The fire attack had produced research foundations against ASL and cooperation. Others? Mr. Galbrae. Good afternoon, sir. I'd like to begin by focusing your attention on the board. It was in our brief, but to understand the argument it's useful to review just very briefly. That's the chat. The district front of all of us. That's the chat. That's the front of all of us. All right, great. I have a few of mine with the lumens at the top. That's the storage area in the ladder. The luminal direction is toward the ladder. The purple is the discreet sub-and-coastle layer. And in order to get down to sub-and-coastle layer, we need to remove or delaminate the layers in either side. The big muscle layer, if you see on the luminal side. And then on the luminal side, it's our position that we need to remove or delaminate at least the epithelium. And delaminate appropriate to get down to the sub-and-coastle layer. Now, this is jury trial, right? It was a jury trial. That's right. Now, what's the problem? Is it claim construction or jury instruction? It's our view that it was claim construction
. Because our position, which was very much based on incorporation by reference, was rejected in the final eight-fant construction stage. The final eight patent. Correct. And our position is that the three-a-non-pattern, expressly and corporalized, the procedure of preparation in the final eight patent. When you look at the final eight patent, there is a paragraph that begins that shows how the SIS or small intestine sub-and-coastle material is prepared. There's perfect correspondence between two. The claims in a three-a-non-pattern, the patented initiative have in them the elamination of the quote, the luminal portion of the two-accumacose. Those words are not found in the specification of the three-a-non-pattern. Can I just interrupt just because I want to make sure I get in. I'm going to ask you about what you're saying. I want to talk before you go too far. Firstly, on the charts, there's also a chart that you all submitted during litigation. That's in the Appendix 59 and 9, right? That was part of defendant's initial opposition. It was in our appendix label of A59 or 9. There's at least what I think may be a significant, somewhat of a significant difference between this chart and that chart. That is that in the chart in 5909, you show a basement membrane. Then you have the epithelium cells separated out. Here, in this chart, you have the epithelium layer. You define that as including the basement membrane. Isn't this a little different or is it epithelium? The chart that you're looking at was at the preliminary injunction stage. I admit I got smarter as we got to the markup stage
. But our position has been from the markup stage forward that the basement membrane is part of the epithelium. Does the basement membrane contain any epithelial cell? No, it doesn't. The epithelial cells are attached to the basement membrane, otherwise they would float off in space. I would direct your attention. The epithelial basement membrane does not contain. It does not contain any epithelial cells. The cells are attached to the basement membrane. I would very much direct your attention to banks. If you look at A6-417, it is a very important veterinary treatise. It was in 1993. It discusses the tunic and mucosa. It discusses the epithelium. And in there it makes the point. The basement membrane is a constant feature of the epithelium. So by the time we got to the markup stage, we were referring to it as the epithelium basement membrane. That was the trial testimony. That's why the chart was used at trial. But in the context of the markup, our position was always that we had to do that make or remove. The lamina appropriate and if you're delaminating the lack of appropriate, you're taking out the basement membrane anyway. Because it's minimal to the subucosa. Let me ask you
. Going on to what you were talking about, which is the 508 patent being incorporated. There is something though in the 389 patent that seems to me. So tell me why I'm wrong. In column two, lines 24 and 25, it cites and now I'm in the 389. It cites the luminal portions of the tunicum macosa layers slash the epithelial layers. So why isn't that a definition that we ought to be able to take to the bank? Well, first of all, it is not precise. Notice that it's in the plural. Portions of the tunicum and cosa layers, the epithelial layers. It's coming right in a sentence where you have expressly incorporated a five-a-way patent. It needs to be read harmoniously with the incorporated five-a-way patent. And when you read the five-a-way patent, what you have is a discussion of layer G. Layer G is a combination of the lamina, epitheliales, glucosa, and it's ram on appropriate. And so the way you harmonize that is you say, when this was written, it was directional, and they were thinking of layer G and a five-a-way, which is the combination of the lamina, appropriate, and the epithelial layer, and they brought them together. And from the position of the subcomposite, it is, you can regard that as epithelial layers. Now, a further point here, if you go on it says the resulting subcomposite addition, it does not say the resulting subcomposite addition plus lamina, appropriate addition. And when you go on further, it talks about spindle cells and it talks about blood cells. What is not mentioned, which would otherwise be mentioned, are muscle cells from the muscle layer, muscle layer, muscle layer, or some of the post-cell. What's that telling you that everything on the other side of the subcomposite is gone? And that gets right to the essence of this patent. It's in kind of urinary bladder derived tissue wrap. And the idea is to grow the wraps from the sweet subcomposite layer, or the purple layer right in the chuck. Now, Mr
