for we begin the argument today and i'm waiting one we're glad you could make it today should i this is a recurring problem for us so it feels like we've been to this movie before but maybe not feel as individual lawyers and that is the extent to which there's been a confidentiality marking in the briefs which makes it very difficult for us to delve into questions makes us and there really makes it difficult for us to write an opinion which we think would be fulsome clear and respond to the issue and so and it's not obvious to us it may be to the party so we'd like to hear from you as to why all of those confidentiality designations are required like two to add something to that i think that not only does it appear that the briefs or are over more confidentiality markings but some of the markets just make no sense i mean text will be mar would mark something confidential and then in the next couple lines the wall jeep liberty same information so could you all speak to that in terms of whether you have reviewed it recently and that it would hear to the confidentiality of nations or whether you're prepared to waive them at this point  those were the definitions we made it from our perspective we don't have a problem with the record being open in terms of the general application or functionality of the product so that you might think we're mostly dealing at a very high level so from our perspective other side it is another route it is on this with the client you have to figure out what can and cannot eat as i'm still very sensitive to it and i pay a lot of attention to it and this particular case in this particular case we talked about a very us as well i mean i've been in a situation a few times now and it's very awkward to have to mentally filter your questions as the argument goes on to make sure you don't trip over one of the hundred eighty so we have this also to protect the confidentiality of the information that's vital to to to your interest so how do we do that  very seriously in other cases we actually tried to move and thought about moving the i know it to being a serious problem it's not a case of apple taking us seriously but in this particular case as it happens the details matter about you know much detail in the specific documents that we need to address or consider i feel we're talking about a couple of sentences and some terminology and i think that respectfully a little different i think with there is an approach to take your we can go back and focus down on the ground to be having the appeal to me this and to a second cut of what's confidential or not because yes it's hard to argue this at all without getting into confiden to appeal taking a second look at that not just respecting what was so they made a beloved saying look now what a view we have this issue the products operate in this way we're relying on this terminology it's actually confidential well what i understand mr davis to be saying to us is the answer to that question is yes the choice apples and i would say i could i would ask them to reconsider that because some of the terminology that i would like to use an argument of steel yes we would have to close court and then you can say those words i well you know i mean it's we're not that's a that's almost more difficult than trying the bright line i appreciate that you're trying to accommodate us but at this stage of the game to sort of you know pick out one or two things makes that big our job even know these arguments are subject to a transcript that becomes public information we're going to try our best to respect the designations as i'm sure you moved in that you are if anybody makes any kind of an error we hope that we would be a immediately so that we can take necessary action and leave it at that  is for all intents and purposes your honor we would say that the domestic industry issue rises or falls with infringement so there is parity between the accused products and how they operate from the perspective of the claims and of the domestic so very simply the the claim talks about a subscriber unit which can be a mobile device like a cell phone of course that with respect to claim twelve the device maintains an application registry on the device itself and it's a list of all software applications for example that are currently accessible to a device and then the claim goes on to say in response to a change not a response every change of course not a response to all changes except in response to a change of insensibility of an application that is communicated to the network why is it to communicate it increases efficiency of course it would be inefficient to send all updated information to every subscriber unit on the network to every cellphone  every change is communicated and insulation those changes are cumulative communicated as well apple had this is lack of causation argument this gets into the american caliber case they say that well on the front end the change not communicated because it doesn't happen when you for example decide to download an application on your i phone if you have an iphone from the app store for example they say that will that change is not communicated in response to there's no direct causation required by the claims we say first of all there is a direct correlation apple document for example to say that you know the normal practice of course when you use a phone and decide to download an application install your phone you launch it right away at that launch point that's when it's very general terms the information is sent back to the network terms of whether or not this application is going to get a little difficulty things are temporarily associated it doesn't get to that doesn't mean i typically put the key in my car after i get into the car and sit down but that doesn't mean that getting in the car and sitting down starts to come well to the dead that's correct you're out of the starting point of course is the claim language itself and the book is the claim language in response to we have a we have a pretty good example i think the american caliber case is his is a good example to take a look at and what is the starting point of the claim language itself wh this claim trying to speak to in america american how were you read through that claim talking about whether there's a problem there's a problem with a feable