if you were there was lost lost sight of  the morning and they please the court at the end infringement issues in this case are essentially factual and so the question is is there substantial evidence was there substantial evidence in the case to support hartmann visions infringement our position in the jury's verdict in its favor the question is not whether or not qualcomm can find snippets of evidence to support it position i'll do my best to show that there was substantial evidence and moreover i would do my best to show that the district courts infringement decision was based on a basically a misunderstanding  technology in this case let me deal first with the generating limitation both sides agree we don't agree on a lot of things but we do agree on but i think before you get into the merits of that argument could i get a couple of things  clarified in my own mind as to where the parties are in this first of all i take it that no one disputes that the qualcomm accused devices are current mode devices not voltage mode devices and that the patent well the parties i think resolving their expert said that the the baseband is created by voltage across the capacitor so i welcome he was talking about the park officials invention he wasn't talking about qualcomm devices it was talking about the baseband signal is is based on the measurement of voltage across the capacitor so i have in the in the parker vision he's talking about the lit it and there he's talking about the parker vision device so why is it well let me make sure that we're on the same page as the the qualcomm qualcomm initially qualcomm's devices that were accused included both voltage mode and current mode devices as i read the record the ultimate decision was to strike all of the voltage mode devices and go only with current mode devices that is that your understanding your honor my understanding is that it's all based on politics there is there obviously is a current power is a function of voltage and current result of the page one one one eight nine position that there is a current mode device and therefore does not infringe right are i have to disagree with you your honor on that point you mean you think that that that am reading from one one zero five seven is very short the energy from the carry a signal is transferred through this which is accumulated by the capacitor and that energy is then used to generate the base fencing all following the capacitor and i submit is enough but the district court held that because dr proust now made a concession it wasn't enough and what was the concession in the district court's words on a twenty seven that the baseband was created mischaracterization of dr proust knowledge testimony and secondly he made no such concession and secondly the district was position is it consistent with the evidence that actually comes from qualcomm's files and let me deal with that evidence which is really kind of critical if you look at the yellow brief ages seven eight you will see three schematics and the first team out on page seven is a high level schem proust now says everything in this picture is in the mixer everything and it's labeled w mixer so their argument is that because the baseband signal is under two therefore it was generated before the capacitor which is inconsistent with our position if that were correct well written inconsistent with your position that why isn't it necessarily the case that at least assuming assume for a moment that we're talking about current mode mixers why is it not the case that if the base band is created and is present on the circuit it b p o p n b p o m number two in that diagram that that is observed at every point along the wire since all points along the wire are one and the same point this is generated instantaneously across the entire wire the position that dr proust now said that the baseband signals generated by the capacitors and that the location shown in these drawings was not inconsistent with that i thought personnel was really focused on the capacitors relating to the t x filter and then maybe in a very very quick passing made reference to these two or maybe four capacitors related to the mix or maybe if in fact the mixer maybe outside the mixer is that fair characterization of of what happened below and what was really the visions of frenchmen theory that's a fair characterization of what the district court concluded and it's a fair characterization of what qualcomm is arguing but it's not a fair characterization of what happened below ok so we're dip parker vision come forward with evidence or testimony about this one point on the line is the same as every other point on the line your honor my point might be the point i was going to make and i apologize i didn't finish it is that dr post now made the point additional arguments in support of an an argument you made below i'm saying the argument was made below that the location of the baseband signal is compatible with the was the capacity generating the baseband signal and this is another argument reinforcing that point now when you raised up to resign his testimony on one one three two zero you were raising that in support as i understand it of the argument that that he was testifying as to the accused device and saying that every point is the same on as every other point on the circuit right is that because i'm reading resigned his testimony is being directed to the it came up in the context of weisskopf but it was a general statement it was it was not restricted to only weiskopf it is a fact that when the baseband signal is generated it is generated instantaneously across the entire y o stitch but not the current right but i mean that's a matter of electrical that's that's correct but also if this is a current based system  proposition doesn't fly right honor i don't know when you say a current mode system excludes the concept of voltage creating the baseband signal and i don't know that something being called  current mode system there is voltage and current and when the carrier signal is generated and goes in through the switches and into the capacitor there is there there is a voltage it would seem to me that the voltage and the proposition that all voltages on the on the circuit is it is the same ceases to have significant that's my problem with your your argument about the nature of doctors obvious testimony in the other testimony about the bolted mode devices as applied to what looks to be current mode devices in the accused system across the capacitor and to call it a current mode system does not exclude what i am suggesting is the case here i know it qualcomm disagrees with us on