Legal Case Summary

E-Pass Tech v. 3Com

Date Argued: Tue Jan 06 2009
Case Number: 146440
Docket Number: 2602203
Judges:Not available
Duration: 43 minutes
Court Name: Federal Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: E-Pass Tech, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation** **Docket Number:** 2602203 **Court:** [Appropriate Court Name] **Date:** [Filing Date] **Overview:** E-Pass Technologies, Inc., the plaintiff, initiated a lawsuit against 3Com Corporation, the defendant, concerning allegations of patent infringement. E-Pass, a company known for developing secure access technologies and solutions, claimed that 3Com, a major networking equipment provider, unlawfully utilized proprietary technology in their products without permission. **Background:** The case emerged against a backdrop of increasing competition in the technology industry, particularly relating to secure identity and access management solutions. E-Pass Technologies held multiple patents that were integral to their innovative approaches in secure transactions and identification processes. The contention arose when E-Pass discovered that 3Com’s products allegedly incorporated elements of E-Pass’s patented technology. **Legal Issues:** The primary legal issues in the case included: 1. Whether 3Com had indeed infringed upon E-Pass's patents. 2. The validity and enforceability of E-Pass's patents in question. 3. Potential defenses raised by 3Com, including claims of non-infringement and invalidity of E-Pass's patents. **Arguments:** - **E-Pass Technologies' Position:** E-Pass argued that their patented technology was distinct and covered specific methods and systems for secure user authentication. They sought financial damages for lost profits and a cease-and-desist order to prevent further infringement by 3Com. - **3Com Corporation's Defense:** 3Com contended that their technology was developed independently and did not infringe upon E-Pass’s patents. They also challenged the validity of the patents held by E-Pass, suggesting they were overly broad or had been rendered obsolete by prior art. **Court Proceedings:** The proceedings included a thorough examination of technical details, patent claims, and expert testimonies from both sides. The court evaluated the documentation and evidence presented, attempting to ascertain whether there was substantive use of E-Pass's patented technology in 3Com's offerings. **Outcome:** [To be filled depending on the final ruling of the court, including decisions on damages, injunctions, and any reversals or affirmations of prior judgments.] **Conclusion:** This case exemplifies the ongoing challenges in the tech industry regarding intellectual property rights and the complexities involved in patent litigation. The ruling will have significant implications for both companies and potentially set precedents in the area of technology patents and their enforcement. **Note:** For further details, legal professionals and interested parties should seek access to the full case documents and judicial opinions related to this docket number.

E-Pass Tech v. 3Com


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available


econd point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the third point is that the third point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that the point is that the second point is that the second point is that the second point is that they move under emotional influence from to fixed from to fixed So this is that Michael Green called me a cross, this is that Michael Green called me a cross And it is true I am a cross, there's a simple fact which says that maybe at least And Achilles Church has said that they moved under mental influence from or set forth in this claim. This is a method claim. And that it seems to be four causes any argument on both literal and darkened of the foreman's infringement because you simply failed to establish that any of these accused devices function that way. I think a manual that teaches the, and this is going to say one, but they even go to go to the claim to the manual that teaches the basic fundamental purpose of why anyone would have any of these devices teaches those steps coupled with those devices being out of the model. But, you know, if I'm wrong, that the manual teaches all sorts of different features that different things that these devices can do, but nowhere in that manual is there any specific sequence of steps as set forth in the claim of the program. There's no the tree of 600 manual which we, which we, which is in the appendix, it, it, it, it, it set forth each of the steps of the, in the, in the order method, in the order listed. I don't think it says, and next to this, next to that, that does the pattern. Plague number one, but you have to, you have to transfer the data into the device before you can select it, before you can store it, select the display. So, if the manual says that your tree open or your palm five or palm seven, it connects to your computer and have the data transferred into it, after which you can have a password protection code. Obviously, you can't display it to your select it, you can't store it, you can transfer it. So obviously, the manual teaches all those steps. It's, it's impossible but nobody would practice what the manual teaches. I mean, this case goes beyond claim one, but the judge just decided to claim one which was the disposal. But to begin, you, you are hungry that that manual teaches this, this steps as set forth in the claim in the sequence described. Yes. We're here to give you a right which is referred, and if it doesn't, I mean, you can, you can, if you're right about that, listen to them, you're all used to one of the devices with a tree out, I mean, there are other devices that are challenging here, the palm and the palm said, I mean, so even if you were around about the tree out of the manual, where does that calculate? You said, call the other devices that are also applying here, right? Because the number of devices or number of people that practice the method as a result of two-seventy-one being-duced entrenchment may be relevant to damages, but it's my understanding that if, if one induces another to perform the steps of attack, it's magnetic. And as we thought that that boosted, and it directly trained to perform those steps, then this liability, how many devices they perform on, how will, when they do it. So even though this is a manual for one device, you're saying that we ought to assume that this manual could be applicable to all these other devices, and therefore there's an interesting respect of those as well, because of the manual? No, because we didn't get to, to brief or try the issue of how many devices or a trial or how, which the damages are anything else. But we've discussed before, the add-quad on something with respect to the devices that are applying here. You say, put on something, you say there's enough, some I disagree with respect to this manual, but the manual only went to one of the large number of devices

