I'm gonna wait to reach that senior according to at least. The first hit adopted an erroneous claim construction of the claim-turner network service and provided. Second, it entered summary judgment despite evidence in a summary judgment record that raised genuine issues of material spite. To understand if it happened, specifically the terms and claim terms that we issue, I think that this is an instance in which a single minute of history may be worth several pages of specification. In the early 1990s, companies arose which were in business of providing internet access to consumers. In the early days of that decade, typically those companies would provide end-to-end service. They owned the Mogan banks and other physical means of connecting customers to the internet. And they also performed billing and management of the customer relationship. As the decade progressed, some of those companies, which were, typically known as internet service providers or ISPs, decided to expand their operations from being purely local to become nationwide. But they were not able to make the substantial capital commitment necessary to establish hardware presence in every market they wanted to serve. Therefore, those companies began to contract with companies separately owned points of presence that would provide the hardware necessity to connect the consumer to the internet. These third parties, some of which are known as, for example, level 3, unionat and quest, none of which are defendants in this lawsuit, would provide the hardware for connectivity. Whereas the companies like AOL, which used to be the same in this action, was now settled with Earthlink and UOL, would contract with those companies and would continue to provide the billing and other management of the customer relationship. Both of those entities were still known and continued to this day to be known in popular columns as ISPs and that service providers. But this separation of the function of hardware network access and the management of the customer relationship by a different company created certain problems because the entity that was managing the company was not able to provide the service
. The customer relationship was no longer directly connected to the customer rather the customer was directly connected by the company like level 3 or unionat that provides a hardware connection. This patent provides a method by which the company that provides the customer service can provide login data such as passwords and internet access telephone numbers, transparently to the user and there are certain advantages to that described in the patent. In order to accurately describe this architecture, which existed already in marketplace by the time the patent was first filed in the provisional in 1997, the draft for the patent coined the term network service provider to describe the entity that provides the hardware connection to the network. It coined the term access service provider to describe the companies like Earthlink, like UOL and AOL that have traditionally provided the customer management and the billing relationship. It is one of those point terms network service provider the entity that provides a hardware connection to the network that is the subject of the district course first error. The district court initially construed after the warrantment process the network service provider as being an entity that provides a hardware connection to the network in most cases the internet and that authenticates the user or the customer for access to the network. At the summary judgment stage the court essentially adopted a gloss on that construction providing further that that authentication cannot be quote delegated to the access service provider. We submit that that construction was error following the typical methodology set forth in Phillips we look first to the clients. Authentication is a requirement that does not appear in the clients much less a requirement that authentication must occur only at the network service provider and not at the access service provider. So the court at the outset has created a brand new claim limitation by adding a requirement that there must be authentication at the network service provider. Based on specification. Turning to the description first the written description explicitly discloses that authentication may occur by querying a database that is located at the network service provider or the central location or at the end of the student access service provider. Precisely the embodiment that the district court said was the basis for its grant of summary judgment. The only argument that the district court what pushing the specification you referencing
. Yes, I'm referencing. Following six line 66 the column seven line seven. That's the reference to authentication. Yes, we're going to. And describes it as. Authenticating my idea that password. Yes, and also column 23 line 67 through column 24. Now that that second question was the specific environment that as I read the record you seem to say was not claimed to matter. Well, years what was said in that passage. I do. It was a passage in which my mail pointed it and let me place that passage in context. It's really important. At the mark of the proceeding the defendants advocated that the court should bring in to the definitions of network service provider access service provider. A broker function with a long long relist of specific references and specification that they ask be imported as limitations into the claim by the definition of those terms
