuit. [00:20:11] Speaker 04: But it certainly, throughout the intrinsic record, it is by all means supported as the exclusive discussion of what the runtime engine does. [00:20:22] Speaker 04: And in the 168 patent, the exact term is runtime engine. [00:20:26] Speaker 02: No, the runtime engine isn't described in the specification. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: as having the sole function of reading data from a memory, right? [00:20:34] Speaker 04: I intended to say that it exclusively describes that it reads the database. [00:20:39] Speaker 04: It doesn't describe that it does something other than reading the database to get the settings in order to generate the display of the web page. [00:20:49] Speaker 04: I'm happy to continue to talk about claim construction. [00:20:51] Speaker 04: I have about six minutes left. [00:20:53] Speaker 04: I wanted to address the other issues in the summary judgment decision. [00:20:58] Speaker 04: The court below found that there was no evidence presented by Express Mobile that the runtime engine 3 actually reads the database, goes to the database, hits the database to extract the settings. [00:21:11] Speaker 04: And so the evidence below, which was simply [00:21:16] Speaker 04: the substantial evidence from GoDaddy of the way its system works versus the Ipsy Dixit position of the ExpressMobile expert that there is a fetch call to get the data, so it must be... I'm sorry, what makes that Ipsy Dixit? [00:21:32] Speaker 00: I mean, the expert examined the code and said, [00:21:36] Speaker 00: there is this fetch function part of whatever it is. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: I forget what the name of the file is. [00:21:43] Speaker 00: Script.js or something. [00:21:46] Speaker 00: And that sends kind of a message out. [00:21:52] Speaker 00: The message may take [00:21:54] Speaker 00: one or two hops before it gets to the database, but why if the only thing you have is the term read that's not further defined, why is there not a factual dispute about whether that process is covered by read? [00:22:15] Speaker 04: So the single line of code that has the word fetch from the expert, otherwise it's just the settings that are baked in. [00:22:24] Speaker 04: So all of the evidence was the actual settings. [00:22:27] Speaker 04: So the single line of code is that Appendix 6006. [00:22:32] Speaker 04: And the expert says that the word fetch appears in the code and then concludes that that is a call to the database to obtain settings [00:22:46] Speaker 04: necessary to generate the display of the web page the actual code has the word fetch but in the form that the expert says it would be the parenthetical it's fetching something [00:22:58] Speaker 04: The actual code is T dot URL, not a web address, literally just a generic URL, like a blank to be filled in. [00:23:09] Speaker 04: And from that one snippet is the entire basis to say that there is a runtime engine by virtue of that JavaScript calling the database or an API to get the database and extract the data. [00:23:25] Speaker 04: And our position below and on appeal is [00:23:27] Speaker 04: That one snippet proved nothing. [00:23:30] Speaker 04: And the ipsy dixit, your honor, is to simply say, that is a fetch call that does this when it's not described in the code. [00:23:39] Speaker 04: The rest of the so-called fetch calls. [00:23:43] Speaker 00: Can you give me a JA site for where your expert explains why this fetch line doesn't do what the other side's expert says it does? [00:23:56] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:23:57] Speaker 04: So our GoDaddy technical engineers, Mr. Silvis and Mr. Jarrett, but in particular Mr. Silvis, from appendix 5410 to 5418, appendix 4790 to appendix 4798. [00:24:25] Speaker 04: And this is the crux of the problem with that one fetch call. [00:24:30] Speaker 04: The engineer says all of the script.js that is referred to as quote unquote retrieving data in JSON format is actually static HTML code. [00:24:46] Speaker 04: It is code that is flat. [00:24:49] Speaker 04: It is as stored. [00:24:50] Speaker 04: It is not calling an API for a database. [00:24:55] Speaker 04: If it were, it would say in the parens, GoDaddy.com forward slash API. [00:25:00] Speaker 04: Now, I am saying that. [00:25:02] Speaker 04: But obviously, a generic, just the letters URL, is not going to the database. [00:25:08] Speaker 00: What's the T, T dot in front of URL? [00:25:12] Speaker 04: So the T colon could be anything. [00:25:14] Speaker 04: The problem is that Express Mobile Expert doesn't show or connect the dots, which is the ipsy dixit, that that is a call to an API. [00:25:25] Speaker 04: Obviously, a call to an API would reference the API. [00:25:28] Speaker 04: A call to the database would reference the database. [00:25:31] Speaker 04: So the GoDaddy engineers are saying all of this static script is just [00:25:38] Speaker 04: what the browser reads to load the website. [00:25:44] Speaker 04: It is not a data call. [00:25:46] Speaker 04: And that is the single point of evidence, Judge Taranto, that is the experts reference repeatedly to intoning this phrase [00:25:55] Speaker 04: the runtime engine JavaScript files fetch user selected settings from the database using the function called fetch to an API such as the vnext API or DPS API. [00:26:10] Speaker 04: That statement is not borne out by that one line snippet with the word fetch. [00:26:16] Speaker 04: There is no reference to an API. [00:26:18] Speaker 04: There is no reference to the [00:26:22] Speaker 04: Cassandra database that is accused. [00:26:25] Speaker 04: And there is no connection of the dots other than that conclusory statement. [00:26:31] Speaker 04: So the result is, as Judge Kennelly said below, ExpressMobile, you have not established, and I quote, that the runtime engine category 