Mai, setup of an infrastructure. Mark the distance should be 340 mm wide. Halfway to U.iktly. Up here. And to you. Next case for argument is 151448 site update solutions versus CES core. Okay. Check off ski. Yeah, thank you. Please the court yard, psychology, all hastings on behalf of a new egg. Your honors, we stand before you. The second time here post octane where the Supreme Court and octane change the 285 standard. To be a less rigid. I think we understand that. Why is the claim construction frivolous there? Why is the claim, why is the claim construction frivolous? Yeah. Well, the court found that the constructions in the eastern district of Texas were frivolous. And then as we moved from Northern District of California in this case, the court found that the constructions were not entirely frivolous or not entirely objectively unreasonable. And so given the lower standard as opalous technologies is stated, the considerably lower standard that we have in octane
. That the court here used the exact same language from the first opinion from Brooks furniture and used that language and repeated it again. And what we have in octane is this less rigid. Well, I think it's a question. I don't think the district court applied the wrong standard here. The question is whether applying the right standard, he reached the wrong result. And that depends on whether whether his determination that the claim construction position in California was not frivolous was correct or incorrect. So you're on, let me answer that in two parts, if you have five may. Two, I would say under the high mark, where there can be an error of law. And then there's the clear error of the application of the facts or evidence. The error of law here is the standard that was applied here in the Northern District of California to those constructions was not entirely frivolous. Not completely, the language I have is not entirely unreasonable or frivolous, not completely without support, not entirely frivolous or objectively unreasonable. That was entirely completely, that's a zero tolerant standard. That's looking for in the. I want to address the question I'm asking you about. Was the claim construction frivolous or not? And the answer is yes. As we've pointed out our brief, the constructions plural were frivolous in and of themselves. There as, as, as, as octane points out with respect to its standard in the lack of substantive substantive strength of the position, we have a situation here where there was no support for the legal position of a special purpose computer with no algorithm. In fact, each one of those positions was shot down by the district court as a legal position
. So we have the absence of legal support. Well, we're only here because they lost. I mean, this, that's a given in all of these cases where attorney's fees clearly the party is lost. And the district court clearly saw some distinction between what they offered up in Texas and what they offered up here. He found that distinction to not be relevant in terms of a finding of violation, but he says they added some more stuff, right? He understood and as I read his opinion, he said, you know, there's this in-way cats case and there was some ambiguity as to how far out they had has to be construed. So I can see where there might have been some confusion in the law and therefore this isn't sufficient. Well, I was the district court wrong. Why did he abuse this discretion? Right. And, and again, the district court was, as we stated, the district court in our papers, the district court was wrong because we have a situation where we never had any support for the special purpose computer no algorithm position. We got to the reply brief in California after almost two and a half years of litigation. Goss was cited, a search for and located in northern district of Illinois opinion that doesn't support the position. In fact, the district court confirmed it doesn't support the position that was propounded by the plaintiff. And then there was a cats remand from the central district of California opinion that somehow it was a burden shifting position to the plaintiff, to the defendant's excuse me. With respect to we have to do to provide evidence that this is not a general purpose computer. There was an obfuscation of whether we're asking for a special purpose computer or a general purpose computer. And that's exactly what the plaintiff was doing before dismissal. Seems to me that the issue here is that there is a special purpose computer but that without additional software, it doesn't perform the functions that are described here. And that's basically as I understand it, your position
. In other words, there's a special purpose computer because the GCI software is part of that, maybe other things in it. But that alone is not sufficient to perform the functions here. Isn't that your position? So you're on respectfully that's not our position. It's not your position. No, in fact, our position would be at best we have general purpose computer components, whether it's a CGI script, a website database, a form. Those are general purpose computers. They do don't do anything special. And then there is no algorithm. And as this court has made clear, frankly, in the in the eon versus 18 team mobility case, there's really two ways to look at it. Yeah, I'm we're familiar with the on didn't eon come after this though. The eon did come out first, but I mean the court felt the need and eon to clarify a lot of what had been going on in the case. So I can't we look at that and say look, this preceded eon. There was I won't say confusion. That might be too strong, but there was some give and take in the case. It's clear they lose. They were wrong. But it's not sufficient to make it. I'm not a cripple