. My mail argued at the mark of the proceeding that that was not proper. And that in particular that this portion of specification to which you're on refers related to an invention that was not the subject of the claims. But critically my mail did not argue and did not acknowledge that the description of authentication in that portion of specification which remember is not even a claim term was irrelevant to the pattern. Indeed we would submit that the description of authentication in that passage teaches the public that authentication may occur not just on the premises of the network service provider but centrally or at the access service provider. Unlike I believe it was the LG case decided to support. Two different questions one is what is authentication and that it seems to me the first reference that you cited call six to seven seems to speak to. The second is where does the authentication where maybe authentication occur and it seems to me either sign you this second passage that you cited. That is saying that in this in my parenthesis not claimed that authentication can occur in some other places other than in the one place that the court found that the case has to occur in the claims. So which one of that I think that I think that all I can say about that you're on is I don't think the fair reading of the specification and certainly not a fair reading. This is really the issue not a fair reading of what my mail said about the specification of the apartment here in the east of that conclusion. But let's go further let's suppose that your honor agrees with me and in fact believes that because that invention was not claimed in this patent that specification is not available is off the books for this purpose. It's also that that portion it's also the case that the preferred embodiment says that authentication will normally occur at the network service provider and we would submit that that word normally is critical here because it raises the clear implication that it's not a requirement of the claims of the authentication database. Data base be located at the network service provider may be normally for the baby somewhere else. Now that's that's my time at this point your honor so unless they're for questions always or for us
. That's my time for the moment. I'm going to take you on the side. Thank you. Mr. James. Thank you. May a police report is honored to be appearing before you today on behalf of my client or funny as well as having the privilege of arguing on half the other Apple leaks. I want to turn right to the column 23 column 24 issues because I think judge Bryson you may own it had. Mr. Colley says that at the mark in hearing that my male displaying that portion of the specification in response to an argument that we have made about the broker function. And I'd like to shed some light on that. In the record beginning at a 285 by going through about a 2860 you'll see that this is at the very beginning of the mortem hearing. In fact we are at page 19 where we have not even stood up and spoken yet about a claim-controaching issue. But in fact my male is providing an overview of a patent
. And there my male tells Judge Davis this is a very rich patent with six inventions and 29 columns of text. And the court asked a very pointed question. This is not quoted in our brief but this is at a 285 seven. The court says quote you are saying some of these other described conventions and the specifications should not read limitations into the claims. Mr. Colley responds first of all it is your honor to as we will talk about in a minute it is arrow to read the limitation from the specification into the claim in any event. But it is particularly egregious when what you are trying to read into the claim is a portion of the specification that doesn't even relate to the issued invention. And in a couple of pages later that is when my male tells the court that the single dial multi long in function is a great invention and one day it may issue a patent. But it has nothing to do with the claims that when you are talking about today and that is what the court has. That is exactly right. And so I believe that that portion of the specification should be rightfully out of the case because my male disavowed it at the mortem hearing. In addition to that this court has issued a decision in the LGO electronics case that Mr. Colley just alluded to. Decisioned July 7, 2006, 453, Fed 3rd, 1364
. And in that decision the court told us that when there is a patent that has been the subject of a restriction requirement and a patent is made in an election between inventions it is absolutely appropriate as part of the claim instruction process to ignore the portion of the specification that has been restricted from the patent. And as the record reflects here this patent was the subject of six restriction requirements. It was six different inventions and that is precisely why my male told the court at the mortem hearing that this is a very rich patent multiple inventions and columns 23, 24 and the single dial multi long in function had nothing to do with this case. Now I want to back up because this court is made very clear with the Phillips decision, the recent decision in all demand that we have to understand what the invention is in order to reach the correct claim instruction. And there is a fundamental disconnect between the parties as to what this invention is. And if you do anything in this case what I would ask that you do is that you focus on figure one of this patent. All parties agree that figure one is the place to go to understand this invention. My male spends from pages 12 through 14 of their of their blueberry using figure one to describe the invention that you should have the mark in hearing we used to have the mark in here. And if you look at figure one what figure one shows is that when a user dials into the ISP that something has to happen there before you can obtain the internet connection. And the specification teaches us a column six column seven of the patent that when the user dials in we have to authenticate the user before we are going to allow that user to obtain access to the internet. And figure one shows that unopical column six teaches that unopical and importantly figure one shows and column seven teaches that until you obtain an internet connection this ASP does not exist. In fact if you look at column seven line 27 that is the first time that this point term internet service provider access service is ever used in the patent. And what column seven line 27 says in accordance with the present invention an internet service provider access service or ASP is connected to the internet 100 is connected to the internet. And here's the important point at line 32 after the user gains access to the internet via one of the ISPs
