on this subject because as i read i was going to trial but we discussed this when the court asked us for information we gave you all the information we could find and microsoft responded good arguments that an injunction should have been entered in the court is interested i will explain that you're asking a different question assuming the injunction is sustained how much lead time should they appoint wise they've had plenty of time already from the time infringement was found to make a change and by the time the court's decision is over they will have even more time and that may be more than enough time for them to make the change but even the  you might want in the end with instructions to the district court to have a brief hearing or briefs exchanged on that issue and to make a subsequent decision based on that so can i ask geisha misconduct to be the be all and end all but it does allow it to be one factor but i also think one could read read as putting a limitation on the kind of litigation misconduct we're talking about because they refer to manipulative litigation throughout edgy which demonstrates a lack of good faith belief and defend it so one blue or green that you have to meet that criteria to be covered by a reading to be a permissible factor and enhancement gate undermines that factor the read factor are they list i think nine factors that's quite should consider in determining whether to enhance so this isn't a you and he ended up repeating it repeating it and i think that the quote under read properly took that into consideration is expressed invested as one of the factors in greed and i think it's advice seek it i don't think to put some reins on the willfulness doctrine that is not the same issue involving an answer and it has been is a judge decision it's a just decision based on the totality of circumstances it includes financial and the situation where there are two distinct legal theories to support the general verdict which is what the district court did here against microsoft's request the spectrum sports case in spring cork tells us exactly what should happen in that context where went on the proper legal theory or the improperly there that law i think it's clear that on the state this is a question of different points of view that's the law from the supreme court of this court and knowledge respond just words question about whether there's authority in the absence of a decisions regarding the admission of testimony by experts nevertheless we took this occasion to caution that the standard leaves appellate judges with a considerable test we will turn to that test with a sharp lawyer particularly in those instances hopefully few where the record  made up by mr goh shouter who is a plaintiff licensing expert who put it out there when review to justify what he was doing in his own business and they base it on swiss licensing practices of non technology in the one nine hundred fifty s the idea that that ought to support a ninety six dollar starting point in this case which was the starting and ending point of his georgia pacific analysis effectively is absurd but putting that to one side is clearly proper and there is no authority that supports it to take to have a question mark which says i'm going to take something which doesn't practice the patent invention where the whole purpose of this exercise is to figure out the value of the pen to the bench and or with your daughter's clothes about for microsoft talk about the value of x m l this patent didn't  decision this court record low to try to claim destruction if i may there are two points that i want to address the first is that mr downer cites number one thirty two and figure and says that input means which talks about content and medical shows that can be joint input means a column fourteen line eighteen is a keeper shows nothing about work store that's a keyboard it's a relic the second point is and this is the point rodgers asked the language is used as permissive the language action it's used is it could be used now or an equal fair reading in fact i would argue the only reading of this patent is not that that's permissive i could really could not but it's establishing the capability of the technology you can do it with this technology and without it you can't that was the whole point of the invention but that's the point of the spec is that before this you couldn't do it and that capability is what distinguished this invention from the prior art and under you decision yesterday and every other case of this court where you distinguish the prior art based on the capability that mention provides the product in half that's limited in this case that's independent and it delayed for throughout to the question of should have known of the patent it's once you have knowledge of the patent and knowledge of an infringement contention then you can't put your head in the sense that every decision of this quarter from voted on every other case in any context never sells you have a duty to investigate facts are according to their own evidence where people used it in a nonfiction way because they saw fit so the fact that certain benefits could be obtained using it that is a relative whether that use is substantial two million people more than those who