. I would suggest that eon is a great statement over arching statement of what the law was as we've provided our brief the law from aristocrat blackboard on forward. I don't think there was any lack of clarity in what the law was. We had a cats exception. And if you didn't meet the cats exception, you needed to aid an algorithm to be a special purpose computer, whether in pros or in steps. It doesn't have to be source code. No one suggesting that, but that's what you needed in this situation. And what we had and we presented that to plaintiff throughout this process. And there was no effort made. Yes, there was additional computer structures general structures added, but those general structures were not special structures. And then we had a reach for goss and cats, which don't support the position. And in fact, I don't think this depends on an interpretation of the cases. I think it depends on interpretation of the claims and specification here. And a determination of whether the construction for which they were arguing was frivolous in the light of the facts of this case. And you may want to argue this is, you know, depending on case authority and things like that, which is fine, but you're not in my mind addressing the heart of the issue when you do that. And focusing on the heart issue, which is the aggregate of defects, which you can see on page 25 of our brief, which are the factual defects in the claim. You know, we have a demonstrative in there that shows all of the defects in one claim with eight means plus function elements that was asserted by a experienced patent litigant occasion, which should be a factor under it, obtain. And an experienced patent litigation council, the Goldstein-Lipsky firm, would actually been before this court on means plus function elements and actually found to be indefinite, you know, in these are the aristocrats in 2010 in the brown case. And they should have known the law
. So all of these factors that you sit out in your brief, I mean, the court was well aware of those and the court had to endure the arguments and probably part of the frustration that you cite in your brief. And the court decided that this was not enough. What is it that why should you place that in abuse and discretion? You know, I think it works both ways, doesn't it? It gives us a great difference to the district court, both in establishing a turning fees and also in denying a turning fees. I agree with you, Your Honor. And that's why I do think what's ultimately important is this aggregation of defects. However, what is also important with respect to that abuse of discretion as you go through the opinion of the district court judge is applying the standard throughout, which is effectively the objectively baseless standard that was thrown out by the Supreme Court in in octane. And, in fact, perhaps heightened in the sense of not entirely or not without foundation or not completely looking for the absence of any support. That's not the test in octane was a position that simply stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigation position, givering the governing law and facts of the case. And instead what we see throughout this opinion from the summary on page 13, A13, to the conclusion by this court on A32 is that we have language saying not entire. So we were fervilous in Texas. Can we understand what the district court there was also saying and the district court here has has experience in pan cases. Yes. And the judge here has quite a bit of experience in pan cases that maybe he gets he gets other cases that also have blunders and are based on the long legal theory. And this does not stand out as totally exceptional in his experience and the court's experience. And again, I would suggest to your honors that with a case with one patent, one claim, eight needs was function elements. We're not talking about the multiple claims we just heard from the prior panel. That a case where a judge says positions are frivolous, highly problematic. They strain credibility
. They're difficult to make logical sense of. They didn't follow the law. In fact, there was no support for their position. Shot down in fact, tech sec, which was brought up the first time when we were here on appeal. This court on remand, shot down tech sec as support that that can't meet the considerably lower octane standard. If this doesn't meet the considerably lower octane standard, I'm not sure what does meet the consider even under the abusive discretion standard when we're looking for an error of law or clear. The application of the evidence. You interior better. May I please the court, John Edmonds, for the appellate site update solutions. Let me tell you what the problem is. Okay. I read the specification here. I see the functions described in the claims. I have a very hard time finding any structure here that even arguably performs the functions. What specification does, it talks about the GCI software and so on and so forth. But obviously, specialized software is needed to perform these functions. And the specification says that. If you look at column 3 line 63 by augmenting or replacing existing agents and manual registration methods with specialized tools on the local website
