better rocks on which interest has built the world's largest shipping portal one out of every four container ship brands is booked on their portal over the first half of this year more than eighteen this case the district court expressly adopted it apply the wrong standard she applied and fish district court standard for identifying what the claims are directed to what she described she quotes from  a concept of a just a general purpose of intermediated booking of and tracing of shipping containers and like that formulation ignored was the problem that solved with the patent identifies as the specific problem that was the subject of the patent and if you look at the arguments that were presented here g t nexus maintains this is just fucking been tracking containers people were doing it manually invention is doing it on the internet but if you look at the patent it says that's the problem the patent if you look in column one it talks about how the carriers were already doing intermediated booking and tracking through online portals and they were doing it using incompatible systems and you had a computer network problem where these incompatible systems didn't function with one another and so shippers were confronted with a situation where they had to try to of well the idea of it's much like the case the situation and fish were there that the district court said you know this is just data storage and retrieval and that's generic by any measure here when you look at the claims as a whole and you start looking at the elements you see there are novel elements built into the claims this prebuild and where the data was collected in advance of any request for the data so that it could be translated into a common neutral format in a centralized database that's built into the claims that's a technical solution to a network problem which is very different from simply saying oh people were doing this manually and it would be better to do it on the internet this is a technical problem and that aspect this pre building concept is exactly what the patent office said it was allowing the claims for this path has been subject in time for patent and subject to nine separate post for have patent office challenges five of them went to the end on the merits in the patent office confirmed that this was a novel technical innovation is one on one not the one one issue is not decided there they did not do it but they found that this was a novel technical solution to this and much like end fish where it solved a computer problem by coming up with a data tabulation system that solved a computer problem this solve the incompatible carrier that working problem fix the problem that  the that the technology was not able to solve or what's interesting i think unique about this case much different than the other cases that have been before this court on this issue is there is a large well developed body of evidence that the ideas here were not abstract they were solutions to two to computer problems you got expert testimony not only from entry interest expert but confirming testimony from g t nexus expert you've got evidence from the prior art that was considered and all of it points in the same direction so whether you look at this is a step one analysis which i think makes sense here because it's very much like macpro it's very much like and fish where you solving a computer problem this in compatibility problem with a technological solution so i don't think you get to step two in this case because of that but if you do except the district court's evaluation that this is directed to an abstract idea when you get to step two and you're looking at the individual elements and you're looking at them this in order combination what you find is that this is anything but routine or conventional let's look at the actual technical evidence said this is the evidence which by the way that poured with a wave of her hand completely discarded she simply announced that the legal issues presented lends itself to resolution without resort to extremes of evidence so she announced i will not look at any of the evidence that bears on the question of whether truly is conventional ordinary practice know what the undisputed evidence said was that there was no such share  platform in existence no one had manage to build this thing that was supposedly routine and conventional there's no doubt that it was novel given the number of times the patent office is now looked out of the identify the specific on no they're not the same thing but i think they do inform each other to some extent that what's also undisputed in this case which is very unusual is that those in the field believed that the technical solution here prevailed in a database was with incompatible character data was not workable interest expert testified that the industry believe that in order for a shared system to even work each individual system had to communicate using the same message format the prior art that was examined during the patent office think knowledge that in order to make e t i that electronic data interchange work all parties would use a shared format and  nexuses expert concur when asked would you agree that in the late ninety's that's the time when this invention was being developed as this reference said and she was read her as this reference and solution that was the focus of the patterns where you build the database you collect the information before it's requested you translated she said yes this is g t nexuses experts said yes the data would be more accessible if your steps were required to obtain the information more fault tolerant and in her words she said it would be quote better than a system where the data had not been pretty gathered in this way so my  my suggestion to this court is when you have something that's a novel one of a kind first of its kind solution to a technical problem this incompatible network problem that operates in a way that was believed everybody agrees was believed wouldn't work couldn't work but they did it anyway and it allowed them to realize all these advantages over the existing system that's not routine that's not conventional and the court only got to its conclusion otherwise by explicitly saying she would not consider any of the evidence that demonstrated her conclusion was wrong and what was the basis for her conclusion she just announces in the decision without any real explanation that priest or a status