hours are five minutes form of time this case involves a claim for damages for two very important features of apple's computer systems the  spotlight feature and the time machine feature there's a third important feature that's also involved but the damage calculation only involved the damages for those to the court below after a jury verdict finding infringement held as a matter of law dismissed the clinic i am and held as a matter of law that there was no infringement the sole ground given by the court for dismissing the claims with respect to two of the cover flow feature and whether the cover photo feature is infringing under the doctor requests but with respect to the court's decision on even three one three and it's in its opinion it didn't relate it didn't talk about  that these pattern these patterns and these features spotlight and time change advertised by apple as a primary reason to buy the software they were said  reviewers to be the primary reason to buy the software they were said by users because apple took service that these were the most important reasons why the software was purchased so what's our best case for you to establish  i want to be clear though that there is more than just circumstantial evidence here there's actual flat out documentary proof that apple used apple prepared to screen ha simply to point out that if a court separated on the four to seven which the system's path from the method patents there was a standalone damage calculation for the court to consider in that case that was all we're trying again i'm more focused on the indirect infringement and the use of customers so what's your best evidence is there to establish that there was a direct infringement in connection by customers in  out he said well at some point a sixteen a seventeen he says well that's it so clear it inconceivable that they didn't use that then why didn't m w find the person to bring on the stand and tell us if that happened so gave and both and i for a i and innocent the court talked about the importance of looking at whether or not the allege infringer was instructing customers to use and how to use it and this is important also for our direct infringement case because these instruction manuals contain screenshots of what apple was doing and from those screenshots alone you can tell two things one you can tell that apple itself had infringed direct infringement and you can show that apple was instructing infringement on behalf of the users who couldn't promise of two hundred million dollars d the development and those were essential steps but the damage an expert even though the judge never let the question of indirect go to the jury as i recall the record the damages expert in arriving at his calculation that just they were did not limit himself to just after he was talking about customer use as well he was talking about the revenues from customer use but you only get the revenues for post reviews if you can develop it and you can only develop an advertiser if you test it and use it what i'm saying is that the testing and the using by apple was an essential step in getting that customer revenue so whether you're talking about apple juice in terms of direct infringement or claims and i just want to just first second i just want to point out some of the screenshots that are in in the record at a four sixty and a five seventy two a six four five four these show in one place each of them infringement because they show each of the elements of infringement under the two to seven claim thirteen if you if you go on and you look at some of the manuals for example the leopard manual and if you look at seven nine nine three one together with six four three eight what you see is a combination all the screenshots of the steps by which they practice each of the steps of that invention so this is not a question of merely circumstantial evidence alone think the circumstantial evidence is strong this is evidence of actual use by apple and actual instruction by apple of that use by custom and connect just mr lee as i understand it take issue with if we're talking about indirect here you've also got seven it doesn't just say using spotlight while you send and receive emails or having sent receive emails and that's enough your honor will see that there's about six or seven requirements the last one includes having a products is not time work it demonstrates that the at the very top of that page or under it says the default setting is by bruce and the very screenshots that mirror world has cited to the court hearing their got his testimony which he goes through limitation by limitation and says spotlight does it do you can you point me to the testimony in the record in the record to establish what you're saying here and turns them i guess you disagree trial that's why to go back and look at those citations to dr levy it's all stated incapability this could happens when you do this it does happen and it's not a coincidence you are because he is trying to present a case that would get our full seventy two billion dollars revenue base because sales the products would infringe met the claims but sales of products don't infringe method things you have to go through the three steps that i went through so that's why is phrased in that way then your honor second point is this if you actually go to the manuals that they say teach the the method they don't they teach the opposite  manual on claim thirteen of the true seven there are a lot of claims flying around and saying thirteen of the treaty seven the default mechanism would not infringe you could bypass the default mechanism and set them chronologically and then it would be closer to that plane and substring but this is where acco and impasse are critical they're saying that if the manual describes five different ways to do it one might infringe for don't you can't you cannot infer infringement in that