. Where does that get you in terms of some evidence with respect to the other devices? Because if they, if, let's assume that this only practice on one device, that would satisfy the legal requirements of a boost in Frenchman. That is, that as a result, the first product, for that right. But the judge of the point is, if you have zero evidence for the other four devices, they fall out of the case. There's zero evidence of infringement, because there's no manual in evidence as to the other devices. Well, I believe that we did put in other manuals, but in the brief, we only started to want to come. But we're taking, you want to, where in the appendix is the, you know, this instruction with respect to the steps. In fact, it's in the reply brief on page 14, it's size 3, it's the reply brief, and page starts on page 14 of the reply brief and continues on 15 and 16. So these are different snippets that relate to different aspects of these various devices. And there are some pages scattered all over a long complicated manual. Well, because the manual first teaches you how to transfer the information in, it teaches you how to transfer the information in the storage, it teaches you various ways you can display it, and it's also that, the manual. I have a very hard time saying that if I write a manual, I'm inducing somebody to infringe a method path. If in 10 different places, on 10 different scattered pages, there's a little snippet of language here and there, it can be cobbled together. That just seems absurd to me. In my mind, respectfully, I'll let it go. The manual writer is encouraging somebody to infringe this path. He's encouraging somebody to know how the device he just bought works. In my mind, there are two separate issues, one of which was never addressed by the quote below. One is did they accuse the dooser in 10 and actually induce infringement? And number two, did anyone directly infringe and anyone carry out the steps of the path? The quote below made no findings, no more than any moving papers for which we were opposed that dealt with intent or any of those issues of infringement. There's nothing in terms of this. I can't explain this in relevant if there's no instruction to practice the method

. The issue here is, is there, the issue here is did the relevant model, did consumers actually practice these steps on these devices? The question of whether the intent or the instructions would appear, never came up with respect to the decision below. The elements of the dooser, that they intend to do it, never came up. The only thing was a failure of proof as to whether there was any direct infringement. But the circumstances surrounding the model to these devices, they gave it the first manual, teachers didn't say, and they must have been because this is advice. Existing, that's useful. Your speculation doesn't substitute real and lack of evidence. You have to put in evidence to prevail on summary judgment. You had no evidence. So you lost on summary judgment. You're asking us to say, well, people must have been infringing because it was possible to do. We don't know that, that's not proof, that's speculation. The manual clearly teaches every single step. How many of you use these devices without carrying out those steps? It's impossible. Why do we have your case cleared enough? We'll give you back two minutes of your time for the bottle. We'll hear from Mr. Bowler. Now, well, the three lawyers for various defendants filed a motion which in excess of generosity was granted by the court. But it's hard to imagine how we need 30 minutes of argument among the three of you in response. So although we granted the motion and although we allegedly have ten minutes each, that doesn't mean you need to use all ten minutes. Please proceed