information constitutes pre selection activity incidental to the performance of the abstract idea she says amounts to nothing more than conventional data storage which is not an arguably inventive but  evidence showed this wasn't meant if this was not conventional this is not how any of the systems for working they work pretty building this was the intent this this of what you would think you would do if somebody wants data you can wait for a request you go out to the carrier  networks to collect that information and they turn that routine ordinary process on its head so now we're going to collect everything in advance so that we can translate it and organize the data with regard to translation she similarly dismissed that without any real explanation simply saying claims are not disclosed a novel translation that however and contemplate routine computer functions this is much like the basket case and basket o the court recognized that the internet filtering technology that was the subject of the patent was well known but the invention there deployed that technology in the unique way to solve a problem or they took that and as the court said filtering content on the internet was already a known concept just like translating is here but in that case the patent describes how his particular arrangements of elements of the technical prove that over the prior are that's just like an  and the court further noted in bascom that the claims carve out a specific location for the filtering system or mode piece server and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering that's very much like the facts here where the pattern identify the specific location to gather the data a specific timing for gathering the data for using the translation technology all of that comes together in coalesces as the inventor concept here in this case and it solves a problem that isn't isn't a commercial problem it's not a commercial problem to say that all of the carriers have developed and compatible systems are creating irreconcilable may please the court if it's a pleasure to be here it was hard to get a hotel room the i m f isn't in town and i was i want to thank the panel in the court for not issuing any more want to one decision today that i have to stay up late reading there been enough since labor day that we can talk about what i wanted to do with the court permission is addressed three things first i wanted to look at it clear the procedural underbrush counsel mentioned the judge waving your hand and discovering everything i want to talk about that for minute then i want to pick what i think kids the precedent of this court that is the most relevant here because as judge dyke pointed out this is to know if overview but i think that the district court addressed that by reviewing the pattens both claimed by claim in their totality this was not one of those cases where the judge came think primarily the argument was what we did we weren't just using a computer and a server in the network but we try we were able to translate these different languages into one and that to me that's the heart of the peel so if the court looks at the specifications there are three specifications not claimed so get to the claims in a minute there are three specifications that addressed it the first messages by validating the data when called by the server one of seven and translating the data into the common carrier system layout format that sit the other two specifications or similar a one five seven four one six lines seven to nine quote alternatively the common carrier system one zero three may translate the user's request from one form or format into one understood by the carrier or carriers one o three close quote and the last best for cation is it a one five seven four five at thirteen lines eight ten quote e t i translator translate carrier event code and message format into a common carrier system neutral format close quote so that's sort of in line with what council said that the invention here was an intermediate intermediated booking and tracing afraid it was translating the common languages but issue c from there  suit but i'm sorry for patents that sued but among those for patents which have a lot of claims there are three dependent claims that are on point which should have what your honour's looking for that that translation compounds it's not enough to say you should translate as alice said you can't just say put it on the internet and do it you have to specify how that function will work  all from the three eighty seven patent the other patent stone even mention doing the the translation of those claims recite quote wherein storing container tracking and tracing information further comprises translating the received content container tracking and tracing information into a common carrier system neutral format close quote under and the reading of alice steps to in all of this court precedents that isn't enough this is not a difficult line drawing case it's not one of the cases like bascom or macro and fish where you are changing something about how computers work here they specify function they say you need to translate different e t i the tower babel back into one time in language but they don't suggest any function beyond the abstract in that twi whether you look at the claims collected for the or individually they don't if did submit an expert declaration we didn't and then issue no this is one of those rare circuit of location issues in the ninth circuit when the case arose the decision not to include evidence on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is a matter of discretion i think it's what counts were for to she waved her hand i think it's a little more elegant to say she exercised her judicial discretion what the court said at a four quote given that the legal issues presented i'm sorry the legal issue presented lends itself to resolution without resort to extreme sic evidence the court exercises its discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings and treat the motion of one brought under rule twelve she close quote that is proper under ninth circuit law but even better yet it's proper under your law the mortgage greater decision at page six thirteen twenty five twenty six in counsel's words waved away the expert declarations on both sides and said this is a legal issue we don't some guys opining on the legal issue better yet last week in the in the affinity twins this