. It goes on to say that the client dispatch application can then communicate with the ASP. The specification is unopical about that. And until you get to the internet you cannot get to the ASP. And what the court found in defining the coin term network service provider is what's its functionality? And if you read the patent specification beginning at column six line 31 it states unopplitably, quote to begin the process of the present invention, quote, and then it goes on to tell us that the user is going to provide the ISP what's now the NSP. It's going to provide an access information. Access information includes a user ID and a password. And then it tells us that the ISP slash NSP is going to authenticate the user. Because until the ISP NSP authenticate the user you can't gain access to the internet. That's the whole purpose of authentication is to keep somebody off the internet that shouldn't be on it. And what the patent teaches us at the end of column six going over to column seven is it teaches us exactly what is meant by authentication. And the patent tells us upon receipt of the access information the ISP authenticate the user one time. The ISP one or two checks to see whether the path ID and path password received from the user is valid. If you look into porch more than the road at page five of the porch more than the road that is exactly what the court said. The court said looking at figure one the user dials into the ISP slash NSP is authenticated and then it's connected to the internet
. And once you're connected to the internet this user can go to the ASP. That's what this patent told about. Figure one column six column seven describes exactly what the district court found with respect to the attributes of the NSP. Now where is the dispute between the parties about the infection? Mr. Colleague has told you that this dispute is this patent is about effectively divided by the ISP. And the ISP does this management building function and then there's this other entity that provides the connection. We don't think that's what this patent is about at all because what he is describing is already set forth in this patent as per our order. If you look at column two beginning at line 25 we learned that there are different ISPs and they provide different services. Some ISPs provide full service some ISPs provide less than full service some provide features such as encyclopedia type information interactive games access to other modest policy databases. What ISP does and ISP may provide you and may provide you an internet connection depending on if they've got the underlying infrastructure back in 1995 or fling home that's owned both banks and it also will indicate the users and it provided you an internet connection. But Mr. Colleague has told you that the hardware component is through this patent is being delegated to a third part. And what I were asked to do is take a look at column four line 60 through 64. There's another and I hate the exact number but there's another one especially when the parties are using the mean consistently
. That's exactly wrong. That's exactly wrong. I'm not. Ladies and gentlemen, part of your case, respect the cases. But it does it does add to the complexity of using the patents. At columns four line 6564, there is a state there's there's this phrase network access provider in AP companies which own the telephone networks and motor banks such as AT&T GTU UUNAT and PSO. Mr. Colleague just stood up here a minute ago and told you UUNAT. That's one of the folks that own the motor box. The point is, and if you look at their proposed construction, what they're asking is that the NSP be the entity that provides the internet connection. Why did we need to coin a term for that? Why did we need to coin a term in the patent for the party that provides the internet connection when the patent at column four line 60 through 64 and is told us that the network access provider already exists that does that. Doesn't make any sense. No, but it doesn't decide the case. It may not decide the case, but the question is, is doesn't the NSP slash ISP a coin term? Doesn't it have to mean more than that? And that's what the court found
. Because if that's all that, if that's all that we're talking about here, if a party provides a network connection, well the patent's already told us what that is. It's an NAP. And what is the coin term? And this is called at column five. The patent he teaches us. The NSP is equivalent to the ISP, but because this invention may have application to networks other than the internet, we just don't want to call it an ISP here. We want to call it an NSP. And the patent then teaches us the attributes of that NSP ISP beginning at column six. It is the party that provides the network connection and it is the party that authenticate these. And that is exactly what the court found in his Mormon role, even that's what led to the course some rejection decision. I think I'm now to thirty seconds. Could I ask you a question? Yes. Did you have any other point? I don't want to interrupt you. I've got a bunch of points, but I have got a bunch of questions. Mr. Collie, didn't reach the question of that application. It's kind of feeling it in one time you might have. And that's the debate about whether the issue of authentication was conceded in the course of the Markman argument or whether there was less than concession with regard to all of authentication being done or as opposed to just say, well, extreme check. I think there are maybe two issues there. First of all, the point I meant to hit was the questions. And it shows up between pages 2960 and second. I think of the argument. I have the right page there about the alleged concession with respect of authentication. Naturally, the need point that I'm back to to address. At the Mormon here, Mr. Collie stated to Judge Davis, this is a quote. When the user dials into the network service provider, there has to be some authentication. That is one of the things that the network service provider does. Close quote
. Collie, didn't reach the question of that application. It's kind of feeling it in one time you might have. And that's the debate about whether the issue of authentication was conceded in the course of the Markman argument or whether there was less than concession with regard to all of authentication being done or as opposed to just say, well, extreme check. I think there are maybe two issues there. First of all, the point I meant to hit was the questions. And it shows up between pages 2960 and second. I think of the argument. I have the right page there about the alleged concession with respect of authentication. Naturally, the need point that I'm back to to address. At the Mormon here, Mr. Collie stated to Judge Davis, this is a quote. When the user dials into the network service provider, there has to be some authentication. That is one of the things that the network service provider does. Close quote. And that's it. A two-mounted 60 and transcript is 142, column two dash nine. Why isn't it fair to say that that could encompass any form broadly read any