to claim terms using the four four six patent as an example the district court committed to errors that repeated first the district court result factual disputes regarding the comparison of the accused products to the properly construed claims favor of the movement and second the district court credited the expert testimony of the movement for the expert testimony of the non the if we look at the four four six patent what we find is that facts about error correction delay and dedicated resources turned into summary judgment as to whether syria uses voice input now the district court first construed voice  require that voice input travels over a voice channel setting aside that air for a second the district court then in the summary judgment context at the record of page a fifty five asked what is a moisture move onto your plane construction argument ok so the four four six claim construction the district court concluded that has i just mentioned that the voice channel limitation should be and this is a quote from the page a voice channel limitation should be included quote should be except limitation should be included in claims wanted thirty one so we weren't really considering voice input which is fairly plain in ordinary meaning words but deciding get to that question for me there is a preliminary question of what the term voiced animal means as it is used in specification yes yes it's a understand so voice channel is there's not a definition provided voice channel but there are a lot of examples provided of how voice is provided to the speech recognition you let me offer you is a as a working hypothesis is one way of looking at this question you could say well the voice channel is not meant to suggest any particular type of technology it is meant to be mean simply the channel over which voice i traveling the voice signal is traveling at a particular time yes and it may be that certain protocols can carry with us in a way that makes it much more suitable for communication  just brush i think that's a very reasoned and proper approach to what a voice channel is in light of the specification of this patent there's no discussion certainly discussion limited to the characteristics the district court required and in fact very much in line with with what you are just said the patent describes using devices that have voice capabilities such as a p d f or or a handheld computer and if those devices use their voice capabilities then they're simply transmitting voice over a channel there is no requirements as a district court put on it for there to be the characteristics of setting up a phone call with two participants in fact millisecond delay and dedicated resources that those requirements simply don't make sense in the context of this part why do you agree that claim line at least if not claim thirty five does require through separate channel one channel a first communication path from which data the voice will be sent and a second channel first a second communication path over which the data will be sent back to the user certainly separate paths a first the first communication pattern a separate communication path that doesn't necessarily require a path is not necessarily a channel but there's certainly got to be two different paths a path where voice goes to a voice recognition server and a path where the what is called the symbolic data file comes back to the comes back to the device but what your honor is noting is that the claims use different language and require different things at different times claim twenty one requires a voice communication channel claim one requires a communication path claim thirty one has no limitation on this under the district court's interpretation that requires a voice communication channel because of certain sentences after sentence as a talk about the president mention we would have to put in the day that she and all in every claim and yet the data channel or even a second hand is not even part of every claim but that would then be required under the district courts analysis as well to be put into every claim the invention is here to fact judge more to the claim construction the present invention here is not a voice channel the present invention is a speech recognition server that allows the mobile device to have speech recognition capabilities there are about forty times that the words present invention the invention of this invention appear in the specification and only twice in the scores to problems that first is that if you take that logic you can't stop it with communication channel you then have to put in daily communication channel because that's part of that paragraph as well you have to put in reviewing editing the symbolic data file that's part of that paragraph as well so now you have to put in all the number of limitations that are not in the other problems the second issue is that if you if you look at the specification as a whole again there where the patent talks about present invention invention this invention doesn't use in body language and it specifically talks about speech recognition server each and every time which i guess if you view boyce communication channel as being nothing more than a channel over which voice is being sent at a particular time regardless of the protocol then that problem goes away it does its part the part of the problem is how you view voice channels and if you put these requirements the district court court put on it then which in shouldn't be part of the construction of voice import regardless got to be sure that i understand the distinction you're drawing between the voice channel and the da avoid liability under induced infringement and what the district court said is that although it rejected apple's not infringement argument it said that argument was strong enough that the fifth if a sixty five that that's forward knowing the facts for that so what are we what is the evidence that apple took deliberate steps to avoid knowing the fact infringement well there are facts from which they sure could reasonably infer they took deliberate steps portfolio at most arguably could be in parental leave you know what patents are in your portfolio yes how is that deliberate steps to avoid knowing the fact  apple files an information disclosure statement with the patent office identifying the own ninety two so now we know apple knows enough about it they want to disclose it to the patent office in context of one of their patent applications party says we know what's in your portfolio we know what you've got a k that but you did provide them with a list of patent numbers and the other ninety was not one of the ones on that list that that's true your honor that they