There are many observations that can be made re the many documents that have been generously made available to us by smallcap and bursting. To my limited view at least the following speaks volumes about the weakness of Apple's position and their expert.

Apple's attempt to mislead the court by asserting that "full" applies to "program" is unmasked by Burst's expert Ms. Hemani with devastating precision:

......Apple’s construction of “full motion video program” as “an entire audio/video program made of video frames that are displayed in sequence to make a moving picture” misrepresents the meaning of “full” in “full motion video program.” They attempt to use “entire” as a synonym for full; however, the term “full motion video” was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to refer to a video captured and displayed at a sufficiently high frame rate to display smooth and nonjerky motion. “Entire” is not a synonym for “full” in this context, and Apple’s construction istherefore incorrect.....

"Full motion video" is a term well known to anyone down to and including preteen video gamers.

Their attempt to very crudely hi-jack this concept smacks of desperation, IMO. If they apparently feel they have to rely on this kind of intellectual dishonesty, they must have very few arrows in their quiver.

td