. And then it talks about the software tools again and again and again. But it never says what the software tools are. It never sets forth an algorithm either mathematically or in prose. And it just totally leaves it up in the air. And the problem is it seems to me even under the case law as it existed as of the time that this suit was filed. It was clear that you needed some structure to perform the functions. And I don't think that referring to that structure is specialized software or software tools satisfies that requirement. So that's the problem I'm having so helping. All right. Well, first of all, we didn't appeal to claim construction. As far as the indefinite is go there is no. But you didn't appeal it. But the question here is a district court said it's not wholly unreasonable. And if we agree with the district court that it's not wholly unreasonable, it'll probably high mark tells us that we should affirm it. But the question is, is this is this frivolous? Is it wholly unreasonable? I'm suggesting to you that the description of the structure here is so vague and indefinite that it can't possibly potentially satisfy the requirements of having some structure in the claims that would perform the function. Because it just refers to what is software tools or specialized software. That's the problem. As, as, as, as, site update read this and I would refer the court to the declaration of our expert, Dr
. Lavian, who was submitted along with the claim construction. Our, our understanding of this technology, his understanding of technology in the context of the patent was that these tools that is talking about are the CGI script and the form which would be a robot. It's a robot's text file and, and the database and those are what augment the server. So we had a, what, what ultimately this was was a factual dispute where there were experts on both sides. One was saying that this, this structure performs the function. This structure is linked to the function. Another expert who said this structure isn't, doesn't perform, it isn't linked. And ultimately and it, it's, it's reflected in the court's opinion. The court provided their experts. The GCI program and these, and these other things can't perform the functions that are described in the claim. It needs additional software, no? That was the holding of the court. The, what I'm saying is that site update was reasonable in that our expert, and I think his qualifications were not challenged. His opinions were not challenged. And in dark bearer gave clear opinions that this software was sufficient. Where does he say that? Could you, Sherman? Sure. His, his declaration is that 1590 through 1619 of the, of the appendix. So, I mean, it's, it's, the thing is it's, it's lengthy. He has, he has a lengthy detailed analysis and he talks about what, what, what, where, where do I look here for him to, where he says that that structure, the GCI programs, et cetera, was sufficient
. Okay. I would, I would look at the analysis of means for enabling or disabling, which is at 1607. 1607? Okay. What paragraph? All right. Here. You know, let, let me do this because I don't have that index as well as I have the specification. What, what I would refer you to is we cited in our brief, which I think is probably a better place to look because it's, it's quoting from his declaration. It's also quoting from the batman. I have it right here in front of me. So, for example, it at column six lines, 48 to 49 says that the installation of these tools places this. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Yes, sir. 48 to 49. Okay. Yeah. So, Pedro, we look at our couch. 153. 153
. 153. Okay. So, the tools place the CGI scripts, database tables and HTML forms on the server. It then says that each element, I think we say referring to those exact what was named, performs a specific function. Yeah, but I don't see that saying that the only software tools are the CGI scripts, database tables and HTML forms. Well, if you read, I mean, it's a, it's a detailed specification, but when it's talking about each element, performance specific function, it's talking about those specific things that preceded. And that I think that's even made more clear in column seven lines 18 through 22 says the users provided with an HTML form and a CGI script here and after referred to a CGI program in order to configure the enabled and table of fields files. That's where you get into configuration. So, you know, there are other references here and I've read and I don't, you know, I can't quote them out of memory, but there are numerous places in the spec that Dr. Lavian relied on in terms of saying that the user uses the scripts, the tables are the database and the forms to perform these specific functions. And the opening function, the creating function, the identifying function, the transmitting function is different. That has, that's the web server and the CGI program itself. But, you know, that's where we had a difference because the specification teaches that these things that, that new egg contains were our general, the specification teaches that they perform specific functions. And that was fundamentally Dr. Lavian's position that one of ordinary skilling art would also understand just like the specification teaches that this software when installed on a server performed certain functions. And that's where we saw the special purpose computer. Now, the court has disagreed with that. The court said that additional, additional disclosure is necessary and on, you know, means for creating the court instead of referring to the CGI script, the database and the form, the court referred to a disclosed server algorithm. But if you read the spec, the disclosed server algorithm performed the same functions that we were talking about in terms of what we were calling a CGI script, a database and a form. So, you know, it's not just something where there was a difference in views, a reason