right and it's a system for automatically figuring out when you're in proximity of a service provider that can fix that talking about automation it's talking about the system automatically completing that function that's not the case here this claim speaks to the opposite of course we're talking about the user deciding to download applications that we're no longer sending notifications that application because it's no longer available at that point it's not going to be currently exceptional to the device unless i can think that example of this but you could still might still be able to use a game or some other application but it's not going to be updated it's not going to see notifications for that that's an exceptional circumstance i don't think it's simply separable that's a that's a that's an example of where the user does if if the if the application were deleted for example and in as i said earlier in both the accused products in the domestic industry products that information is sent back to the network to be clear in reading this claim that the question is is there a direct causation requirement first of all that that's the standard use they said can we say yes there is direct causation in this case the user installing the application is what sets in motion the information being sent that with respect to current accessibility of that application itself the user doesn't do that or we're just not going to happen and again this claim to speak to user interaction at the outset they do build the i p c and apple try to do everything they can to focus on the fact that it is inserting it in certain circumstances user might decide not to launch into killer application immediately when they download all that although that's the normal practice but again in response to in this particular kind does not apply or the level of direct causation immediately without the change itself is communicated to where it's identifying the locations of the changes transmitted to th to show that they must mean every they certainly don't have it for example apple points to this current copy argument they point to the specification they say well the specification talks about the application registry on the network in the server having to be identical and that means in every instance that each and every time the accessibility must be sent back in order for that to occur but by there's a problem with that analysis if you look at this if a summary of the invention is broken down into three pieces in a method for controlling a controller in the subscriber you will the first method that first section of the summary of the invention is talking about claiming one year of conception is talking about maybe seven in both of those instances yes t those claims vociferously have language that talks about the six fortunes of the network maintained the current conflict clint well doesn't have that claim twelve talks about a subscriber to the registry i'm a subscriber you being up to date it doesn't require an exact that it uses the word a is just taking the claim put it in a flow chart for and have no impact last argument waiting for i'm not sure where this argument comes from because it's clearly set forth in the records that are expert in his to change limitation when an application is installed and therefore new acceptable to the subscriber unit the mother's role of argument is basement two incorrect assumptions and the first is that the commission actually found that the transmission trigger for the for the communication and the commission found that the trigger at the crime fires is the patient capital and they're saying that's not the case that the trigger can be oh yes there's a change acceptability but then there can also be some work the way apple systems work the way the patent is set up is much more focused on the way the unit itself works not the desires of the user of the user we heard a lot about i want to be able to also sound then my next my follow up question is the language and that in the in the description of figure side that says the current copy is updated in response to communication on the subscriber unit council said well we're not talking about going structural issues here i think we in fact are because of the way that the commission applied a must mean every and every time the way it applied the in response to a direct causation was basically applying plain struction that was it was the commission interpretation of the claim there's no support in this festive occasion to say a means every in the very portion that you pointed out so you're for calling twelve it's got no requirement whenever it's kind of language in there that speaks to a being every said the opposite talks about a change the answer earlier question i do have a site with respect to the later use from the claim of the word to refer back to the use of the word a and in the sand this case it's six ninety five after thirteen the very briefly it says involved when we explain that the later use of the and said to refer back to an earlier claim term does not limit that claim term to the singular and we also articulated the general rule that the use of the indefinite articles a and or and in one or more so in other words is just referring back to that particular instance it doesn't mean that that has to be plural it starts speaking in language a valid later on in the cla respect to the claim construction issue again on currently acceptable that was an issue that the federal deficit commission specifically asked for additional information on and that language is very telling in the language that the old adopted a bailable and enable again the word enabled for president used by the subscriber speaking to launch speaking against this and all world requirements that they were trying to force fit into this example while live wallpapers are not haps so they get away from that apple gets away from that now when they talk about little live wallpapers themselves there is an app it's called a live wallpaper picker the commission average part of the registry can look under the hood and talk about a particular wallpaper and make some requirements they will each wallpaper has to be on the registry the commission did the right thing it found alive wallpaper picker is part of the registry that's the beginning and the end of the parties on that issue