. Thank you, Your Honor. May I please support? I'll be very grateful that we're doing ten minutes. I didn't hear anything in the arguments or just made that apply to the visa defendants, visa employees, and that's been a problem throughout this case. The visa employees filed their motion for summary judgment after efforts to make ePASS conform with evidence both on their allegations of directed infringement, literally and doctor, with one stand, their allegations of indirect infringement by way of inducement. EPASS's counsel just said that there were only two issues on this appeal. We respectfully disagree. The court, the law of court, ePASS, on notice that the summary judge of motions would deal with all the issues of infringement, including their allegations of inducement against the visa defendants. The visa defendants briefed those most brief all aspects of infringement, including inducements. And pointed out that there was no evidence of intense no evidence of underlying directed infringement, pointing specifically to where there was a lack of evidence. And so the court properly considered all of that. Although he didn't mention it as his oral argument, ePASS has indicated that inducement against the visa defendants is not even an issue on this appeal. We respectfully disagree. The judge entered the law, entered. Why don't you just agree if he has a phrase that you object to, if you want the law, the mic time is set down. Because I mean, if he has a phrase those issues, I would disagree with that. I mean, I have some appeal, but that's over, right? Okay, well that's what we believe. Because if they are, the judgment was centered below, they'd not appeal to the throwments, that's the end of the story. The only other thing I would say is that nothing that was said about these manuals has anything to do with the visa defendants. There's been no evidence, there's been no argument. That's the same point

. Yeah, the same point. It's the red dot of the patient, right? That's not the same. Okay, exactly. But let me just close by saying here, our orders, that we found a motion for attorney's fees in the court, because we believe this is a two-eighth-five case, we believe for the same reasons that this is a frivolous appeal. And we think the court should consider it honorable, 30-eighth. Well, you haven't found a motion here, have you? We have not. We've mentioned that for you. So the federal rules have a public procedure required to be filed on mercy? All right, it was under the impression that the federal rule, 38-decorrored, had a 40-year sue, a faulty raise, the issue of sanctions, as well. Well, that is true, but in that event, we have to issue an order to show costs. There has to be a further proceeding. There has to be pleadings filed by both sides. So we very, very rarely do that. I can't remember that we've ever done that. I think this might be an instance where the court should do that. The system of sanctions will require why can you move for sanction? That's the lawyer's job. What would the prosecutors do? Well, because we raised it in our briefs that, the rule 38 says raising it in your brief is not enough. You have to file a motion. That's a requirement of the national rules, and it's not new. It's been in the rules for 10 years. You should know about that

. I wonder if it isn't way for failure to file a motion? We may have authority, but that doesn't mean we should exercise it in the case where the attorney in question has some bothered to file a required motion. All right, thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Sikorski. Just remind us that you're up for sanction. We can keep this straight. Yes, sir. I represent hall one, three, five, and three. Thank you. What do you have to add? What do you have to add? Well, the one thing I will add, Your Honor, is the chart that counsel for e-PASSROPER 2 that appears in third reply brief. That was something that was not presented in any of the briefing below. It was new to the parties, and therefore we've never really had a chance to robot it. Great, the chart has that, wouldn't it? Council for e-PASSROPER 2, essentially, explained chart that there's a third reply. Your Honor, and like I mentioned, that was the first attempt at the parties of scene to match the reported evidence of the trio 600 against the various invitations of claim law. That chart was not provided to the district court. It was not quite a political order. Where were the pages that the chart cites from the manual cited to the district court? Yes. Well, why isn't that good enough? Well, the issue that that chart..

. He's not saying the chart proves my case. He's saying the page cites to the manual show that the manual encouraged people to practice the patent admit. So, if you were given the page cites, why aren't you adequately informed? Well, the... The right, that's what the right allegations are. The one point that I would raise for the panel is that the critical component that is still missing from that chart is the district court's claim construction ruling. For example, some of these limitations were construed in a particular way. And he passed... He even looked at this chart. He passed fails to provide any argument or evidence that matches the evidence to the reporting. Yes, but they could say this in an area. I mean, you agree on it. You have an answer to that. You say, well, yeah, your... Your narrative has one

... A literary omission. So, that doesn't mean that there's something improper about their lining up. I mean, these are just words. I'm not saying that it's improper, but what it raises is... Just a big one example, the term data sourcing claim one was... ...construed to get tangible data sourced. Well, look, we understand that lawyers don't consume claims, particularly not in a chart in reply. Judge Jensen, very carefully, twice after two more intermediaries and one remand, construed and re-construed all the claim current. We've got a subcene. We've read a subcene. We know exactly what this construction works

