may please the court the jury system is one of the most powerful important components body dishes system that's what distinguishes our system from others around the world but that system that component is very fragile relies upon the lawyers find by setting rules for judges abortion which rules in this case lawyers didn't play by the rules and the judge do not enforce those the jury was told if you find no infringement you don't weaken the literally content right that's correct so if you have a new trial or if they have absolutely found infringement and you were still connect to the internet protocol network at the wired system or wireless and the mobiles tournaments actually argued that because the word cellular was not in the actual opening and closing and then they brought forth into crescendo with their expert saying because the word cellular is not and the actual cation these claims cannot cover the sailor network and you of course presumably we did that  opposite so that takes the balance that the jury gets with you know juries not educate the law that's a real common sense argument the word cellular is not in the specification claims therefore it can't cover sailor networks that's a good commonsense argument and then in there with their witnesses as well and once again in closing and when you raise those objections with the judge the judge that he said they could do that i will give you an instruction i was struck in jury he said oh many times i will give you an instruction destructing jury that these claims do cover wireless and can cover cellular and that's what we relied on we kept making the objections of one time during the cross examination you know the direct examination of their actual or i call a side very lengthy cyberwar i warned the judge so you're out of there doing it again they have their expert witness who's up there going you have alternative claim interpretations one for ability and one from french but he did the only you know heads i win tails you lose argument kept doing it anyway that's what made this an unfair trial and then you gave him the instruction and he rejected it and no idea it was there is no reason given we provide the instruction you know that there thing from a quote in fish all those cases that come out and even more recently with the training technologies case i think that it's made very clear that the abstract idea that step want  in the computer technology and basically allowed the use of a internet protocol network or the internet as an example it was not previously known it really it was requested by a client of uses this public network untrusted network to communicate to a series of very specific servers and those servers have really unique characteristics how do we know that i mean your other so your of the whole tone of the user to different claims structure and that in by itself is enough to get a post may please the court this was not a close call not at all the evidence of non infringement was so specific so overwhelming and eventually so conceded by plaintiff's own witnesses that plaintiffs do not even argue on this appeal that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence under it is lost which applies to the question of whether or not the judge error in his discretion in not granting a new trial certain law says that's an extraordinarily deferential standard were reserved for a miscarriage of justice where the case was close that was not this case to mobile's trial defenses were focused very specifically on the role of each of the servers in each of its five networks there was no attorney misconduct of any type the preference for both questions is a false would there was no misconduct now that suppose it misconduct was that we made an argument that by definition because the word cellular is not in the claims then we could not infringe we never made such an argument it's not the now there's two ways to decide or to to prove the point that it's not there one is to read the whole transcript and see it's not there the second is to realize that there was never an objection counsel points to seven instances in mr  opening statement where he supposedly went over the line committed misconduct not one objection they emphasize in both briefs argument made in closing not one objection of any sort of any nature compare that to our well and certainly don't mean closing there's no dispute there was no objection and i contrast that with our situation where we objected to the issue of whether the sprint jury verdict could come in we objected before the opening act with the judge in a conference on written papers and after it was over we objected on misconduct grounds for raising that issue and we did it with a motion for mistrial on the record that's preservation there was no preservation here now he says he discusses other objections in your honor asked about other objections the if you look at the objections they were directed to the written description portion of the case we have to be written description argument that focused on the fact that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the patents in reading the still the judge told us that if we won on friday and we did thirty four thirty we had thirty infringement questions on an answer not infringement and the judge said then don't reach the to the affirmative defense is under one of two and one of three so because of that but the there were witnesses on both sides written description was a huge defects indeed had we lost the case that would probably be the first thing we would be talking about if it would be one the major points of appeal but there was no that's their problem their problem is they're upset about how the written description witnesses were questioned and their problem is that didn't even go to the jury that has nothing to do with the pervert now your honor is the very important question which is what happened when you made objections because i'll tell you first there were no objections at through openings and closings there was never an objection where they articulated the so called cellular argument that's not what the objections were there were objections about the written description up portion of the examination and on those the judge ruled for us page thirty to thirty one in the blue brief they have ten examples of places where they say we preserve with objections  yellow brief pages sixteen to seventeen they say eleven examples well those eleven are the same ten from the blue brief plus one of those eleven examples ten of them the objection was overruled in one instance the judge sustained in objection that question was would you agree that mr gregg the inventor was not a person of ordinary skill in the art in one nine hundred ninety seven that question has nothing to do with the so called cellular