. Galbraith, if we agree with the positions you've expressed and are about to express, do we send it back on a climate structure? Do we send it back to the jury, to the court, on infringement, or do you win? We win. Well, and I would direct you to page 56 of their brief, of Cook's brief. Easy to remember because it coincides with federal rule 56 in some regent rule. And right there, they say accurate, but that if our claim instruction is correct, then we prevail on literal infringement. And the reason is simple. And that is that our product contains epithelial basic membrane. It contains lamar appropriate. The claim product in the 389 stops before you get the lamar appropriate or the epithelial basic membrane. Therefore, we cannot infringement. It's that simple. And they acknowledge it on page 56 of their brief. There is no reason to send it back. Their claim does not reach, it cannot be interpreted to reach, a composition that includes lamar appropriate or lamar appropriate and or basement membrane. It's that simple. Now, they know on it and talk about, well, it should be set back under the doctrine of equivalence. We say, no. Why do we say no? Look at the pretrial state. They did not reserve doctrine of equivalence as an issue for trial. It is forfeited. And Judge Sharpe was correct as we move their trial to keep the trial, the issues for trial to find to the pretrial state. It was literally shot
. Literally shot on that issue, yes. Do you know how much submost cost that is in your ASL product? You know, this is not the subject of the briefing. It was very much debated between experts at the trial. If you look at the chart, you can see there, Muscle Error from Kosa. That's a natural layer of separation. It's a muscle layer, it's a natural layer of separation. Their argument was that we didn't get out every last cell or every last piece of material from the suddenly post of length. Our position was that we did that go down to an examination of microscopic slides between what we thought was a wonderful expert on our side. And an expert on their side, who we think didn't examine the slides correctly. But that was a jury issue. We lost. That's why you don't see it displayed in our brief. Nevertheless, the judge's instructions in terms of any sub-composa, where as long as you have any missing form of jury by saying it was a tissue type one, it's a layer. I hadn't said all that. As long as they thought there was any material from the sub-composa layer, then we would have furnished even though these both were 3.8.9 and NABBADD, and they're very much in terms of discrete tissue layers, and what you're trying to do is use the layer for purposes of regenerating tissue. And there was no doubt that we shredded the sub-composa layer. But having said all of that, it's a correct or our climate construction position that we should prevail in this court. And it should not be sent back under the doctrines of equivalence, because their claims are very clear. You have to delineate the land of appropriate and the basement membrane
. And therefore, there's no way that we would meet that limitation. What's the correct claim construction? The correct claim construction, the lumen portion of the tunic of the coset, equals layer G in the five-away pattern, namely the epithelian, the lamina, epithelian, lamina, epithelialis, the coset, and its lamina appropriate. That is the correct claim construction that was our consistent position, and we could never get the trial judge to go for the incorporation by reference. Are we including in that statement the positive statement that there would be no effective sub-u-cumsel material? It doesn't matter. As long as we have in our product, as we do, epithelian-based membrane, epithelian, lamina, appropriate, we can't infringe their claims because their claims require that the lamina appropriate and the basement membrane be excluded. That's what I say on page 56. We would be entitled to some of the judgment, and by that I mean, I would take it to me. Judgment in this court based upon our claim construction position. And even if we were to conclude that that was the case, there was separation with respect to the basement membrane, would we have to reach the issue of lumen appropriate? Wonderful question, and the answer is no, we would not. Because as long as we have a basement membrane in our product, which we showed at trial, then we cannot infringe. Now, let me turn briefly to the separate appeal of pretty research foundation. Because I want to try and set forth weight, but he isn't, he's not, properly before you. I'm going to try and do that while they're perfect. The pre-trial order preserved for trial only the issue of whether there was any omitted and embedded in the 265 pattern. That was it. And so what Judge Sharp did was to say, they cannot proceed on the basis of priority of invention. Therefore, they could not take the position that Dr. Baleck was the sole embeddler. They could not take the position that Dr. Svivak was not embedded. It was established at the time of the pre-trial statement that Dr