difference in views that was based on the specification and based upon a reasoned expert's opinion as to whether, whether this software can, is sufficient for these functions or whether... Yes, they're mentioned in the prior work, yes. Yeah, so this is saying we're coming up with some new software that would enable you to perform the functions that are described here. Now, the claim has to be read as a whole. It's not the CGI program is not the point of novelty. And what this patent is primarily directed to is the local performance of these functions. It says, for example, in California, the process has begun by a stimulus set of search engine, update software tools to the website owner. Those software tools are new kinds of software, right, that enable the functions here to be performed. I think the fact that this is being done... No, it's not. Because what I may misunderstand your question, but what I'm trying to say is that what it's saying is that these are now local functions that are being performed on the server. So it's taking a burden off of the crawler, it's allowing all kinds of benefits for the website owner. So a CGI script was not new, but it's use in this method and the apparatus here with a claim, that's
. But if you read the spec, the disclosed server algorithm performed the same functions that we were talking about in terms of what we were calling a CGI script, a database and a form. So, you know, it's not just something where there was a difference in views, a reason difference in views that was based on the specification and based upon a reasoned expert's opinion as to whether, whether this software can, is sufficient for these functions or whether... Yes, they're mentioned in the prior work, yes. Yeah, so this is saying we're coming up with some new software that would enable you to perform the functions that are described here. Now, the claim has to be read as a whole. It's not the CGI program is not the point of novelty. And what this patent is primarily directed to is the local performance of these functions. It says, for example, in California, the process has begun by a stimulus set of search engine, update software tools to the website owner. Those software tools are new kinds of software, right, that enable the functions here to be performed. I think the fact that this is being done... No, it's not. Because what I may misunderstand your question, but what I'm trying to say is that what it's saying is that these are now local functions that are being performed on the server. So it's taking a burden off of the crawler, it's allowing all kinds of benefits for the website owner. So a CGI script was not new, but it's use in this method and the apparatus here with a claim, that's... That is new. So I'm not saying that there was not a robust text didn't exist before. I'm not saying there were not CGI script before, but their use in this fashion is what is new. Maybe their use in this fashion is new, but in order to be used in this fashion, you need new software, which is repeatedly referred to here, but not described in any way that's specific or provides an algorithm. I don't know if the District Court held that. I mean, the District Court said that... It's not a question of what... The finding of non-frivolity is sustainable. Well, I think the District Court's finding a non-frivolity. You know, in each instance, where the District Court criticized, and the Court of the District Court, in each instance, the District Court provided further detailed analysis as to why there..
... That is new. So I'm not saying that there was not a robust text didn't exist before. I'm not saying there were not CGI script before, but their use in this fashion is what is new. Maybe their use in this fashion is new, but in order to be used in this fashion, you need new software, which is repeatedly referred to here, but not described in any way that's specific or provides an algorithm. I don't know if the District Court held that. I mean, the District Court said that... It's not a question of what... The finding of non-frivolity is sustainable. Well, I think the District Court's finding a non-frivolity. You know, in each instance, where the District Court criticized, and the Court of the District Court, in each instance, the District Court provided further detailed analysis as to why there... There was a basis for each of the positions that Side Update took. So they... And it talked about that there was a dispute, and the District Court said that Side Update misunderstood the level of detail. Well, that was a dispute over whether the details were there. And that's a thing. We have a different understanding as to whether this software performs these functions without any additional teaching, and the Court held that it required additional teaching, which had added certain steps in an algorithm. And we respect that, but our view was certainly reasonable, and it was based upon a reason of view, the patent based upon what the patent says that these functions perform. So that's... You know, I don't think in every case one side is wrong, and in almost every claim construction battle, one side is wrong, and that's not the touchstone. I think what the Court should focus on is that, you know, in the TechSek case we cited, and the Court said, well, they don't have enough detailed pros to fall under TechSek. Well, we've accepted that, but there's a factual, reasonable factual dispute over whether there was sufficient detailed pros in the specification to fall under TechSek to where identifying the software itself as opposed to some type of steps in an algorithm would be sufficient. It was..