3 actually reads the database, against the evidence that the GoDaddy system isn't designed to do that. [00:26:48] Speaker 04: It's static code. [00:26:50] Speaker 04: with the settings delivering the site. [00:26:54] Speaker 04: So by its design would not be a call to the database to get the settings. [00:27:02] Speaker 04: I will just simply say with my three seconds over, the trial below under the narrow standard of review should stand and remain undisturbed in terms of the jury's verdict. [00:27:17] Speaker 04: I'm happy to answer any other questions that the court has. [00:27:20] Speaker 01: Thank you, counsel. [00:27:21] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:27:22] Speaker 04: I appreciate it. [00:27:23] Speaker 01: Mr. Naffau has some of the public time. [00:27:32] Speaker 03: Thank you, your honor. [00:27:33] Speaker 03: I'll try to just address a few of those points briefly. [00:27:37] Speaker 03: With respect to the claim construction during the IPR, there were numerous defendants, including the petitioner in that case, who had argued and successfully obtained the reading from a database claim construction. [00:27:49] Speaker 03: ExpressMobile and its patent owner response merely said they should be held to the claim construction that they're advocating and obtained. [00:27:57] Speaker 03: And the court is right. [00:27:58] Speaker 03: The PTAB said, this construction doesn't matter for this IPR. [00:28:02] Speaker 03: And either construction, we find the same. [00:28:05] Speaker 00: And would I be right to think that that element in the claim was all about whether Reynolds taught it and Reynolds did this? [00:28:19] Speaker 00: Or have I? [00:28:20] Speaker 03: I actually think the issue in that case related to runtime file, ExpressMobile was arguing that the 168 claims should have some of the elements of the runtime file and the PTAB disagreed. [00:28:33] Speaker 03: And so there was overlap with this runtime engine issue. [00:28:36] Speaker 03: That was part of the patented response, too. [00:28:38] Speaker 03: I fully admit that. [00:28:40] Speaker 03: But ultimately, the PTAB said this issue about the runtime engine, if it still takes retrieval of information or reading from the database, doesn't matter for this. [00:28:47] Speaker 03: We find it's not relevant to our decision. [00:28:50] Speaker 03: So we express mobile certainly obtained no benefit from the reading from a database construction, which repeat have Basically said it doesn't matter for that for that IPR With respect to some of the issues council raised on the fetch command and and and the summary judgment I think those are are Generous at best to say that that was the basis for this the district court's decision the district court below said [00:29:19] Speaker 03: you're using an API, you're using these pipeline of files, that's not reading. [00:29:26] Speaker 03: There is no dispute that the script.js runtime engine has a fetch command. [00:29:31] Speaker 03: The evidence in the record is that that calls on the database using an API. [00:29:37] Speaker 00: An API is... And you say the evidence is that... [00:29:39] Speaker 00: Is there more than what I think your friend on the other side said was your expert's ipsy-dixit assertion? [00:29:46] Speaker 03: Yes, your honor. [00:29:46] Speaker 03: There's several expert reports. [00:29:48] Speaker 03: There's the deposition. [00:29:49] Speaker 00: Talking specifically about the fetch command? [00:29:52] Speaker 03: Yes, your honor. [00:29:54] Speaker 03: And ultimately, to say that a reading does not include if you use an API, you're no longer reading from a database. [00:30:05] Speaker 03: would literally render these claims meaningless, because as their experts admitted, it's the only way to do it. [00:30:11] Speaker 03: It's the only practical way to do it. [00:30:12] Speaker 03: It's fundamentally how you read from a database. [00:30:15] Speaker 03: And if the court's claim construction requires reading, and you have specific commands in a runtime engine that say go fetch from a database, but if you use the API that you're no longer reading, then these claims don't cover anything, because there's no other way to read from a database. [00:30:32] Speaker 03: But I think the issues that the council was raising are disputed issues of fact. [00:30:38] Speaker 03: Our expert did show how user settings were pulled from GoDaddy's database using these runtime engines and they were used to generate these websites. [00:30:47] Speaker 00: GoDaddy certainly... And did you talk specifically about why a fetch command followed by parenthesis T period URL could be understood as [00:31:01] Speaker 00: go to some database to find something for me? [00:31:03] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:31:04] Speaker 03: Our expert went through how that fetch command gets user settings and that's used to generate the database. [00:31:10] Speaker 03: I kind of found it interesting that this t.url became the focus of GoDaddy's argument here because that certainly wasn't, I don't think, argued or the focus of summary judgment or the court's decision below. [00:31:21] Speaker 03: The court's decision below was [00:31:24] Speaker 03: you have this pipeline of files, or in referring to other declarations that don't relate to this runtime engine, there were a series of what we think are clear misstatements of the factual record. [00:31:36] Speaker 03: And at the very least, there's a disputed fact about is using a fetch command to get information from a database by using an API infringement or not. [00:31:47] Speaker 03: And those are issues of fact that should go to a jury. [00:31:52] Speaker 03: And unless there's other questions, your honor, we'll concede my last seven seconds here. [00:31:58] Speaker 01: Thank you, counsel. [00:31:59] Speaker 01: Both counsel, the case is submitted.