clearly know enough that they they feel they have to disclose it to the patent office and an information disclosure something that doesn't tell us much about whether their device in this case infringes that they believed it or they had every when they stick their head in the sand and say we're not going to look we've been sued but we're not even to look we knew about it from negotiations we knew about to tell the patent office we've been sued but now we're not even going to take a look at this that's sticking your head in the sand and that's there's if there were some allusions in i guess it was your you know maybe maybe it was in the at least briefly to the fact that we're really only talking about precision infringement where are we on that because  knowledge of the patent and i guess i thought obviously wrongly so that your header defined the nature of what you were arguing because everything there is nothing there after you never rely let me ask you because i must be missing it where do you rely on post suit knowledge and failure to invest because everything in your reply brief that i can see is about food was the the circumstance where apple was alleging that a live edition defense could somehow become a get out of jail free card for induced infringement because if that's the case that's going to happen  i don't find anything in this agreement not a word about personal knowledge and failure to investigate clearly if you argue that to us if you are you defined the issue in your headers and in your conclusion everywhere  and it's only priests to take you anywhere i mean you may have this is a complex case there's a lot of it's like four cases you know and i get that so did you ever argue anywhere to us i mean anywhere to us that ok even if we haven't established precision that there is post evidence because they had knowledge at least at the time of the amended complaint because that's when the nine to really came into this right and the allegations of infringement so so at that point forward did you ever argue that you are the focus was not was on the subjective as he was the focus is on this if you ever make that argument that because of the focus yes or no no i think i will look at the record  focused on apple's i'm not infringing but argument there was no there's no discussion of the from the court or recognition from the court that it made any distinction of when the argument came up  it just felt objected lee the argument was strong enough to overcome induced infringement there was no focus on the court of the timing of the argument as to whether this would apply post suitable precept for at what time it would apply his old i look at the  even address was those issues that the district court didn't address these issues because the district court felt that objective only because this the defense was strong enough that it was sufficient to absolve induced infringement period conclude that apple was willfully blind to infringement and then says because there was no high probability of wrongdoing given the strength of apple's not infringement argument or suggest to me at least one way of reading that is to say that i think i think that's probably the fairest inference for for trying to say that the district court didn't apply an objective test to try to fit this into a subjective the problem with that is are still good faith element as to whether it's believed and that's an issue of fact and if this court held in smith and nephew even when the district court had announced summary judgment was appropriate whether the whether the induced infringer believe that there was still a issue of fact there even with a pronouncement from the district court that that that that that was there so certainly if we take that a step backward and we don't even have a pronouncement but we decide that the defense is strong enough there still has to be a fact issue as to whether apple in good faith believe that argument that comes up under the less than fifteen minutes scenario and what is happening there is in that scenario the byproduct transaction is sending what is called an extra ticket which is a hash of the password it's a mathematical function applied to the password to secure the password the information is still the same the information is still the password we've just secured that information in a way where we apply a mathematical function to it called a hash and send that to apple servers so that so that that is what they were seen it's the same user information whether there is the hash applied and it's points out ok but a hash is a mathematical function applied to the user's password at a particular time of day so that it only it only is good for fifteen that exempting any information on the user if it is the user's password in a secure four we've just applied a mathematical function to the password kind of like with my kids when they were little used to spell things and they didn't know what we were talking about kind of like that it's the same information but they don't know what they're talking you're talking about and at that stage of their life they can't they can't work backwards through it all right thank you i think that we should give mr perry his fifteen minutes i'm sure you'll thin does my friend did the summary of the invention describes the present invention as a speech translation system translates quote voice input and the translation process begins by  establishing a voice communication channel that's a call of two on a one ninety two i take it on wired planets does not dispute the general principle from this court that the present invention language can be limiting it does not dispute the district court's determination that importing that limitation into the voice included elements does not render any part of the specification nugatory does not read out any preferred  well your honor it does because the way the program there's a circularity here with the presidential discloses that this is a two channel solution to a problem of one thousand nine hundred technology right these cell phones and other mobile devices had such limited computing power that they couldn't translate voice input into digital output as the digital signal process chip problems discussed in the specification the solution being provided here is sending the output over an analog voice line so that the digital translation can take the voice communication channel is generally established important needed using the infrastructure written for c ger's generally known in the or for setting up a phone call and i'm sorry i don't actually even know where you are where you column six what my own six lines twenty one provide expert evidence on what a voice channel