. Svivak wasn't a better only issue where there were additional events. In terms of the joint and better shape issue, Judge Sharp went through the evidence in great care and showed that there was no evidence that was going to rise to any level that suggested that Dr. Baleck contributed in any significant way or contributed really at all through the Svivak. That's the joint and better shape issue. Now, with respect to the other issues, constructive trust are getting down to the statewide issues. That is not before you, as Judge Sharp said, it wasn't planned under any law. Why not wait and see if there is any argument? All right. I'm just in Richmond theory. I just like to comment on that just a great briefly there. So you understand that with respect to that, they asserted conversion and republished accounts against that. It was based upon law for searchings that we had stolen their materials. We went on summary and judgment. That's not before you. We know unjust enrichment that traces its way back to research at this point. The better shape is now state law issues, the federal issue, and then the final issue that they have that they throw out relates to the signage. That's a straight contract issue. It's part of what the contract will include in the end that when you have a contract issue, there can be no unjust enrichment. You either have expressed contract or you have quasi-contract or you have no contract. So the assignment issue wasn't in the pre-trial out-of-work that's not before you. It doesn't mean something that should be subject to bargaining. I think you've grasped an argument with respect to the claim instruction, there's a lot more I could say
. But it's in the briefs, I'll say it with the meaning of amount of my time for approval. Thank you, Mr. Governor. So you are Mr. Looters? Yes, you are. I along with my partner, Holly Vanta, represent Cook Biotech, when we address and claim construction issues. My co-counsel represents Purdue Research Foundation, when we address and in partnership related issues. First of all, this chart is wrong. It's unsuhr and it didn't even appear until trial. This was not at the mark in the area. Appendix A6413 was the chart they put under oath under Dr. Badlach's declaration for the Jones and Markenheim. Unlike this one, as Judge Post pointed out, yet separated the basement membrane from the epithelial cells and recognized that the epithelium is different from the basement membrane. The infruding product is something that you said this didn't appear until trial. It admitted it trial. It was admitted as a demonstrator that had this frankly as a housekeeping unit. I don't think it was ever sworn or attested to by any witness. But it was admitted to a contract. But it was admitted. Yes. Then what kind of be here? It's admitted in evidence and they made it a part of the record
. But the mark in the ruling, and his claim mark in interpretation is different than what they advocated before. But if it was a proper exhibit below, it's proper up here and so why throw cold water on it? You can dip it with it. It's content. Yes. But it's acceptability to be a forum. But it's wrong. What is right is what they swore to under oath at the mark in the air. And what the judge relied on the mark in the air. The claim construction that he offered to you is different than the claim construction they advanced at trial. That's not at A423 and the judge is Marken ruling. But since in the briefs is it not? Yes. And you've contravened it in writing and I gather that you're going to do so now before us as well. And I think it'll help our understanding to work with the definitions that we've been offered to argue with. Very good. I would like to focus on independent claimate. It's what I call the harmless air. Because all of their markmen argue say they're not pivot on the word delaminated or pivot on the word at least saloonable portion of the urinary bladder. Those terms do not appear in independent claimate. Independent claimate was found under partial summary judgment to be infringed but for the one question sent to the jury on the presence or absence of 70% of the coast. And so most all of their claim construction are these pivot on words that aren't even claimate. The only word that hang their hat on in claimate is the presence of words urinary bladder of sudden necosa