. There was a basis for each of the positions that Side Update took. So they... And it talked about that there was a dispute, and the District Court said that Side Update misunderstood the level of detail. Well, that was a dispute over whether the details were there. And that's a thing. We have a different understanding as to whether this software performs these functions without any additional teaching, and the Court held that it required additional teaching, which had added certain steps in an algorithm. And we respect that, but our view was certainly reasonable, and it was based upon a reason of view, the patent based upon what the patent says that these functions perform. So that's... You know, I don't think in every case one side is wrong, and in almost every claim construction battle, one side is wrong, and that's not the touchstone. I think what the Court should focus on is that, you know, in the TechSek case we cited, and the Court said, well, they don't have enough detailed pros to fall under TechSek. Well, we've accepted that, but there's a factual, reasonable factual dispute over whether there was sufficient detailed pros in the specification to fall under TechSek to where identifying the software itself as opposed to some type of steps in an algorithm would be sufficient. It was... It was a reasonable dispute. It was a position to where the plaintiff fell short, but a position that wasn't without supporting the specification. I'd also point out on the indefiniteness, you know, New Eggs first claim construction briefing in in in Texas did not claim that these elements were indefinite. So they're saying that will you plaintiff have acted frivolously because you didn't realize your claim elements were indefinite when they they didn't either, and it's their job as a defendant to point those kinds of things out. So if the defendant doesn't initially point it out, I think it's more difficult to say that the plaintiff should be faulted for not... Not led to that in California to change your construction. There. And Adam, but two. Well, I'm serious. In Texas, the claim constructions, I think, were in artful. I think if you read them as a whole, I think they were trying to argue, the arguments were making a day, but it was not well written. And in Texas, there was not, so there was a, a mark on brief, there was a response. The response pointed out deficiencies in the plaintiff's constructions. The case was transferred before a reply came due, so the plaintiff had no ability to correct those. When it went to California, there's essentially a reset, and the plaintiff said we're correcting these issues. We're coming forth with more structure in our constructions
. It was a reasonable dispute. It was a position to where the plaintiff fell short, but a position that wasn't without supporting the specification. I'd also point out on the indefiniteness, you know, New Eggs first claim construction briefing in in in Texas did not claim that these elements were indefinite. So they're saying that will you plaintiff have acted frivolously because you didn't realize your claim elements were indefinite when they they didn't either, and it's their job as a defendant to point those kinds of things out. So if the defendant doesn't initially point it out, I think it's more difficult to say that the plaintiff should be faulted for not... Not led to that in California to change your construction. There. And Adam, but two. Well, I'm serious. In Texas, the claim constructions, I think, were in artful. I think if you read them as a whole, I think they were trying to argue, the arguments were making a day, but it was not well written. And in Texas, there was not, so there was a, a mark on brief, there was a response. The response pointed out deficiencies in the plaintiff's constructions. The case was transferred before a reply came due, so the plaintiff had no ability to correct those. When it went to California, there's essentially a reset, and the plaintiff said we're correcting these issues. We're coming forth with more structure in our constructions. So my colleague said that there was a finding that those claim constructions were frivolous. That's not correct. That's not what the District Court said. He said I would have likely found them frivolous had they not changed if he did not say they were frivolous. But, you know, I'd also point out, look at New Eggs alternative constructions for these claim elements that it claims that our position was frivolous. It's alternative constructions are not that far from our constructions. They have, they have a web server or CGI script. You know, we're not saying they're frivolous. The parties have positions. Parties have reasonable positions. They're, they're, they're supported by experts. They're supported by the service. The questions include additional software. Is beyond the CGI and the robots, whatever. New Eggs alternative construction for, means for transmitting is a website server. That's it. It's on appendix. I say the court in its opinion goes through the parties proposed constructions