. We're not stupid. We're not confused because some lawyer uses different words to think that that's the authoritative construction claim. Obviously, what Judge Jensen construed is the construction that we look at. Absolutely. The one thing that I noticed in reviewing these papers, however, is that the district court's claim instructions for several terms do not appear in its order. And without the benefit of that claim instruction order, it might not be a lustre tipper or evident when reading his summary judgment order on which this appeal is based. Well, if you want to submit the underlying mark in the order, you should have done it a lot of time ago, and you can still do it, I suppose. All right. Okay, but I don't have plans to do it under, but I appreciate that. Let me ask you a few fellow customers, how do we frame? Can you still escape liability for products that are capable of not infringing using them? Absolutely, but I think it comes down to what the instructions are pointed in. For example, if the instructions are not pointed enough, obviously you win. So you should make the interpreter judge the most questions and say, well, suppose we don't agree with you. Do you have a fallback or an in a safety net that even as so, we're not liable because there are many non-incrhing uses for our product? Well, the hypotheticals of an edit, for example, were going in the loud case that the device itself would not cringe, but when it's all the calling the critical instruction sheet, it would. And so the question is, if we did provide specific instructions, here is how many must use your device, then I suspect there would be, but that's not the case. I think some of the argument of what the sum of it seems to suggest that the result is they're not infringing users, they would be under liability. I don't know if that's what it is. I just understood that. The final sum is under standard policy. I think the evidence here is, if you're so many very used uses that to alleged that users take out these particular pages in first place, then these particular portions of various pages in the large, whether it's user guide, is just some reasonable evidence. Anything further? Let me put it down

. Thank you. Mr. Rowland. Thank you, Mark Rowland, apparently on behalf of Consource. I have only one point to add, and that is to address Council for E-PASS's assertion that it's impossible to use these devices without infringing. The method claim, not only is that speculation as the court suggested, but also it contradicts an admission made by Council for E-PASS below, and I direct the court's attention to page 7,8 of the appendix. At which Council for E-PASS engaged in discussion with Judge Jensen, Judge Jensen made a very specific point that Council was not asserting that every sale of E-A was infringed, and the response by Mr. Wies was that, no because some consumers would not carry out every single step. So it's very clear that on the record below, that it is not as Council suggests now impossible to use the devices without infringing the method claims. Well, he doesn't have to prove that every use by every customer who did a friend, he just has to prove that some customers have been infringed, and that they were induced to do so by the men. That's correct, sir. So I understand your point. You should say your point is saying that every customer every time he uses it would be infringing, doesn't seem responsive to the plaintiff's case here. The point is that one cannot presume or infer from a manual and simply teaches the capabilities of the device that it would be necessary that those capabilities are used in an infringement. Well, that's certainly true. And that's the speculation. That's the speculation. I thought you said that it already would come. It happened, but not only that, but it's confirmed in the record that in fact there are ways that is to be used without infringing. Nobody disputes that, even Mr

. Wies agrees with that. Why? To say that it's impossible for it to be used, as Mr. Wies said, without infringing the partners to say something different. That's not the point. That's not the point that it's impossible to use. The question is, does the instruction manual instruct on how to use it in accordance with the claim steps that it does, presumably that's adequate for substantial evidence that would establish. Some direct infringement. In this case, however, since there are ways which it can be used in accordance with the manual that do not infringe, there are substantial non-printing uses. And in that circumstance, whether a substantial non-printing uses, the evidence of the capabilities of the manual, along the path of the manual, cannot lead to an inference that the method has no practice that there has been direct infringement. What is there with the page in the manual that specifically laid out the steps as claim? If that were the case, and it was laid out in sequence, that would be evidence of direct infringement. So, nothing would have tried. We would, if that was sufficiently clear, to show culpable conduct. Even if there were other steps from different ways to use it in a non-printing way. If the question is no, purposes of showing direct infringement that would not be sufficient. It would not be sufficient. It would not be evidence. It would not be sufficient. Because if that was overcome summary judgment, it would not be sufficient. Because simply teaching the case beliefs at least of license have lots of uses in fact that have thousands of applications. That one of them might be an infringement use is not evidence that it was the fact that you were somebody. This is not the case where you are led to that conclusion because that's really the only use that's what the device is designed to do with that one thing, which is based on the molecular case. That would not be. Are you saying that even if the device comes with a single sheet that has number of steps that are exactly in the words of the patent, the patent that met the claim one, that that little cheat sheet would not be sufficient to go to trial on inducing infringement merely because, reading a whole manual one would see there are other ways of using the device that would not be sufficient. Would your position? No, we don't have that circumstance here. I understand you don't have that circumstance here. But the hypothetical question was asked is if you had the step lined out exactly as they are in the patent, does the fact that there are nevertheless some not infringing uses saved dead? I thought your answer was yes. I may have this thought, but I think that where you have an elimination of indiscence is actually sufficient. I think that's been the law of the decision that's for. So your case stands and falls on the manual, then lay it out and encourage people to practice the steps in the sequence and the patent therefore we win. That's correct, you're right. I think we can understand that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wight, two minutes of revolve. Thank you. When we wrote the briefs that were addressed to the opinion that was written by Judge Jensen and then attempt to point out the errors that we believed exist in his opinion in granting some judgment. And nowhere in his opinion that he discussed the adequacies of circumstantial evidence, no way that he discussed a lekylon, no way that he discussed the manuals, even that there was no mention of that at all. The manual feels such a manual specifically towards the doubt of the steps. And he doesn't mention anything about circumstantial evidence in his opinion