. However, their arguments are well urinary bladder of sudden necosa means all of the attributes that they've tried to describe to delaminated and all the attributes they've tried to describe to at least saloonable portion. That is flawed legal reasoning. That would render delaminated as superfluous. That would render at least saloonable portion of the urinary bladder. What about the reference to the 508 pattern? The 5-8 pattern is an intestine pattern. And it is observed the person who orders to learn the art that the physiology of the lining of a bladder is informed by the physiology of the lining of the intestine. The intestine absorbs nutrients that's got villa. It's got a totally different body function. The bladder by contrast is a barrier to keep toxic urine in. So it's like comparing cow's feet to chicken's feet. There may be some analogies but a person born in a school in the art of realize that you don't make a strict comparison. Moreover, the most important testimony perhaps in the brief, they took issue with them. And so we reprinted page four of our rare reply to this. Dr. Baddler admitted that the straddle compacted in the intestine is part of the lumen appropriate. And they don't dispute it. And the 5-8 testin pattern, the straddle compacted, which is a subset of the lamin appropriate. Remains. So by definition, even the intestine pattern, by the wrong, testimony or acknowledgement, leaves part of the lamin appropriate behind in the finished commercial product. So their whole argument that well, incorporate the 5-8 testin pattern, and voila, the basement membrane in all of the lamin appropriate are gone, is simply wrong. But what is it in 3-8? So we're not going to assume that 5-8 governs. What is it that you're relying on on a 3-8-9 pattern to tell us what's included and what's delaminated? The portion of the lamin appropriate is the lamin appropriate. Remember, these are extracellular matrices. So that's it. So the epithelial layers are delaminated and everything else. Yes. The basement membrane and the lamin appropriate. Because they are made of collagen, which is good. The cells are bad. The cells are what gives you the antigenetic response. So it's an extracellular matrix to get rid of the cells. You don't need to remove any more. Is this a time-flug? If I made it, I would see the membrane my time-flug. Okay. We're ready. Mr. Keelyt? Thank you, Robert. May I please support William Keelyt before Purdue Research Foundation? I am going to focus on the Inventorship issues and the unjust enrichment issues. I want to start with a question which is what happened here on the Inventorship? I want to go straight to the audience. In fact, I want to go straight to words of Dr. Badlack in the record, 818188. The quote, investigators at Purdue University, the institution from which A
. What is it that you're relying on on a 3-8-9 pattern to tell us what's included and what's delaminated? The portion of the lamin appropriate is the lamin appropriate. Remember, these are extracellular matrices. So that's it. So the epithelial layers are delaminated and everything else. Yes. The basement membrane and the lamin appropriate. Because they are made of collagen, which is good. The cells are bad. The cells are what gives you the antigenetic response. So it's an extracellular matrix to get rid of the cells. You don't need to remove any more. Is this a time-flug? If I made it, I would see the membrane my time-flug. Okay. We're ready. Mr. Keelyt? Thank you, Robert. May I please support William Keelyt before Purdue Research Foundation? I am going to focus on the Inventorship issues and the unjust enrichment issues. I want to start with a question which is what happened here on the Inventorship? I want to go straight to the audience. In fact, I want to go straight to words of Dr. Badlack in the record, 818188. The quote, investigators at Purdue University, the institution from which A.C.L.A. licensed UBS-UCM technology and their colleagues had investigated the composition of the UBS-ECM and the systematic fashion. The UBS-UCM, a construct that A.C.L. Hanks said in this document, in August 1999, over Dr. Badlack's signature under wrote an SBIR application with the federal government stated that UBS is something that A.C.L. had licensed. In fact, that part of the statement was untrue and that's untuskute. They sell never-dead ghetto license for the UBS construct. But they told us something else important in that same document on the very previous page, 81817. They told us in the section entitled, Preparation of UBS, a detailed discussion. Again, I quote, the transitional epithelium is removed by either mechanical abrasion or by use of one more cell, which effectively lifts the transitional epithelium off of the underlying basement membrane, leaving the basement membrane intact in the quote. That statement is taken from a section where the same document in title, Preparation of UBS. UBS was the construct that A.C.L