form of authentication? Not necessarily. You refer to it as an indication of what the patent recites as the kind of authentication that he discussed with the column six. But anything including, Mr. Collie, I think again, there are maybe two issues there. What you want is the who, who's doing the alternative? And what Mr. Collie is telling us there is that it's the NSP. And then the second issue is, okay, what does authentication mean? And quite frankly, the patent provides us a definition of it at the beginning of the bottom of column six, going over column seven. So you see that that question of specification slanging the door on any definition of authentication, not including password and ID. I would tell you with his compelling evidence that the inventor defined authentication as checking to see whether a patent ID and password is valid. But even if arguably authentication means something differently, it's not going to change the outcome of this case. And it's been posted as when Yandr dispute that in this case, authentication is occurring at the Earthlings, the Juneos, the UOLs, the SBC's, where we have databases where pat IDs and passwords are being checked. And it's only if they are valid based on what's happening at our databases could a user ever obtain an internet connection
. And that's it. A two-mounted 60 and transcript is 142, column two dash nine. Why isn't it fair to say that that could encompass any form broadly read any form of authentication? Not necessarily. You refer to it as an indication of what the patent recites as the kind of authentication that he discussed with the column six. But anything including, Mr. Collie, I think again, there are maybe two issues there. What you want is the who, who's doing the alternative? And what Mr. Collie is telling us there is that it's the NSP. And then the second issue is, okay, what does authentication mean? And quite frankly, the patent provides us a definition of it at the beginning of the bottom of column six, going over column seven. So you see that that question of specification slanging the door on any definition of authentication, not including password and ID. I would tell you with his compelling evidence that the inventor defined authentication as checking to see whether a patent ID and password is valid. But even if arguably authentication means something differently, it's not going to change the outcome of this case. And it's been posted as when Yandr dispute that in this case, authentication is occurring at the Earthlings, the Juneos, the UOLs, the SBC's, where we have databases where pat IDs and passwords are being checked. And it's only if they are valid based on what's happening at our databases could a user ever obtain an internet connection. And so step back for a minute. But, but, but, career period, I'm wrong but I think that the third party motor is doing a realm stream check. There is a third party motor that is looking at our realm stream to determine whether that's an arch-warning panel stream. I mean, it doesn't see something that it recognizes as one of the appropriate categories of realm streams out of us. That's exactly right. But if it sees something that's an Earthling realm stream, you're not connected to the internet. That's the exact question that Judge Davis asked at the summary judgment here. At that point in time, you now have passed user IDs and passwords to a database at Earthling that pursuits of the course plane construction cannot be involved in that process. And it's only if Earthling checks that user ID and password and determines that it's valid. And we agree that that is a user that has the right to get on the internet. It's only then that authentication has occurred in a way that will allow the user to obtain access to the internet. And I'm out of time. Good. Thank you, Mr
. And so step back for a minute. But, but, but, career period, I'm wrong but I think that the third party motor is doing a realm stream check. There is a third party motor that is looking at our realm stream to determine whether that's an arch-warning panel stream. I mean, it doesn't see something that it recognizes as one of the appropriate categories of realm streams out of us. That's exactly right. But if it sees something that's an Earthling realm stream, you're not connected to the internet. That's the exact question that Judge Davis asked at the summary judgment here. At that point in time, you now have passed user IDs and passwords to a database at Earthling that pursuits of the course plane construction cannot be involved in that process. And it's only if Earthling checks that user ID and password and determines that it's valid. And we agree that that is a user that has the right to get on the internet. It's only then that authentication has occurred in a way that will allow the user to obtain access to the internet. And I'm out of time. Good. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Colley. I think Mr. Colley in a little extra time as well. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Ones. Let me turn first to one of the last questions that was asked about alleged concession with the Department of Hearing about authentication. On the very page that there are two different issues here. One is whether there was a concession to scope of any such concession is the mean of a authentication. Right. And I read that right. As well, I think that you are
. Johnson. Mr. Colley. I think Mr. Colley in a little extra time as well. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Ones. Let me turn first to one of the last questions that was asked about alleged concession with the Department of Hearing about authentication. On the very page that there are two different issues here. One is whether there was a concession to scope of any such concession is the mean of a authentication. Right. And I read that right. As well, I think that you are. But the passage of Mr. James quoted was on a 29 to 69. I won't read the whole thing because it's almost a page long. But I urge the court when reading that page to pay particular attention to the first sentence where I think my male said finally on the issue of authentication. The court asked a number of real world questions of Mr. Jameson about how Earthlink does authentication and where it happens and so forth. Then there's a proceeding to discuss the lengthy recitation of Mr. Jameson picked up a birthlink system. No way in this passage is there a discussion of the claims or of anything that might or not properly be read into the claims from the written specification. There's also a separate portion of that transcript of the Marmon hearing which appears on page 35 of the yellow brief. And the record is at page 2938. And I'm sorry to say that I observed yesterday for the first time that that page was accidentally omitted from attendance. And we will move tomorrow to supplement the appendix of this page. Although what I'm about to read is quoted and briefed