meant at the time of the application and the parties provided those supplemental briefs and unwired planet said and this is a page a one three zero three six of the record that that technology included characters wasn't let me give an example we know for example that those features are very attractive for conveying voice but we also know that voice can be  this was a summary judgment case that was a factual question we're not we're now past claim destruction and the schwartz said what is a voice you know the course that it must be something identifiable other wise or claim is indefinite what is it apple said the doctor  savvy apple's experts had offered the three limitation of three elements that i proposed and they never disputed that those were three all so that's the first piece of it silent posits they say that in their brief in this case they say that in this brief in their brief in this case they cite a six one nine address that argument to address that on appeal and conclude that's a basis for affirming the judgement when you didn't even give us the reference or a single quotation from the reference your honor it's a basis for distinguishing that there are three different channels as the patent says over and over again voice i can also see nothing in the objects of the advantages or the four of the advantages discussion which we've just discussed in really begins a column fourteen and it goes through at least one two three four but about ten different advantages of the president mention achieves no mention anywhere in there of a voice channel or the importance of a two channel process or any of that when someone says the president pension and we've looked i know you've read all these cases the president mentioned and in these cases we look at the importance of sure of the invention i don't see any touting of any significance or even benefit achieved by an analog voice channel that you're describing being touted by the getting capability therefore they can't handle speech capability we know and this is not disputed actually that the art had already disclosed server side speech recognition using data channels the only thing inventive here the only thing that would be  allowable over the prior art is something that uses it does it a different way what is disclosed here is using a voice channel the service that voice channel is cognitive used forty three times in the specification that's no accident because that version of voice and the protocol being used to convey had met some but not all of the requirements that the expert identified is generally associated with what we ordinary think of as  categories or is there a lot of wash between the two you're honored voice is a form of data at one level of abstraction and voice channel may be a subset of data channel instead of going to some level of channels and data channels otherwise there's an indefinite mess from an wired planet hasn't argued that here because remember the summary judgment days they came in and said it's the spectrum there's this infinitely variable spectrum with data channel on one and a voice channel on one end and it's always a communication channel that carries a voice of meaning and then you would only think now you say well of course that would be invalid on obviousness grounds well patient but but it would be it would avoid the definition would solve some of the problems we've been talking limited to priests or posts what is your understanding of that issue the basis on which it has been litigated was the priests who knocked and let me explain that the the indirect infringement of the court is well aware has essentially two components one is that apple had knowledge of the patent and the other is did apple have knowledge or was it willfully blind to the fact of infringement by others and the train i will get to your question about put in all of a summary judgment evidence we would submit if living in the summer of the glory goes to knowledge that apple that some person who may or may not have been in another ice age of apple had knowledge of the bad just jobber you skipped over that point didn't didn't address that either whether he got a factual dispute or just didn't need to cite it and when only to the second point which is willful blindness as to the fact of infringement that puts one in a little bit of this hypothetical world right because apple continues to deny knowledge of the patent but then the question a problem to when that when problem one hasn't been decided is well if apple had knowledge of the patent did it actually intend others to unfriend would it know that others were using it to infringe and which ever said there confirming a high probability of infringement so if apple knew about the patent and it looked at the facts being undertaken to judge reno here's the answer your question would it have known that the location services feature of its products chabra denied that and that would apply both as to apple's own activities testing on its products and so forth and third party infringement because the app developers and customers are using that feature as developed by apple so the infringement identifiers within the media claim so that has to go to trial but then when it turned to the induced infringement question said again i'm reading a little bit of the opinion but he cited global tech and this is the way the analysis has to work if apple had known about the patent and had examined the allegedly infringing conduct it's infringing our group was so strong that there's no evidence no reasonable jury could find that apple took deliberate action to avoid confirming a high probability of infringing because there is no hype about probability infringement evidence but isn't that different that necessarily mean that there's a genuine issue mature fact and few not here your honor it may have some cases but here there is no evidence from unwired planet on the second prong all of their evidence goes to the first problem it is knowledge that there is no evidence of intentional you know knowledge by apple or don't or willful blindness deliberate ignorance of actual infringement either by itself or by others that's that's a problem that i see accused feature is developed by apple and then is that incorporated in apps by developers and used by customers of the of the deuce going to the contributory infringement theories all depend on apple's location services feature itself being infringing so that sure i understand your position on this with respect to the argument that the judge in correctly applied an objective as opposed to a subjective standard i take it your position is that while the judge used words that could be viewed as same goes right in