.C.L.A. licensed UBS-UCM technology and their colleagues had investigated the composition of the UBS-ECM and the systematic fashion. The UBS-UCM, a construct that A.C.L. Hanks said in this document, in August 1999, over Dr. Badlack's signature under wrote an SBIR application with the federal government stated that UBS is something that A.C.L. had licensed. In fact, that part of the statement was untrue and that's untuskute. They sell never-dead ghetto license for the UBS construct. But they told us something else important in that same document on the very previous page, 81817. They told us in the section entitled, Preparation of UBS, a detailed discussion. Again, I quote, the transitional epithelium is removed by either mechanical abrasion or by use of one more cell, which effectively lifts the transitional epithelium off of the underlying basement membrane, leaving the basement membrane intact in the quote. That statement is taken from a section where the same document in title, Preparation of UBS. UBS was the construct that A.C.L. wanted to license for Purdue and never-dead. Universities are uniquely vulnerable. They invite the world to come to them. Their doors are open. Their research is accessible in many ways. And sometimes that works well, companies like A.C.L. sometimes license technology. But we have to ask a question today. What happens if the company doesn't get license and tries to do an end wrong by harvesting the researcher instead, blocking the researcher from the institution, and suddenly the researcher's invention that the UBS UCM, that they want him to license with a intact basement membrane, appears a few months later from August 1999 to December 1999 in a cat application that leads to the two 65 cat. Mr. Keely, you've been telling us of the problems, universities, but isn't there a technical issue here on the basis of which the trial court rule, a failure to properly plead? Actually, no, not at all. But wasn't that the ground in which the trial court ruled? The court noted that the contention in that Dr. Badlack would be the sole inventor was not before the court. And I couldn't agree more. We never planned that Dr. Badlack was the sole inventor. We planned that Dr. Badlack was an omitted inventor. The party who played a sole invention was the appellants who played that Dr
. wanted to license for Purdue and never-dead. Universities are uniquely vulnerable. They invite the world to come to them. Their doors are open. Their research is accessible in many ways. And sometimes that works well, companies like A.C.L. sometimes license technology. But we have to ask a question today. What happens if the company doesn't get license and tries to do an end wrong by harvesting the researcher instead, blocking the researcher from the institution, and suddenly the researcher's invention that the UBS UCM, that they want him to license with a intact basement membrane, appears a few months later from August 1999 to December 1999 in a cat application that leads to the two 65 cat. Mr. Keely, you've been telling us of the problems, universities, but isn't there a technical issue here on the basis of which the trial court rule, a failure to properly plead? Actually, no, not at all. But wasn't that the ground in which the trial court ruled? The court noted that the contention in that Dr. Badlack would be the sole inventor was not before the court. And I couldn't agree more. We never planned that Dr. Badlack was the sole inventor. We planned that Dr. Badlack was an omitted inventor. The party who played a sole invention was the appellants who played that Dr. Steve Atten was a sole inventor. That was the only such algorithm. Dr. Badlack is an omitted inventor. Whether there are other inventors depends, candidly, and dependent at the time on whether Dr. Steve Atten could come forward with evidence with respect to some of the dependent claims that he had participated in some fashion in those dependent claims during that short period of time in the late 1990s that led up to this licensing effort. He never did that. And so perhaps by default Dr. Badlack will end up being the sole inventor, but that's not a leading problem. We can see the real problem readily by lying on three documents. In 1994, an outdated witness invention disclosure, Dr. Badlack, described and disclosed his basement memory in the country. The authenticity, credibility, accuracy of this document has never been challenged by anyone. And was there any evidence that Dr. Boylack shared that information with Dr. Steve Atten? Yes. Among the evidence is the SBIR document itself, which prior to the 1999 provisional patent application, I have both Dr. Badlack's name on the first page. Dr. Steve Atten is a header on the internal pages and talks about this invention, the basement memory invention, and that is something that ASL had been working with. It says that they practiced the invention, they made some of the embodiments, and they're looking to advance the manufacturing of the documents
. Steve Atten was a sole inventor. That was the only such algorithm. Dr. Badlack is an omitted inventor. Whether there are other inventors depends, candidly, and dependent at the time on whether Dr. Steve Atten could come forward with evidence with respect to some of the dependent claims that he had participated in some fashion in those dependent claims during that short period of time in the late 1990s that led up to this licensing effort. He never did that. And so perhaps by default Dr. Badlack will end up being the sole inventor, but that's not a leading problem. We can see the real problem readily by lying on three documents. In 1994, an outdated witness invention disclosure, Dr. Badlack, described and disclosed his basement memory in the country. The authenticity, credibility, accuracy of this document has never