circumstance says you know mr leo to interrupt you because you argue very eloquently between you and judge pers the court to do what this court did which is look at look at two things look at the legal theory that was pursued below and to say that it was correct that the legal theory was insufficient and now look at the two that is exactly yes often and i've been i've been and i've got it on both faces the answer is for sure yes and i do think that the statement in the past that if it would be so easy to prove you would put someone on the stand to prove it i think for one of the last when i was going to make any claim thirteen of the two to seven patent is that it's not so easy to prove if you look at that sub stream groups bypass the groups and then went in and bypass the default mechanism in chronologically organized it's not that hard and if they did it would have had substantial implications for absent apple to induce and the global tech d s u specific content are important really to step back from their wallets presentation it is an argument that we have we are offering circumstantial evidence that maybe some customers and friends there are circumstantial evidence that maybe someone was induced but we suggested to you in the can't and the on bank portion of the opinion requires more it requires that you have a specific intent and loose and someone got on the stand and said i performed all the steps i did each one of them i directly in friends and by the way my wife did as well and if you follow this set of instructions they don't need to find you don't really need a body right i mean it's clear the circumstantial evidence of this your honor i think that circumstantial evidence is sufficient but then the question becomes what does this court said about the level of circumstantial evidence and what use what the court has said is it needs to be circumstantial evidence that uses a product with necessarily in french or following molecular on there is only one way to solve rubik's cube so if you followed the solution that's all it would have the one and there are three critical points the first is that it's not a single limitation it's three limitations in every circumstance which were important to allowance and they are displaying the cursor adding the case for cursor move without clicking have a touch and accident and the second point is while they claim today that they did a functional a result test they conceded below they hadn't and if a court considers the evidence cited in the reply brief on this issue you'll find substantial differences you have to explain why the differences are in substantial not just to a curse or a pointer but to a claim limitation that requires display moving without flicking touching and they have to explain why proved actual use when you look at the screen shots and they don't address the screen shots at all and that's because those screen shots are absolute rules of actual use now what about mr lee's point though on the fact that just o two lines eleven to fourteen and also on a fifteen sixty five fifteen seventy and fifteen seventy two the testimony is that when you do these searches the within the group is all time or is also undisputed that the mainstream is time warner you have both the mainstream and the such dreams time ordered that would be evidence before the jury i don't think there would have been a basis for the jury to conclude to the contrary there certainly that apple had actually can do some people to use these features they apple call these the most revolutionary development in modern operating system history that was mr johns they said this is the most important reason to buy the software the reviewers said spotlight is worth the price of the upgrade alone the reviewers repeatedly said this is these time warp time machine and spotlight are the two most important features the analysis was that thirty two percent of the people who bought leopard bought it entirely because of time machine that testimony was that twenty three percent of the people the highest number of any of the features acquired tiger the most important feature in tiger was spotlight this was the evidence this is how they advertise this is how they promoted it this is how they but that was and he described spotlight as the most important feature and he demonstrated it and he demonstrated in connection with e mail the idea that we didn't prove specific examples of actual use simply is not consistent with the record and of course all this was in front of a jury now in addition to that you have the fact that the screenshot demonstrates not only that they are using it themselves but they are instructing inducing other people to use it when mr jobs gets up and says this is our most important feature this revolutionize of the way we use computers that is an inducement to people to use of when atc when apple advertises it as the most important and feature that is inducement to use it when apple instructs them to do it that isn't too smart to use it and when reviewers and surveys show that customers have accepted that and use it and it is not possible if you look at the survey data their own survey data as to how many people you spotlight and how many people use mail they're both way over fifty percent you cannot have somebody that isn't arithmetically impossible under their own survey evidence to have people who news in those computers and we're not at the same time both of them using spotlight and mail so that evidence there is absolutely crystal clear and the other things about the that is this issue about the time sequence of the substrings the judge didn't even get into that if you look at what the judge did the judge dismissed this on the grounds that people were using it now if you get into the evidence it's absolutely clear that if they use that they infringed but the judge dismissed it blow not on the grounds that it didn't friends because