in this case is pretty much an infringement case that is only focused on the defenses mr moore and remedy golf stipulate to infringement if claim one was found to be gulfs give it to will on its website that is not the product that was enjoying by the district or that's correct part of our stipulations far as infringement was only the device that a locking mechanism centered on the pivot remedy golf changed its design to where it was an improvement where there was a locking mechanism that locks on the side we had showed that device and i have one that operates like that in my briefcase we had shown that device to the district court shown accounts and said this device we're not stipulating that this device infringes on claim one and they agree ok so what  selling on the website now is not what was enjoying that's correct in the court maybe there was a response by what was the pallies council i mean yeah pelleas council that we still were selling these things on the website and they were looking at the website seeing pictures that those pictures weren't updated and the device that is being sold by grandma to golf is not the same theoretically hypothetically if we were to affirm the judgment then is your client going to go into bankruptcy proceedings and then therefore become judgment proof that i'm not sure what mr moore is going to be doing mr morris in a situation where he runs from any golf he has other investors and it depends on the truth that mr moore at one point communicated difficulty that if if this judgment becomes final then  opposing counsel that he made a total misrepresentation this court and you didn't notify the court he took my statements out of context and i didn't think that that's my place to get into an argument with the court and opposing counsel over that issue that's not an argue with the court as an argument to the court or in hindsight i should have addressed that issue with the court but when i was asked to provide a status report i explained to the court after the stay was i had spoken with mr pascoe and said let's resolve this what are these what are these two companies going to do or are they going to be in a point where they're going to have money to pay this judgment my personal views when i share with mr pascoe weren't those exact words what i told mr pascoe was when we get to a point when this final judgment comes down i don't know what mr moore or mr remedies position is going to be you know if you mention the word bankruptcy i probably stated bankruptcy if you mention or judgment proof i don't i don't believe i said remedy was judgment proof and in conversations that are talking about settlement and i'm talking to him about trying to move them swartz where we would pay a reasonable amount without trying for them to catch the whole judgment things or send people to talk about different things  was your conversation in the written form i don't i don't believe i did that there may be an e mail communication with mr pascoe my communications with mr pascoe were not complete and i had e mails were right tried to get in contact him to talk to him about these issues were under responded to and e mails where i'm chastising him for not responding to me but i just you know i don't think that that should be the issue in the subpoena the basic issue is here's a district court here and there are some factual findings that just are not consistent with the physical evidence if you look at what the district courts hollings more take exception to the district court fund because that's actual finding is simply not accurate and what happens where i had a demonstration i would show you demonstrate clearly that that's not possible but i was told by while i was here with court staff went through screening and there on a box in there in the recess and they weren't considered weapons i talked with people about it and i have to take them out and you can you can see that this is a different tool that david intended to produce and show to the public what you have as it's been taken apart on fifteen zero seven and there is this your object above the circular object that's correct that's the key and then this is how we make a record i understand thank you your honor and so below what the round part of the low computed effective i've you're pointing to something in your product which you don't even call it you know that's one thing that's the key i'm pointing to g t nine and making a different tool using the exact you're saying that the product on page mechanism to the g t knives mechanism they all have a on fifteen away it shows all of the method your lawyer when you're showing us that instead of the prior art switchblade lied which is what the district court was looking at because way the claim construction was done the g t knives invalidate the patent because they anticipate the fact what page is an exploding ram on your client's product there is no picture here of my client and in this there is no exploded exhibit we stipulated that mr morrison remedy gulfs product infringed if claim one was valid but what you have here is basically taken their switch blade and switching it to a fork and then later on when they got to plastic they switched this this get to a piece of rot welp the point we made at trial was if there's four mechanisms that every so when you say all three men all or all four but the three knives are the first ones and then so you have the three knives and then to do that master which is made by just turn red i'm going to give you a minute to actually train tie this together invalidity was the argument was that the g t knives operated in the same fashion as the divot two or the different master and if you look at the pattern the way the claim construction was the g t knives read on the plans and therefore the patents invalid but when we went to obviousness you take the g t knives flip the other items that we introduce prior art combine there's nothing more than a combination of known prior art and therefore the crown should be obvious as well as to scale by the g p not think