been challenged by anyone. And was there any evidence that Dr. Boylack shared that information with Dr. Steve Atten? Yes. Among the evidence is the SBIR document itself, which prior to the 1999 provisional patent application, I have both Dr. Badlack's name on the first page. Dr. Steve Atten is a header on the internal pages and talks about this invention, the basement memory invention, and that is something that ASL had been working with. It says that they practiced the invention, they made some of the embodiments, and they're looking to advance the manufacturing of the documents. Dr. Steve Atten, on a question of whether he had access to that invention, according to this sworn document on the roll. What's the date of that document? August 1999. Of the three documents, the 94 invention disclosure, the August 1999 SBIR document, in the December 1999 provisional patent application, that led to the issuance of the 265 patent, two of the three, credit Dr. Badlack, credit Purdue, with the invention, the 94 document, the August 1999 document. The only document that does not credit Dr. Badlack is the patent application itself. And yet, we know that Dr. Badlack is there, it's an undisputed fact that he participated in the preparation of the provisional application and my division into this patent. We know that he's a prolific and better, we know that he made this invention. The 94 document says so the 99 documents says, we also know, according to Dr. Steve Atten, I want to admit that the only reason, the only reason, this is in their briefcase, and our briefcase as well, that he initiated the process of the following convoluted December 1999 application, was that he didn't get the license from Purdue. The pet law has to be able to solve this problem. In the American Sign-in-In case, the University of Colorado, versus American Sign-in, represented an important step in this course jurisprudence to solve this kind of problem, for the specific posture of universities, and the specific vulnerability that they have to be taken advantage of. In Colorado, versus sign-in, clearly said, take 256, take state law unjust enrichment remedies, put them together, and the pet law can solve this problem with a supplement from state law, or reserved by a remaining amount for a bottle of water. So you say a diminute for a rebuttal, if there is a need for rebuttal, is that right? I would like to speak to you in just enrichment claim if you... I think you've exhausted your time. We'll leave that for the briefs. Thank you, Your Honor
. Dr. Steve Atten, on a question of whether he had access to that invention, according to this sworn document on the roll. What's the date of that document? August 1999. Of the three documents, the 94 invention disclosure, the August 1999 SBIR document, in the December 1999 provisional patent application, that led to the issuance of the 265 patent, two of the three, credit Dr. Badlack, credit Purdue, with the invention, the 94 document, the August 1999 document. The only document that does not credit Dr. Badlack is the patent application itself. And yet, we know that Dr. Badlack is there, it's an undisputed fact that he participated in the preparation of the provisional application and my division into this patent. We know that he's a prolific and better, we know that he made this invention. The 94 document says so the 99 documents says, we also know, according to Dr. Steve Atten, I want to admit that the only reason, the only reason, this is in their briefcase, and our briefcase as well, that he initiated the process of the following convoluted December 1999 application, was that he didn't get the license from Purdue. The pet law has to be able to solve this problem. In the American Sign-in-In case, the University of Colorado, versus American Sign-in, represented an important step in this course jurisprudence to solve this kind of problem, for the specific posture of universities, and the specific vulnerability that they have to be taken advantage of. In Colorado, versus sign-in, clearly said, take 256, take state law unjust enrichment remedies, put them together, and the pet law can solve this problem with a supplement from state law, or reserved by a remaining amount for a bottle of water. So you say a diminute for a rebuttal, if there is a need for rebuttal, is that right? I would like to speak to you in just enrichment claim if you... I think you've exhausted your time. We'll leave that for the briefs. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Galbrake? First of all, I really didn't pick up on your claim aid question in my... initially, I was just acquitted, addressing... In claim aid, it talks about some of the coastal... some of the coasts that are not effective, and that were effective. That issue wasn't before the jury, it was any amount. So the judge just read the limitations of claim aid out there. But beyond that, when you look at the... What was before the jury, the jury were instructed that if there were any sub-mucosa at all present that suffice. That's correct, whereas claim aid says it's an amount effective to induce endogenous, connected tissue growth. So there was a complete disconnect between what the specific..