. So my colleague said that there was a finding that those claim constructions were frivolous. That's not correct. That's not what the District Court said. He said I would have likely found them frivolous had they not changed if he did not say they were frivolous. But, you know, I'd also point out, look at New Eggs alternative constructions for these claim elements that it claims that our position was frivolous. It's alternative constructions are not that far from our constructions. They have, they have a web server or CGI script. You know, we're not saying they're frivolous. The parties have positions. Parties have reasonable positions. They're, they're, they're supported by experts. They're supported by the service. The questions include additional software. Is beyond the CGI and the robots, whatever. New Eggs alternative construction for, means for transmitting is a website server. That's it. It's on appendix. I say the court in its opinion goes through the parties proposed constructions. The New Eggs proposed construction for means for parsing the alternative construction. If it wasn't found indefinite, it was a website server which parses a CGI script. Not very far from the constructions that site update was proposing in this case. These were proposed if it wasn't indefinite. If, if it wasn't, but, but, but again, for them to say they're not admitting that their constructions are frivolous. This is the same thing that apply for means for updating. They're not admitting their constructions are frivolous yet they're alternative constructions are very similar to what ours were and are based upon the same concept that the CGI script would be sufficient programming to where you don't need additional algorithmic disclosure. So again, I don't think they can have it both ways to say that they, they've taken all these positions and now just because we've lost, we should be held under a higher standard. You know, this patent was, it's been, these claims have been allowed twice. It was allowed once by the patent officer issued. They were, they were reissued. And, you know, the examiner had no problem with finding structure and the specification for these, for these elements. I think that, you know, that adds to the reasonfulness of this. But I think fundamentally, New Eggs has not alleged clear air. So we're just looking at whether, whether the district court abuse its discretion. And that's a very high standard. I think this district court is very, is very experienced. This district court in the Northern California is very no nonsense
. The New Eggs proposed construction for means for parsing the alternative construction. If it wasn't found indefinite, it was a website server which parses a CGI script. Not very far from the constructions that site update was proposing in this case. These were proposed if it wasn't indefinite. If, if it wasn't, but, but, but again, for them to say they're not admitting that their constructions are frivolous. This is the same thing that apply for means for updating. They're not admitting their constructions are frivolous yet they're alternative constructions are very similar to what ours were and are based upon the same concept that the CGI script would be sufficient programming to where you don't need additional algorithmic disclosure. So again, I don't think they can have it both ways to say that they, they've taken all these positions and now just because we've lost, we should be held under a higher standard. You know, this patent was, it's been, these claims have been allowed twice. It was allowed once by the patent officer issued. They were, they were reissued. And, you know, the examiner had no problem with finding structure and the specification for these, for these elements. I think that, you know, that adds to the reasonfulness of this. But I think fundamentally, New Eggs has not alleged clear air. So we're just looking at whether, whether the district court abuse its discretion. And that's a very high standard. I think this district court is very, is very experienced. This district court in the Northern California is very no nonsense. And the district court did a, has done a detailed analysis twice. And the district court heard every argument that New Egg made. The hearing on this last, that I think two hours, they finally had to just kind of send everybody home because the court was closing. And the district court has heard all of this and has, has decided its judgment that this is not an exceptional case, stands off the other. That, as the court said, octane goes both ways. And the district court has, there's been no error here. The district court's decision should be, should be affirmed. Its discretion should be appealed. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. George Icafesie again for a comment, New Egg. With regard to indefiniteness, we can look at A994. We did a certain East Texas that the terms were indefinite. So that's actually not correct statement that we took the position of the terms were indefinite. And in fact, with respect to those terms that were identified as, as, as, as your honor pointed out, for the means for transmitting and means for parsing, we argued those terms were indefinite. We provided an alternative construction given the burden on indefiniteness. But we said that does not meet the test. That is not sufficient
