morning this panel is the regular monthly motions panel and we have before us under the number two thousand and seven dash twelve forty a motion for stay pending the resolution of the merits appeal the injunctive order issued by the district court on the twelfth of april and just to be sure we all have the same understanding i take it that we have before us the motion filed april sixth on behalf of linage the response filed on april thirteenth on behalf of arisan and the reply on behalf of one it's filed on april seventeenth i take it that's a complete set of moving papers of three things that correct counsel and in addition we have three sets of evidentiary materials the first of which has exhibits is another which has exhibits number one through fourteen and finally a volume with exhibits designated a through end so three sets of exhibits i take it then there are there are no others talking about the same six sets of printed materials i expect anybody dissent from that speak now all right we'll hear first from  background law everybody knows that full well what would be helpful is to get a better handle on what's really the core of the dispute here i'm still not satisfied i understand your answer to judge sykes question i guess his question was whether it was on a terribly small portion of finance customers who would be affected by the injunction insofar as it relates the eighty patent and he said no wouldn't be a small portion well what sort of proportion would customers over the ones that are including these devices so it's not limited to those places if you look at the last device you to use are one thousand wireless stuff that is why all that's the how can that be when the when the subject in the fortune of a paragraph number three on page four that we're talking about the first word is infringing and join from infringing by using certain listed devices we're talking about one percent of the customer base or the majority of the customers you started out suggesting that we're talking about a majority of the customers because of the way the injunctive order was drafted when we when i look at the injunctive order i'm now doubting that is  right i think i'm back to one percent and i try to like to get some sort of clarity and some perhaps agreement of the parties so that we can proceed on a basis that is rational and not paranoid we'd be happy to do that and the be required under the eighty pat under the same method well that that we believe is the way coworkers construe the place and the jury found we believe that that was the evidence that was present to have to stop that immediately they judge you as that mean that everything that's done under the method of the eighty parent and for those particular items even though they're not wife i used would infringe the eighty have an injunction now state by infringing with respect to customers a new customer calls up and says i want to sign up for a vine and i want this particular device ironclad defense against the charge of inducing infringement so i don't understand the problem if the customer could use it to practice a method but you are not encouraging them to do so or telling them to do so i don't see how you have any risk or liability on the theory of inducing infringer going to the methods that we would be lighted with respect to the customers new customers so the new customers request this kind of i think the actually supplying the device not an infringement thought might be an inducement but it's providing the service to the new customer who has this particular device that's right and the only way you control it is not to provide the device to the new customer in the first place that's right that's what what's the difference between you and arises as to how to construe the  just substantially beyond a few feet and there will be not infringe and we keep to that interpretation because this particular patent was rejected six feet those words were their words in a process to a prosecution just wanted to distinguish themselves from from us certain patterns having to do with cellular and internet on the other here from a local off phone system that didn't operate here to why they need to do the latter well because i thought they were calling my name distinguish their application i agree but but what happened is rather than through the specification and say to the examiner look the specification makes it clear that this was operating in all being made here for the use of the famous words you see with the define localized system and distinguish localized systems from what i'll call nuns localised systems wire system which is defined as if you could be in the sense of course that is restricted to operate within a few days what do you make of the phrase in the sense of a cordless phone if that was already in the specification and in this mid if they simply wanted to remind the examiner of something already in specific they could have said we're asked for in terms of an instruction i don't think there is currently a dispute with respect  that the gateway didn't need to perform the function of voice compression yes arrived at the final address or is that the in the media the address that they're talking about but let's assume for the moment that we go back to bill mailing system where i send a letter to you to p o box number and it goes to the post office that's in washington d c and you have appeal box there and your name and a letter sits there because you don't get it until you open up that watch and pick it up  wrong about the higher to lower what what if we were to hypothetically agree that it has to translate from one protocol to another but it doesn't have to translate from a higher to lower level that is still been the whole series of head qualified statements about possibilities and no we hands are to our specific and simple quantify sharing that partial step in which they so we're in the specifications does that suggest that translation does not involve a translation from one protocol put another that and again and where does it propose to the private board and they can't do that under a directive express and numerous other cases they said let's suppose for the moment that they didn't and in that they raised the one protocol to another issue they say the because i think the answer would be back to the fact and nothing to the instruction that was that was given a translation it's ordinary meaning so you agree that it has to the patent requires change from one protocol do not i don't know protocol i understand that in certain standards worlds in the internet world there are different layers of protocols all other layers of layers that happen or protocol tashan the telephone number is not part of the internet world i think it would just be confusing to introduce this concept of protocol as a substitute for the ordinary meaning convert from something to something else and hear what i the reading dr henry hall our expert explained in response to mr warren's question we're talking here of actually with beings who can look at a whole sequence of characters and say oh i can pick out in a very easy way that's what's in there what we're and it sends it off to something else and that's something else that reads it invites it reads stories or characters that may sit inside sit in five different readers that understand different languages or and that the software helps you to isolate the telephone number in a way that it can be read it reformats of them i understand incorrectly in the back that i think that one reasonable description but but it's very important as dr henry aside at the trial that when you're talking about a computer it's getting it from many real world you know it's hard for the comp translation was incorrectly defined why because the court didn't adopt the only place instruction for opposed to it which is i was hired to lower level protocol conversions a proposition that  table and would that have been a correct construction you know i think i'm not indicate that would have been too narrow not the only way you can do a converting one thing to another if if that had however assuming hypothetically that that was the correct construction that it requires the translation of course the use of look up table was there an argument that the bondage system did not infringe and because it didn't look up th give the second name as well i would call it we format and the designer standard bryson's argument was that that limited kind of process which doesn't involve translation between the domain name and internet address or telephone number and internet address in and of itself was an infringement right that no that goes back to what goes on in the system so the question is whether if somebody extracted from back and your witness said that separate can be a very complicated process to do that but as i understand vonage is argument they're saying that the that their system does only that and that th talks about translating one format of telephone number into another format tell them it doesn't use the language or form but it specifically says and me that can be translated to the telephone number yeah but translated a telephone number can be translated into an internet address what i'm not seeing is where it talks about taking the telephone number one format and translating it into another form and that is eliminating the parental eliminating the one scrubbing  so that it's understandable and that's because if that's true well that's because the specification the invention is about anything you can conceive of as a name and translating it into any of the number of things that you need back in interest on the telephone it doesn't say we can imagine fifteen different kinds of things and fourteen different kinds of things we need to translate into and now we're going to  telephone number a good telephone number no that's wrong converting strip of characters a computer that only recognizes telephone numbers wouldn't recognise because it doesn't speak telephone number language it's weeks in the language which the much maligned or from washington to new york and there are stops along the way i'm going to new york city what is the destination address for me when i'm on a train and  which is not something that you the individual are designated by something that machine is detonated but even if that were the example that would not need from a just definition as you just identified what it can't be limited to under this language of playing twenty is something on the packet that vonage is only position it has to be limited to something on the packet network claimed twenty by its terms as  their destination address includes the p s t and in point of the call the person that you want to want to talk to i think that that's actually a nudge to show why they don't have a substantial question on destination address because it would contradict claim twenty itself also that the specification example in our sixteen lines thirty five to forty five  column sixteen that's part of that little ten description it refers to the top it was just a natural to describe the single process from the color to the end point as involving one car to the gateway a second from the gateway to