. Mr. Galbrake? First of all, I really didn't pick up on your claim aid question in my... initially, I was just acquitted, addressing... In claim aid, it talks about some of the coastal... some of the coasts that are not effective, and that were effective. That issue wasn't before the jury, it was any amount. So the judge just read the limitations of claim aid out there. But beyond that, when you look at the... What was before the jury, the jury were instructed that if there were any sub-mucosa at all present that suffice. That's correct, whereas claim aid says it's an amount effective to induce endogenous, connected tissue growth. So there was a complete disconnect between what the specific... the claim says, and what was before the jury, but there's one further point. And here, this is a very good point. In the 3-8-9 pattern, I talked about a brage from the luminal side, right in the area where you were focusing on. How it was a braid from the luminal side. It was undistuted. It's in Dr. Badawak's testimony, excited in our papers. And that one swipe from the luminal side, eliminates the basement membrane. So there is no length. There is any basement membrane, then what is in the 3-8-9 pattern? It just can't be. Now, we respect to how a person ordinary skilled would construe these. If this is how PRF, in the interference proceeding, would adopted the speedback pattern application, construed it. All of these compositions consist essentially of the same tissue layers, and are prepared by the same method. The difference being that the starting material, the small intestine on one hand, and urinary bladder on the other. That's the way it would be construed by any person, looking at these two patterns together. That's quoted on page 12 of our brief. It comes out of the speedback pattern, but it was adopted by PRF in the interference proceeding. Finally, we respect to PRF's argument and the SDIR length. First, in their argument, or in their brief, where they bring it in is in that section that deals with priority of invention. It's how it works. Further, when you look at it, you're going to see that we respect to the materials that talk about the graph compositions
. the claim says, and what was before the jury, but there's one further point. And here, this is a very good point. In the 3-8-9 pattern, I talked about a brage from the luminal side, right in the area where you were focusing on. How it was a braid from the luminal side. It was undistuted. It's in Dr. Badawak's testimony, excited in our papers. And that one swipe from the luminal side, eliminates the basement membrane. So there is no length. There is any basement membrane, then what is in the 3-8-9 pattern? It just can't be. Now, we respect to how a person ordinary skilled would construe these. If this is how PRF, in the interference proceeding, would adopted the speedback pattern application, construed it. All of these compositions consist essentially of the same tissue layers, and are prepared by the same method. The difference being that the starting material, the small intestine on one hand, and urinary bladder on the other. That's the way it would be construed by any person, looking at these two patterns together. That's quoted on page 12 of our brief. It comes out of the speedback pattern, but it was adopted by PRF in the interference proceeding. Finally, we respect to PRF's argument and the SDIR length. First, in their argument, or in their brief, where they bring it in is in that section that deals with priority of invention. It's how it works. Further, when you look at it, you're going to see that we respect to the materials that talk about the graph compositions. It's all in the context of Dr. Speedback, and I'm Dr. Bala, actually in the program director, and I think even in places the principal investigator, that any of that, and it's a mission-match of materials when you're looking at it. But I don't see how that has much relevance to what happened back in 1994, and then going back to 1994 for just one second. Please read that 1994 disclosure. Please read what we have to say about it. Because when you read it, it's very clear that what is happening is that they're following the procedure of the Bible-weight