that  current it was affect the capacitor affected the high frequency current that's why it's a low pass filter and why is that not inconsistent with what you just said that the voltage of the signal is determined by the frequency signal is that in effect the capacitor serves as if it has a close which for the high frequency signal an open switch for the low frequency signal in effect the capacitor is blind to the low frequency signal which is generates each one contributes to the bass pensive no the first one that contributes is the capacitor in the mixer it does so it will do so even alone even independently and a note that was passed up to me say the parties will focus on energy in the q s products not the current both parties agree that the energy is related to voltage and i have cites a two for four three could have been join any place along this line it could have been drawn the capacitor is not after the mixer their argument is that the capacitor is after the mixer the capacitor is in the mixer your it was your infringement correct how how does that work exactly how do you take the disk why is it that the destroyer general gene necessarily results in a down to avert a signal well i can only tell you my understanding is into the capacitor and it opens and closes in order to get a discontinuous signal which is the sampling concept and then energy is discharged from the capacitor every time the switch is open energy discharges out of the capacitor and that results in a lower frequency signal that results in a lower frequency signal that there are any introduction of a control signal that mixes with prior art as relying on mixing the high frequency signal with control low frequency signal to do baseband signal is a lower frequency signal compared to the carrier signal and the it just happens i don't think there's any disagreement that the lower signal that the district court asked a question show me why the baseband signal going out is that a lower frequenc the baseband signal going in that's not the issue the issue is is the baseband signal going out of the low at a lower frequency than the carrier signal i don't think there's any disagreement on that point as i understand the claimed invention it doesn't rely on a second signal being mixed with the carrier signal in order to produce of a spectacle it seems like this qualcomm mixer is necessarily mixing the carrier signal with some lower frequency signal to ultimately produce the bass fanfic your honor i think it's doing exactly what the patent calls for it is it is injecting  a carrier high frequency signal it uses switches they open in close and when it's closed the energy flows through when it's open the discharge is i don't think it's doing anything different is it fair to say that just looking at the circuit diagram it doesn't look any different in in any meaningful way from figures seventy eight and seventy eight of the past which show the prior art by looking at the schematic there is a there's a switch that leads us there's a sampling signal there's a capacitor a higher value for the capacitor and a larger at the chair for the switch and that produced the invention as i understand it but this if you look at the diagrams themselves you see the same structure it's just that you know that the difference comes with  so if i understood your question correctly that's basically correct and that's why the accused structures do not judge then you ask me a question wasn't everything focused on the t x filter and the answer is no exfiltrate they contribute to the baseband signal they augment the baseband signal but they are not alone responsible for the baseband said no which is a product of the capacitors coming out of thank you your honor may i please the current most of the argument we just heard this morning wasn't presented to the district court most of the arguments were presented and jame all and most of the arguments were presented at the trial and i would capacitors in the mixer ok well that's good the capacitor is there labeled number three on page eight at the yellow green those capacitors are actually part of the t x filter and i can go through dr personal testimony that shows exactly out the high frequency transmit exactly as a high frequency transmit jammer and that's what they're trying to get rid of the capacitors are opened in this case with the switches to stick close to the high frequency but only that is to say their invention or the prior art weiskopf where you use that capacitor to generate a voltage baseband signal you can do that as one thing you can do with a capacitor another different thing you can do with a capacitor is use it as part of a low pass filter and that's exactly what we do so in the testimony that we cite in our brief for example mr sorrels as having a down converter followed by a filter known since the antiquities dr personel testify that having a double bounce mixer followed by just a low pass filter if it's just a low pass filter that's not infringing either so to summarise this case in one sentence i guess you would say that the difference between the parker vision invention and qualcomm's implementation all of the design documents we discussed describe for example a two three zero aids decided on page sixty of our brief the incoming arm signals are converted into current and then the down converted base are doing there this argument by the way was not made at the district court they never argued that our devices were voltage mode devices they drop all the claims against voltage mode devices as we know it i believe footnote twenty three of  e sixty one and they drop all of those claims because those particular devices didn't have to passengers at all didn't need them because they didn't have the t x jammer problem the only reason we have the capacitors in the x filter is because we have a that's why we have him there so if you look at means that you're doing transmitting and receiving from the same device and therefore you've got to get rid of the know it's coming from the cons not from absolutely correct there's this massive t x jam or signal that comes around through and zaps with the next filter a to get rid of so when you don't have that and the other devices that they drop the claims again we go any further i thought they were they were pointing to capacitors in the filter and then they were pointing to an additional set of capacitors inside the t x filter yes that's right and this is a new argument they re it's on appeal and they flush it out for the fertile they were pointing to these very capacitors before that's right and dr drew small very clearly indicated after looking at the