. This is not the case where you are led to that conclusion because that's really the only use that's what the device is designed to do with that one thing, which is based on the molecular case. That would not be. Are you saying that even if the device comes with a single sheet that has number of steps that are exactly in the words of the patent, the patent that met the claim one, that that little cheat sheet would not be sufficient to go to trial on inducing infringement merely because, reading a whole manual one would see there are other ways of using the device that would not be sufficient. Would your position? No, we don't have that circumstance here. I understand you don't have that circumstance here. But the hypothetical question was asked is if you had the step lined out exactly as they are in the patent, does the fact that there are nevertheless some not infringing uses saved dead? I thought your answer was yes. I may have this thought, but I think that where you have an elimination of indiscence is actually sufficient. I think that's been the law of the decision that's for. So your case stands and falls on the manual, then lay it out and encourage people to practice the steps in the sequence and the patent therefore we win. That's correct, you're right. I think we can understand that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wight, two minutes of revolve. Thank you. When we wrote the briefs that were addressed to the opinion that was written by Judge Jensen and then attempt to point out the errors that we believed exist in his opinion in granting some judgment. And nowhere in his opinion that he discussed the adequacies of circumstantial evidence, no way that he discussed a lekylon, no way that he discussed the manuals, even that there was no mention of that at all. The manual feels such a manual specifically towards the doubt of the steps. And he doesn't mention anything about circumstantial evidence in his opinion. What is circumstantial evidence? It's no different than the record. He didn't need to reach the issue because he ruled on other grounds that made it unimportant to go on to decide further matters. There's nothing wrong with that. We encourage judges to not waste their time deciding things they don't need to decide. Courts are already too backed up and too slow and too expensive. Even deciding those things that must be decided, they shouldn't be deciding things that don't need to be decided. See how that creates reversible error by Judge Jensen? Isn't it the question of the fact that whether or not the manual actually teaches the steps sufficiently so that one can infer another of the circumstances that the non-rogre consumers would directly inferring as a result of the manual? It's like a pattern jury charges as someone can swear that it's raining outside or someone can observe a hundred people walking into a building with dripping umbrellas. Both of them supported entrance of rain and it's up to the final effect. If you hit it, make any discussion about the circumstantial evidence, arguments that were presented below. We presented in the brief that we made these arguments before him morally and on paper, even asked me during arguments on summary judges. He asked me about molecular. He said this is the fact that we were in the process. What is your point? Are you saying that his failure to discuss issue X automatically makes his ruling reversible and has to go back to trial and let your point go? No. What is your point? My point is that the identification of the issue of fat defeats the summary judge and he was not permitted to resolve it. He was not permitted to say that there is no evidence of use when you have 100 dripping umbrellas coming into the building when you have a manual teaching every single step a device that's capable of being operated according to the manual and a device when operated according to the manual is used to practice claim one. He had the manuals before him. He was certainly aware of what the law was. He was aware of the molecular un-decision and he reached the conclusion that the manuals did not provide a sufficient ground to establish direct infringement directly or circumstantially the fact that he didn't spell it out in specific details. He had the manuals before him. So your point has to be that his failure to discuss the manual per se is reversible