. And the district court did a, has done a detailed analysis twice. And the district court heard every argument that New Egg made. The hearing on this last, that I think two hours, they finally had to just kind of send everybody home because the court was closing. And the district court has heard all of this and has, has decided its judgment that this is not an exceptional case, stands off the other. That, as the court said, octane goes both ways. And the district court has, there's been no error here. The district court's decision should be, should be affirmed. Its discretion should be appealed. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. George Icafesie again for a comment, New Egg. With regard to indefiniteness, we can look at A994. We did a certain East Texas that the terms were indefinite. So that's actually not correct statement that we took the position of the terms were indefinite. And in fact, with respect to those terms that were identified as, as, as, as your honor pointed out, for the means for transmitting and means for parsing, we argued those terms were indefinite. We provided an alternative construction given the burden on indefiniteness. But we said that does not meet the test. That is not sufficient. It's a generic structure. And it does not meet the test because the algorithm is not there. The fact that the patent had been reissued is in some sense of no consequence. It issued in 1999 in a, you know, a pre-WMS gaming situation. And it reissued in 2009 as Blackboard and Aristocrat came to be. And we didn't even have the compute of the PTO's examination guidelines with respect to the means for function coming after the reissue issued. You know, with respect to what your honor focused on on the CGI scripts. I mean, that's the exact problem. These are generic software components. That the district work said it would likely be found frivolous if they maintained just that position. Because six out of the eight terms all they did until we got to California and say, hey, CGI script, software without providing more, even though this specification has a lot more detail and a lot more information in it. And just adding later website database, a website server, which could be my home computer sending information back and forth, tells me nothing. You know, that can't be a routine patent case. We take on the expert and the expert, Dr. Ladian. I mean, this is a red herring with respect to whether we had to doubt the expert. We weren't going to a jury trial here and trying to exclude evidence before our jury. This would be our fat finder
. It's a generic structure. And it does not meet the test because the algorithm is not there. The fact that the patent had been reissued is in some sense of no consequence. It issued in 1999 in a, you know, a pre-WMS gaming situation. And it reissued in 2009 as Blackboard and Aristocrat came to be. And we didn't even have the compute of the PTO's examination guidelines with respect to the means for function coming after the reissue issued. You know, with respect to what your honor focused on on the CGI scripts. I mean, that's the exact problem. These are generic software components. That the district work said it would likely be found frivolous if they maintained just that position. Because six out of the eight terms all they did until we got to California and say, hey, CGI script, software without providing more, even though this specification has a lot more detail and a lot more information in it. And just adding later website database, a website server, which could be my home computer sending information back and forth, tells me nothing. You know, that can't be a routine patent case. We take on the expert and the expert, Dr. Ladian. I mean, this is a red herring with respect to whether we had to doubt the expert. We weren't going to a jury trial here and trying to exclude evidence before our jury. This would be our fat finder. And quite frankly, we filed a Surrey plot after they filed the opposition of the expert in their apply. They filed an opposition or they filed the expert declaration. And we filed a surrey apply pointing out the defects in this expert's opinion. And this happened just two weeks before the Markman hearing. We had a tech tutorial coming. We had the Markman hearing coming. So we did what we couldn't point out in the surrey apply. The defects and those defects are significant. Council spoke about the means for enabling, which I'll note are not, is not in his breach before this court. And the defects in the expert report is that the law that the expert relied on in his report was the law provided to him by council, which is the law that the district court has found actually had no support for their opinion. You know, we see that the expert's declaration. And in that long lengthy declaration, if we look at the means for enabling, there's no linkage, no linkage conducted in that expert's declaration. In fact, I opened up what council's pointing to and you asked about the expert's declaration in a 1610. At the end, paragraph 79, he just throw away sentence after citing many paragraphs of all the specification, which paragraphs they could have included as arguing their algorithms with respect to these elements, but they didn't both in Texas and in California. And just the expert says, oh, somehow this is somehow linked without telling us how it's linked. So there's an absence of linkage, both by the party and the expert. And that's why you don't see the experts opinion cited once by the district court in either opinion, or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration, or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration or the expert's declaration and take your honors. Thank you