schematic that those capacitors are part of the t x filter so he didn't he didn't say that the capacitors under three in the figure on i think it's age forty six of our red brief he never said that those schematic pages schematic pages refers back to what we see on page forty six answer the energy storage devices follow the mixers and their inside this box label t x filter that mux label take filter then he's asked the question again as well looking at the same filter and same figure the figure here on yellow seven and he's discussing the three for two patten claiming team and he says the capacitors are located in th right here and the district court was right there he cited that testimony and the first passenger referred you to this by the way the second one is a one hundred eighty seven three the district court referred to that  page twenty four of his opinion he was right there he heard dr personnel say they're in the to kill her right there and that's what that's what you understand that's why they didn't raise the argument at the jail hearing th didn't raise the argument in their papers because they knew the district court would shoot it down he was there he heard that testimony and he heard and saw exactly what dr personnel was pointing to now there was some discussion at trial of exhibit we've been talking of the capacitors at sixty nine ninety two point one which are downstream from what was otherwise identified as the mixture or the mixture and the t x filters what perform what service did they nine nine two point one those are some of the axles or capacitors and so are the ones in six nine nine one two capacitors that are shown there what they've done is they've taken the first time they made this argument that they've taken this figure at six nine eight nine and they've said that everything is on page eight of their brief they say there's this box that says mixer i touch you and everything in that glass is a mixer and that's what dr bruce na was referring to as mixer but we know from the testimony we just saw that wasn't what he was referring to well that's that one piece of testimony but i believe that my recollection serves me is that in other places he did say that the the passengers that show nine eight nine that box includes that g x filter and the mixers so if you look at that the actual native drawing that you'll have in the appendix six nine eight nine that whole drawing you'll see there's no t x filter  ignalina and then in his testimony he says the down conversions they know created before the baseband hits the x helter and this whole argument about are the capacitors really something we can call a mixer or not is in some ways a red herring because dr personel agreed that the lower frequency baseband is created before this is protocol for the current has reached the capacitor that we're talking about this new argument that the capacitors are really pointed out the figure six nine nine one it shows high frequency r f going into the circle with the cross that's a double bounce mixer and it's a low frequency b b b o p going out that happen not in the appendix now it was in appendix k of his report we cite in our brief ad nauseum that he's simulated the parker vision design that are so you're saying that this is a discussion of the park a vision device not you know this device  limitation it shouldn't have been material and that's what we are need and we tried we tried to get the jury and the judge to say look whether discharges or not is immaterial all these claims the judge understood that the judge said yes it's immaterial but they weiskopf and the invention of both voltage mode so it was a mock voltage model our devices current most fundamentally different kinds of devices and i'll say my last twenty seconds for well is white cup anything signals why scott has a switch with the big storage capacitor behind it so it's doing the exact same thing they would call it an energy sampling it doesn't have the mixer so it's not it's not doing the kind of  motion for summary judgment and it was all in literally experts identified by the parties agreed that the energy stored in the passenger manifest itself as a voltage so i submit that the distinction between current mode and voltage mode does not resolve the questions on this appeal but again that is you know memorandum in opposition to some adjustment of  so it was addressed to the devices the parker vision and weiskopf devices as i understand it not addressing qualcomm's your honor this statement is a general statement because it is  restricted to weisskopf or anything else as a general statement i think it's accurate i think in general without regard to weisskopf or all the experts agree that the grass or manifest itself is a voltage well that's generally that's what capacitors do is that they store charge by having differential voltage i understand on on capacitor but that doesn't tell us anything i don't think about what the role of the capacitor in this case in the voltage current issue in our briefs and i think that the party's really focused on the voltage issue and i submit that that the  products are no different from the patented claims in that sense i think a voltage is generated a voltage is measured in the form of energy and energy its energy is the key focus the focus really is not so much on on current or anything else it is on an energy energy is a function of voltage and a g is also a function of currents and i don't think i can add any more to that  zero which are the diagrams a six nine eight nine six nine nine one six by nine to the the one nine nine nine is clearly a mixture that's what is title lis l thank you your honor i'll just address them briefly the comment about weisskopf indistinguishable from noise the weiskopf paper itself shows that they span signal being generated in that voltage mode device that's what it shows there's nothing else that needs to be shown there's there's there's no way to for them to really argue well it's not distinguishable from noise how can they say that when it's showing that the base band is in fact created in that capacitor that's what the weiskopf paper is doing the weiskopf paper is down converting a high frequency signal to a low frequency signal using the energy in that capacitor it's exactly what it's doing and he says evac it's actually pretty efficient we cite those they say that's not enough for infringement so they say we don't have to test we want to simulate we don't have to do anything all the documents say it's there for a low pass filter but we can just say it's not and that's good enough cl initially started with on your direct that there is an alternative