court explicitly up held the district court's decision to disregard expert declarations regarding the innovative nature of the patents in conducting one i want to know alice that was in direct t v star seven in the amazon the start three let me go with my greatest hits there are so many decisions to pick from i think electric power group against alston which the court decided on august one is the closest and i don't know if any of the judges on this panel were on it i did this before i knew who the panel was not shopping pathans the representative patent claimed there was flame twelve of the seven pen patent and it describes a network comprised of many different entities sending different kinds of in information indecipherable by humans the information is interpreted stored synthesized analyzed than displayed the key feature of those patents was the ability to turn information of different types and from many different sources in to a quote humanly comprehensible amount of information close quote with respect to alice step one this court an electric power groups that this is just a combination of abstract idea of process i would appreciate some guidance on leave to kill a point as to why the combination of steps does not meet the criteria on balance yet to yes it is true as just a steward said that the court knows it when it sees it but that does not mean respectfully or honor that this court can issue different decisions every day depending who  when they granted the patent they granted the patent pretty alice in post alice they rejected it they initiated proceedings to reject all four but that was wiped out that's not evidence before  an electric power group and step two step two it found quote that nothing in the claims understood in light of the specification requires anything other than off the shelf conventional computer network and display technology for gathering sending and presenting the desired information close quote that to the star five to your court then said quote the result focused functional character of claim lang which has been a frequent feature of claims held in eligible under section one i want especially in the area of using generic computer network human but i must respectfully disagree with what you just said every step here collectively and individually was not on things like the praise they were in combined and there wasn't until perceive is because of other advances in science i think your honor sounds like you didn't like the alice just because the items in alice haven't been combined either in the supreme court said just combining all this on the internet doesn't do it absolutely you would be right if they had invented and claimed in specified the receptive stone a new way of translating different from diverse sources into one language the poor language the language in the garden of eden before the expulsion but the reason i began by showing you the three specifications in the three planes is they do nothing of the kind so your honour's observation would be highly valid where there was an is to one of those but smushing them altogether fails alice and it fails discords decisions not just in the lecture power but last week alone two affinity infamous court is sometimes struggled with but if one wanted to approach it it might be at that where you and sam something new in the house that computers work that may be enough but here we're not even close to that the three specifications in the three claim say let's take these different pieces in translate them but they don't tell you how to do th of the technical problem confronting the industry was a massive amount of data with millions of containers moved so you have the idea of neutral language but we're is it that if it was just translated yes that would be attractive three the idea here is how you construct that work as i said everyone agreed their expert agree it was believed that you couldn't build a single network that's what's conventional computer and all that was very specific much like the case in bascom where the the patent told you take a conventional internet filter just like take a conventional translation mechanism and here's where i want you to put it in your network in the bascom case they said i want you to put it at the i s p not on the computers for the individual users because that's a much more typical way to administer it and i want you to make it can figure a ball for each of the users and by arranging it in that way they solve this problem in the technological are the same here as when you took this translation capability you combine it with this idea that now we're going to actually it's council talked about translation but did not talk about the idea that was the focus of the patent office and they said it was novel was this idea of pre building and while through hindsight that might seem like something that was just an abstract idea here people specifically believed at the time that that was technically not feasible the patent taught you could and should do it and you should collect this data in advance and the translation was a part of that that by putting it like that filter in bascom by putting it in a central location by being this where if the hub could communicate with everyone the fact that the use of the system couldn't communicate with each other didn't matter and that was really the technological innovation that overcame the problem and this had i started the discussion by talking about this is a real world case because this did change how the markets function this didn't change the technology that was being deployed in the shipping industry because before the patent people didn't know how to do this once this patent laid out a methodology for structuring the network it didn't create every building block it didn't invent filtering  didn't invent translation but it did describe a technological solution which was in organizing the network in a certain way and deploying the technology an appropriate way to solve a technological problem which was these incompatible networks and now i think this is what just like in other cases like and fish they said look this is a computer problem this is a solution to a computer problem that's what the patent system is for we want to encourage innovation in solving those technical problems the fact that it's deployed in a context that has commercial ramifications shouldn't inhibit the ability to get patterns it should encourage further