. What is circumstantial evidence? It's no different than the record. He didn't need to reach the issue because he ruled on other grounds that made it unimportant to go on to decide further matters. There's nothing wrong with that. We encourage judges to not waste their time deciding things they don't need to decide. Courts are already too backed up and too slow and too expensive. Even deciding those things that must be decided, they shouldn't be deciding things that don't need to be decided. See how that creates reversible error by Judge Jensen? Isn't it the question of the fact that whether or not the manual actually teaches the steps sufficiently so that one can infer another of the circumstances that the non-rogre consumers would directly inferring as a result of the manual? It's like a pattern jury charges as someone can swear that it's raining outside or someone can observe a hundred people walking into a building with dripping umbrellas. Both of them supported entrance of rain and it's up to the final effect. If you hit it, make any discussion about the circumstantial evidence, arguments that were presented below. We presented in the brief that we made these arguments before him morally and on paper, even asked me during arguments on summary judges. He asked me about molecular. He said this is the fact that we were in the process. What is your point? Are you saying that his failure to discuss issue X automatically makes his ruling reversible and has to go back to trial and let your point go? No. What is your point? My point is that the identification of the issue of fat defeats the summary judge and he was not permitted to resolve it. He was not permitted to say that there is no evidence of use when you have 100 dripping umbrellas coming into the building when you have a manual teaching every single step a device that's capable of being operated according to the manual and a device when operated according to the manual is used to practice claim one. He had the manuals before him. He was certainly aware of what the law was. He was aware of the molecular un-decision and he reached the conclusion that the manuals did not provide a sufficient ground to establish direct infringement directly or circumstantially the fact that he didn't spell it out in specific details. He had the manuals before him. So your point has to be that his failure to discuss the manual per se is reversible. No, this is the fact the manuals were of evidence and he ignored it meant that he resolved an issue of fat in favor of the not moving party without considering the circumstantial evidence. Why do you say he ignored it? He had it before him. He makes one issue of evidence once there. So what other evidence was there? The purpose of circumstantial evidence is to say, what other evidence was there? The manuals? And he had those manuals. Correct. So therefore you have to be saying that you know he had it and you know how to analyze it that he didn't analyze it and you prove that he didn't analyze it. Simply that he didn't discuss it in his opinion. Right, you see, I mean the discussion. Therefore your point has to come down to saying the omission of the discussion itself is reversible. Because he discusses direct use but he does discuss circumstantial evidence of use. And all he just ignored is the issue totally. Why do you think it was the mid circumstantial evidence? So we don't have to go out and interview people and say that you use this as an F2 with the manual and you come in and swear it. Just like you don't have to go out and find someone who swear it was raining. You can talk about the dripping of relics. The whole purpose of circumstantial evidence is doing the circumstances support the inference. What we have in the manuals there, we have the fact that these things will solve. And he just speaks about direct evidence of the treatment. So I think we have to guess what he said. I think we have your point clearly in mind. In fact, we'll take the case under your right

. No, this is the fact the manuals were of evidence and he ignored it meant that he resolved an issue of fat in favor of the not moving party without considering the circumstantial evidence. Why do you say he ignored it? He had it before him. He makes one issue of evidence once there. So what other evidence was there? The purpose of circumstantial evidence is to say, what other evidence was there? The manuals? And he had those manuals. Correct. So therefore you have to be saying that you know he had it and you know how to analyze it that he didn't analyze it and you prove that he didn't analyze it. Simply that he didn't discuss it in his opinion. Right, you see, I mean the discussion. Therefore your point has to come down to saying the omission of the discussion itself is reversible. Because he discusses direct use but he does discuss circumstantial evidence of use. And all he just ignored is the issue totally. Why do you think it was the mid circumstantial evidence? So we don't have to go out and interview people and say that you use this as an F2 with the manual and you come in and swear it. Just like you don't have to go out and find someone who swear it was raining. You can talk about the dripping of relics. The whole purpose of circumstantial evidence is doing the circumstances support the inference. What we have in the manuals there, we have the fact that these things will solve. And he just speaks about direct evidence of the treatment. So I think we have to guess what he said. I think we have your point clearly in mind. In fact, we'll take the case under your right. So we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. So we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right

. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. And we'll take the case under your right. Thank you