argument that was the only sustained objection compared to the case they cite they cite the willis case four times in their blue broke the well this case was it you want to have to a trial counsel objected were team times in the on the first day i'm sorry eighteen times on the first day thirty four times on the second day and every one of those more than fifty objections was sustained they were counsel was admonished over and over again that never happened here it never was even an issue in the district court we have been blindsided on appeal by a claim of misconduct that is outrageous why don't we move on to the one on one yes you're the one of the one good case judge strom of course recognize properly that we're dealing with an abstract idea here and i won't belabor that point but the abstract idea is that access to protected resources should be limited to authorized requests the testimony of the two inventors at trial confirmed that which the patent specification makes clear this was about if you have a web site and you have internet content and you want to limit some of that content to people who pay a subscription fee for how do you go about doing that well you should find out who they are and you should make sure they paid for in advance that's all this is about that is an old and abstract concept applied to the internet and alice itself from the supreme court tells us that's insufficient the court relied on the jericho systems case out of out of texas which was affirmed by this court in rule thirty six disposition if you look at that case or the over marshall case versus hulu or the smart flash case those are all situations in which there was some proof requisite to receiving content and in all cases that idea was considered to be abstract and the pat identify someone who request a protected resource something of value before you give them that thing a value that is not a problem that is in any way inherent to the internet or if you have ever gone to ord commercial airline you must first prove your identity with an id you must then show a boarding pass to show you are entitled to get on the plane if you go to a will call window at a theater you must first prove your identity then you must show the credit card and prove that you actually paid for the tickets thirty four is quote the claims modifies the way the internet functions to provide secure access over a protected computer resource well nothing in the claims modifies how the internet  nothing in the claims modify the conventional uses of generic computers but the claims are not directed at improving a computer in any way as a as a tool they don't do that there's no barrel here to end fish where you found the referential database which improved on prior relational databases and so the actual functioning of the computer became better because of the claimed invention that's not here here what you happiest results oriented surely functional claims that tell you to do something authenticate authorized and give access but it doesn't tell you how to do any of those functions receiving data at a computer transmitting that to another computer and then comparing the received data to your stored data to see if it matches if there's an authorization that is absolutely generic conventional uses of componentry there is nothing specific here whatsoever centralized and bascomb showed how by pointing the filter in a specific non conventional location it improve the functioning of the network or the system that's not the situation here here you have generic authorization i'm sorry authentication service engineer access or indeed the access servers here play essentially no role they in the definition of court construction of access or are simply software capable of conveying information eight designed in a way that's different from the past or better than the past or how to set up the system to make it different or better there was a lamar clarify the point a question raised earlier was the invalidity issue raised as a defense or a and so for that reason the court reached a a ruling that they were not to go to the jury therefore the other aspect of your cross appeals shower and through the courts determination of that this was not the exceptional record i don't find it exceptional i think that's right and i think i crank lee that it's very clear this judge factory two prior trials they related to different companies with different systems who put on entirely different defenses and one of them in the the company settled during the case shortly before closing in the second there was a jury verdict that was favorable to the plaintiff in those situations we had a completely different case than that we proved with out dispute govern three g and t and indeed govern two g which was pre this case authentication in cellular systems has been set up since the early one nine hundred ninety s sim cards as a matter of hardware has been there since the we would not have received summary judgment from this court he would have said there were disputed fact issues it took almost eight hours of cross examination of dr ly and that's what the other defendants didn't want to do they count on the fact that they can make a case so complex they can put a bore up  feet wide and five feet tall and they can plaster it full of all of the supposedly document numbers and say look at all it works together it was a it was a fabrication it doesn't work that way but we proved it through the standards we follow the standards and it wasn't disputed if you look at the standards the very exhibits i gave you defendants eight o two i would say plaintiffs t x three three two they show how the system works in three g and four g the t x three three two and when all was done and when all was done they did two things at the very end of the case they changed their whole theory of infringement and they argue that oss just like chopped meat into a hotel that's all th mc authenticated he specifically said it does not during my cross examination and then at the end of the trial they said yes he is good enough it's just like checking into a hotel and i submit your honor the example there are invention is like checking into a hotel tells you more about  partially by the rules no trials they get in here that's what comes down to they say they didn't make the second argument but our brief is replete with it the biggest issue today is we didn't make objections or an opening closing now we  it has to be so the explanation of the exceptional case exercise of discretion well as this court found many times the person who is best suited to judge is the trial judge he said through the trial therefore a different story given to the judge on that and this is that's exactly right whether their cases go forward it was our motion and only our motion thank you