products well let me let me let me turn you st to mr reading and his damages calculation where was the record did he provide a justification or rationale for his two thousand and fifteen hypothetical where as john crank it then decide to leave the market in a year or two and overpay for a license or whereas the burden would be borne on super rod to give a product license and then have to pursue each der more sense to go ahead and license a patent and so that the parties could decide whether to continue using the patent and pay you per unit roll to or not and not pay anything so t the if i understand the the products being similar don't have the citation records from me right now on where he discusses the products were similar within the license that these parties would be negotiating hypothetically viewing the technical expert of john crane who upon that seventy percent of the value of that was in the end i agree with that that was a reasonable number applied to seventy percent he didn't unfortunately more because he didn't feel that there was not a necessary and a need for further apportionment and explained in his deposition each of the factors that would have been considered through additional portion that mr reading especially stated that he found those to be worthless in any unpatentable features within that in itself and the reason there is the purpose of inventing is to connect to the fiberglass sakharov and the vision here is that internal geometry that connects the rod to the end you have to have a strong connection here for these rods to work and break therefore he put all the value of the in thing itself because this is a solid single piece of machine metal so you can't take away a feature this is not like singe in our next any of these other software cases where you have dozens or hundreds or thousands of potential features components at same geometry but a slight difference in some of the angles of the wedges and i think that the cases that we relied upon in our briefing in the course of the medtronic which is also an f d a case that the data was slightly different i think that's all force here liquid dynamics versus vaughn uses a c f d which is a computational fluid dynamics it's actually just a more complicated f e a again they couldn't even determine whether information in that was accurate but they still allow the test  g we left a two hundred behind the two hundred series the two hundred dollars series is is only affected by those four limitations that were excluded without reason honor i think that's would be the appropriate step here unless this court finds and again there is argument from both sides on here that those limitations are or not present or are not supported but i don't see given it was only the prototype of the series three hundred dollars f d a that was challenged and their motion and that was ruled on by the court the series  i don't believe that to be so with respect to the claim limitations that the issue in the case to district court judge exercised to discretion to limit testimony on items that titian and in that case the district court judge read briefing heard arguments as counsel for helen's to provide support for the analysis performed by the expert which they could not do and determine that the testimony there should be precluded in a similar in that regard you know we even asked the expert in his deposition sitting here today you have no basis of which to say that the angle  really apply with respect to the ratio limitations of the up to swim the patients where there was a lack of measurement a lack of analysis and then of course testimony from the witness in a deposition  fifteen had sold the company to a much smaller texas based company called insurance with solutions so good nor all of those factors when picking the wrong hypothetical support his one hundred percent assumption claiming that the entreating provide all of the value to the particular product the record in fact was otherwise against that view and rather than tackling that issue on one of the panel touched on the issue of the use of discretion standard in place and you know the district court judge heard the sense of argument read the sensor briefing and listen to  where the testimony ran the risk using the jury and in fact i think consistent with the with the gun charge industry's case from the th circuit where the court stated that  where the jury would have drowned in untrue or unproven allegations and then forced to sit through farceur fiction coming from the other side and that's what was diagnosed by the district court and the hearing itself was just in the ratios he said it was just a matter of you can measure the dimensions because they're on the drawing to use the drawings for is not done either was it not include those calculations in his report that's correct