pattern, and they are illuminating the epithelial basement, and by the way, puts they describe it by the way, as epithelial basement membrane right in that document, and they are illuminating the line on appropriate. And we have the testimony of one of the UBS inventors, Matt Ryan, and Lenny, that he was the guy who got tasked with making UBS, and he was very clear that he was removing the muscle cells on either side of the Southern Cosa at the time of the 1994 disclosure. In other words, we're right down to the 389 pattern exactly the way we interpreted it. Thank you, Mr. Galbrae. I think on the cross appeal, we didn't get to it, so I think it's fine. We'll rely on the briefs and the widows. Is there something you need to tell us this thing? We deserve to speak, but the focus needs to be more on time-carpetition, so whichever... I think you can rely on your briefs on the cross appeal. It wasn't explored here. It wasn't responded to. Time-carpetition. Time-interpretation wasn't the cross appeal, so you don't have an opportunity
. It's all in the context of Dr. Speedback, and I'm Dr. Bala, actually in the program director, and I think even in places the principal investigator, that any of that, and it's a mission-match of materials when you're looking at it. But I don't see how that has much relevance to what happened back in 1994, and then going back to 1994 for just one second. Please read that 1994 disclosure. Please read what we have to say about it. Because when you read it, it's very clear that what is happening is that they're following the procedure of the Bible-weight pattern, and they are illuminating the epithelial basement, and by the way, puts they describe it by the way, as epithelial basement membrane right in that document, and they are illuminating the line on appropriate. And we have the testimony of one of the UBS inventors, Matt Ryan, and Lenny, that he was the guy who got tasked with making UBS, and he was very clear that he was removing the muscle cells on either side of the Southern Cosa at the time of the 1994 disclosure. In other words, we're right down to the 389 pattern exactly the way we interpreted it. Thank you, Mr. Galbrae. I think on the cross appeal, we didn't get to it, so I think it's fine. We'll rely on the briefs and the widows. Is there something you need to tell us this thing? We deserve to speak, but the focus needs to be more on time-carpetition, so whichever... I think you can rely on your briefs on the cross appeal. It wasn't explored here. It wasn't responded to. Time-carpetition. Time-interpretation wasn't the cross appeal, so you don't have an opportunity. I will take my time by remaining in time. This is only on the cross appeal. Yes. Okay, you have one, maybe? This is a cross appeal, Your Honor, from summary judgment on the inventorship issue. Not on any new issues, just those on your reputal on the cross appeal. On the inventorship issue, which was a subject of a summary judgment that went against pretty research on the issue. It is unquestionably error for these facts to be summarily adjudicated against pretty research foundation. I'm the record, including the documents that I highlighted in the moment of the court. The 94 disclosure is sufficient to establish a Dr. Badlock, in fact fully possess the invention in 1994. The August 1999 SBR clearly reaffirms that and amounts to an admission by ASL. There's plenty of evidence to find clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Badlock is no-mitted in an inventory. What cannot hold is to ignore all of that and summarily adjudicate that Dr. Badlock is not an inventor. The trial did that solely on the basis of Dr. Badlock's disavowal. No precedent in this court elevates that to disavow over the research record. The research record has primacy and herpundant precedence in this court. I will note that it's just one example of a canoe decision by Judge Laurie fighting the decision of the court. Thank you
. It was improper for the trial to disavow over the research record. You have to leave these issues for the briefs. They're very complex. Argument time is very short. As you know, we shall do our best with the case. Thank you very much. Thank you all. It was well-freezing