. But the passage of Mr. James quoted was on a 29 to 69. I won't read the whole thing because it's almost a page long. But I urge the court when reading that page to pay particular attention to the first sentence where I think my male said finally on the issue of authentication. The court asked a number of real world questions of Mr. Jameson about how Earthlink does authentication and where it happens and so forth. Then there's a proceeding to discuss the lengthy recitation of Mr. Jameson picked up a birthlink system. No way in this passage is there a discussion of the claims or of anything that might or not properly be read into the claims from the written specification. There's also a separate portion of that transcript of the Marmon hearing which appears on page 35 of the yellow brief. And the record is at page 2938. And I'm sorry to say that I observed yesterday for the first time that that page was accidentally omitted from attendance. And we will move tomorrow to supplement the appendix of this page. Although what I'm about to read is quoted and briefed. There's only one page missing. I think you can agree that you can send us that page. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Jameson wants to discreet the content you can do so. At the hearing, my male made this statement. Does the NSP communicate with Earthlink to authenticate it? That is not in the claim. What is in the claim is providing the hidden set of login data to the user for the subsequent login. That's what the claim covers. Whether how the NSP chooses to recognize that login information, whether it has a server on premises, whether it locates it somewhere else, including Earthlink, has nothing to do with the infringement of the claims. And we're dealing at two levels here, Your Honor. One level, of course, here is what the list court decide that a reading of a specification justifies importing into the claim. But on the other level of what did my male concede or not concede at the hearing, that passage makes crystal clear that my male consistently contended that the database on which authentication is queried can be located anywhere. Indeed, the question arises back to the level of what is the specification required
. There's only one page missing. I think you can agree that you can send us that page. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Jameson wants to discreet the content you can do so. At the hearing, my male made this statement. Does the NSP communicate with Earthlink to authenticate it? That is not in the claim. What is in the claim is providing the hidden set of login data to the user for the subsequent login. That's what the claim covers. Whether how the NSP chooses to recognize that login information, whether it has a server on premises, whether it locates it somewhere else, including Earthlink, has nothing to do with the infringement of the claims. And we're dealing at two levels here, Your Honor. One level, of course, here is what the list court decide that a reading of a specification justifies importing into the claim. But on the other level of what did my male concede or not concede at the hearing, that passage makes crystal clear that my male consistently contended that the database on which authentication is queried can be located anywhere. Indeed, the question arises back to the level of what is the specification required. Where is it in the written description that justifies the district court's requirement that that database against which the query is sent, certainly to be located at the NSP. And the district court even said it might be located off the premises of the NSP, but it can't be located physically at the access service provider. Respectfully, that's not in the written description and is not a limitation that should have been imported into the claims. The summary judgment evidence reveals that here's how the authentication actually takes place. The user, that's the customer, has a computer on which there is some software that they have been provided by the access service provider. When they try to log on, that software provides credentials of dedication information to the network service provider. The network service provider has a server which analyzes that information and confirms the real string to determine whether or not that customer is, that user is indeed a customer of one of the dependent access service providers. The network service provider at its local server then compiles that authentication request into what's called radius protocol as described in the specification of the briefs, a certain kind of protocol that's used for authentication. That's done at the network service provider. It then queries using that protocol, a database, and the patent says that database may be located at the NSP and we've already been through that, or centrally or at the ASP. It queries that database which in the case of these defendants happens to be located at their premises. It then receives back the results of that query, which simply says acknowledge or not acknowledge, and it then either grants or denies access to the internet. That's authentication. It's authentication within the plain meaning of the written description and it's authentication that's provided by the network service provider
