Opinion ID: 4160657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reward Wall Appellate Record

Text: Next, IntegraSpec argues that the district court did not understand the appellate record in Reward Wall and misrepresented the oral argument transcript. According to IntegraSpec, the district court here relied almost entirely on what was said about claim construction at the oral hearing, but failed to recognize that two judges on the panel “doubted that the district court construction made sense.” Appellant Br. at 22. We disagree. As noted, the district court correctly determined that the only issues IntegraSpec raised on appeal in Reward Wall were the construction of the “adjacent” and “substantially the same dimension” limitations. The court cited IntegraSpec’s opening brief on appeal in Reward Wall in support of this determination. Decision on Appeal, 2016 WL 5107131, at . The court also noted that the audio recording of the oral argument in Reward Wall confirmed that IntegraSpec did not challenge the noninfringement determinations in that appeal. Id. at  n.8. PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. AIRLITE PLASTICS CO. 23 The district court did not err in citing these sources to confirm the scope of what was at issue in Reward Wall. That the panel of judges in the Reward Wall appeal appeared to challenge the appellee during oral argument does not establish that they doubted the district court’s claim construction. The fact remains that the panel issued a Rule 36 affirmance. Accordingly, IntegraSpec’s interpretation of the oral argument in Reward Wall is irrelevant.