byron bay using the supreme court's test that no reasonable jury could find that apple took deliberate action to avoid confirming a high probability of infringement since when apple actually looked at the question in reality this is the post suit analysis right when it had actual knowledge of the patent it determined reasonably and in good faith that it did not infringe and that therefore there was not a high probability of can can i ask you if we still have time to ask you to discuss the hash issue because you choose to feature here apple location services the alleged act of infringement is that apple's location services practices the asserted claim of the nine to patent by using a plurality of location finding devices that is the same theory asserted as the basis for direct infringement and indirect infringement the only question is which into t apple developer or customer is operating the feature so as to practice the claim ok if that render absolutely right where the actual act of infringement is is allegedly being undertaken by a third party at its premises or something that creates different factual questions and different legal questions that that's not just not the case here and that was there's a footnote actually in the in the summary judgment opinion where the court on the other three that is dismisses the indirect infringement claims after dismissing the director who claims on the same theory because these are essentially derivative claims rather than separate claims like this point about on the  it is a little more complicated than spelling words judge or it's it's a complicated mathematical algorithm designed precisely and in fact specifically so that the input and the output are different transmogrify is the information into something new to hash out food that cannot be recovered that's a real word yes it's a analogies in this case and you've heard about coal trucks and other things here i will offer you wine in vinegar your honour's wine goes into vinegar but you can't go the other way and they're not the same thing if you try to cook with vinegar you're going to come up with something different  cooking with wine and the importance for this case is that each of the ruling by judge job maria that the user information up with the term growth has to be the same is not challenge the only question is whether the user input it password and the hash output from the algorithm are the same and we submit that you know to the extent as a factual question that has been resolved on this record by their own experts admission that you can't go back years if you don't buy that argument there is a second reason because the claim itself requires that the information in the provisioning request has to be input by the user  actually the specification says it has to be input by the user the claims as it has to be received by the device that's page eight to seventeen column nine line twenty five the hash output is neither input by the user nor received you can you can develop many algorithms add one to every digit is an algorithm but most of them are reversible hash out rhythms what's unique about them is they are not reversible and the outcome of and the reason they're done that way is so that anybody who gets the hashed out put can't get the user password and steal their identity and go to other things such as just the same information the whole point is that it's changing the information so that for security reasons that you can't get that so we submit on the two six zero zero it's it's  just wonder about the significance of the non reversibility to the question of whether it's the same information in other words i have the way the let's say my password is password well you know if it's been slated into russian that's certainly reversible but it's you wouldn't say it's not the same information you know around and i think this is one of the distinctions between a translation you could issue and really the hash of what i'm trying to get is why is it that the reverse of the of if she really matters it seems to me if your argument is that the minute you change the password from something other than p a s s w o r d if you make it p a s s w o r d all lowercase as opposed to all uppercase it's not the same user information i understand your argument it may not be persuasive but i understand the argument but i'm having a hard time figuring out why it is that when we do translate whether it is by a simple algorithm or by the most sophisticated encryption algorithm that there is out there using pseudo random numbers and everything else which will be nobody except maybe the  information precisely in order to change it to different information that is the reason it is done is to create a new set of information that hackers in our studios with that's true of the encrypted version that can be broke we've learned you know it's not and you can't get back from there and what dr savvy testified that's why the hash supplied to change the information dr jones doesn't disagree with that he just calls it a mathematical function but he agrees on the non reversibility w if the computer forensic in it's into russian and that's what the russian translation is once received by the i o s device are you saying that's not the user information or it is we would need more facts than our hypothetical judge more you know if they're i can't answer the question because i believe the only disclosure is user input directly to the device and i don't know enough about how the device itself could make that translation or whether that would have to go through a and  i think that's a very different nobody disputes that the character story is different question is it's the same information and it is second there was also a question as to whether there was evidence in the record about the silent pauses for the voice channel  that is in the record that dr jones expert opinion that a six one four seven finally i would just make the point that there was a number of times it was referenced that if we don't put these requirements on voice channel we've got some sort of one twelve problem i don't think that's true but is this court stated in the p p jury industries case section one twelve does not mean that a court may give a claim whatever additional persuasion or specificity is necessary to facilitate a comparison between the clean and the accused product and that's exactly what the district court did hear that district court believed that it needed to be there needs to be more specificity to a voice channel it adopted these three requirements so that it could then compare that definition of voice channel to the accused product and that that's improper finally i'll say if if those three