. Where is it in the written description that justifies the district court's requirement that that database against which the query is sent, certainly to be located at the NSP. And the district court even said it might be located off the premises of the NSP, but it can't be located physically at the access service provider. Respectfully, that's not in the written description and is not a limitation that should have been imported into the claims. The summary judgment evidence reveals that here's how the authentication actually takes place. The user, that's the customer, has a computer on which there is some software that they have been provided by the access service provider. When they try to log on, that software provides credentials of dedication information to the network service provider. The network service provider has a server which analyzes that information and confirms the real string to determine whether or not that customer is, that user is indeed a customer of one of the dependent access service providers. The network service provider at its local server then compiles that authentication request into what's called radius protocol as described in the specification of the briefs, a certain kind of protocol that's used for authentication. That's done at the network service provider. It then queries using that protocol, a database, and the patent says that database may be located at the NSP and we've already been through that, or centrally or at the ASP. It queries that database which in the case of these defendants happens to be located at their premises. It then receives back the results of that query, which simply says acknowledge or not acknowledge, and it then either grants or denies access to the internet. That's authentication. It's authentication within the plain meaning of the written description and it's authentication that's provided by the network service provider. Even if this court were to affirm this requirement adopted by the district court. In response briefly to Mr. Jameson's point about the architecture already being described within the specification, it's critical to remember that this patent and its claims do not claim as inventive the architecture of the user, the network service provider, and the access service provider. That is merely the environment in which the invention operates. What the claims cover is the provision of access information from the access service provider to the user. That's what the claims cover. Not the architecture. Finally, let me address this concept of a coin-determ. The patent says that the term network service provider is a coin term, and defendants attempt to parlay that language of a coin term into a justification for importing additional limitations into the claim under the guise of defining that coin term. If, though, we consult the written specifications specifically on this issue of the coin-determ network service provider. It tells us in column 5, beginning at line 37, it should be noted that while internet terms such as ISP are used throughout this description, the invention is operable with any network or portion of any network. Thus, the term, such as NSP network service provider, has been coined for using the claims to identify similar or analogous systems from the vices. That tells us that the purpose of coined the term network service provider is not to import an additional limitation which narrows that term, but to the contrary, it was coined to broaden coverage of the claim from a claim reading strictly on the internet. To include a claim reading on any network in addition to the internet
. Even if this court were to affirm this requirement adopted by the district court. In response briefly to Mr. Jameson's point about the architecture already being described within the specification, it's critical to remember that this patent and its claims do not claim as inventive the architecture of the user, the network service provider, and the access service provider. That is merely the environment in which the invention operates. What the claims cover is the provision of access information from the access service provider to the user. That's what the claims cover. Not the architecture. Finally, let me address this concept of a coin-determ. The patent says that the term network service provider is a coin term, and defendants attempt to parlay that language of a coin term into a justification for importing additional limitations into the claim under the guise of defining that coin term. If, though, we consult the written specifications specifically on this issue of the coin-determ network service provider. It tells us in column 5, beginning at line 37, it should be noted that while internet terms such as ISP are used throughout this description, the invention is operable with any network or portion of any network. Thus, the term, such as NSP network service provider, has been coined for using the claims to identify similar or analogous systems from the vices. That tells us that the purpose of coined the term network service provider is not to import an additional limitation which narrows that term, but to the contrary, it was coined to broaden coverage of the claim from a claim reading strictly on the internet. To include a claim reading on any network in addition to the internet. For that reason, we would ask this court to reject the defendants' invitation to use the coined term as an excuse for importing unwarranted limitations into these claims, to find that the district court committed error in its construction of network service provider, and further committed error by disregarding the summary judgment evidence that raises the claim. This is a general issue of material fact as to whether authentication, if required, is indeed performed by the network service provider. This is actually addressed in both parties and it's not part of the art of their own information for our assistance. Mr. James, I'm coming forward as well so that you can both pass your judgment. A lot of material in all of the briefs as Mark is confidential and so much so that I was going through it looking ahead to the possibility of our writing opinion. It would pose difficulties to write a coherent opinion without getting inside some of the brackets and disclosing the bracket material high-pip. We wanted to know whether you all were prepared to give us some help with respect to limiting or ideally with knowing the requests that this material could help in confidential mistakes. The only thing that you can take copies and let us write about the way it ever did, if you could take copies of the briefs and highlight that which needs to be protected. Really, it's really hard. The only material in my mails briefs Mark confidential is material produced to us as confidential by the defendants so we have no objection to complete. Since there are multiple to complete, it's probably something that you can't do just on the flies. I think that's why you're on the earth and we will certainly endeavor to go back through the briefs and.
.. to go back. I finally can be in a way of indicating it. Again, we will try and respect what we usually are but it does make it difficult to explain ourselves. We will do so. Thank you