united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable court good morning ladies and gentlemen we have four cases it's morning two of treat the m t a as if it were a one way and the even though it was specifically negotiated to be a two way mutual and the its purpose was for both parties to exchange confidential information at appendix twenty dollars to eighty one dollars which is the m and the the preamble states each of the parties has developed information that each party regarded confidential each party proposes to disclose certain  conceding part of the cross appeal i'm not completely conceding that your honor i think there was a failure of proof on the cross appeal that the burden was on the plaintiff at the time the cross the parts to put in evidence of what the preference the mutual exchange of confidential information in it in response to judge laurie and on page seven of the blue brief you say ok and yet you're saying that you don't want us to presume that you provided confidential information is that correct that is also correct and yet you also  i'm going to keep going i'm sure not so i don't understand the question you're right it wasn't a question it was a statement courts don't rationalize they don't argue they don't contend they find and they hold on on page thirty footnote six of the blue brief how moscow says that harvard is arguably the richest university in the world what's the basis for that statement what's the relevance of it yeah why is it you have anything in the record the answer's no isn't it but the the argument made by across the po that because they were a small startup company that we were trying to age because it was trying to drive them out of business so that's the relevance of it you have any have any information in the record to that effect on was publicly available what we're specifically focused on here today is that the failure to return within the thirty days while it pointed out the notwithstanding clause did not ask for h b k to return the information within thirty days t k had to return the information within thirty days and it did not and that was a breach and sonic's has admitted at least three times in its red brief that the failure to return the competence information cause there's there's two issues here there's one issue there's a breach by failure to return the information within thirty days and the nd was and nd argument that's in our brief and will stand by as in february of two thousand upon a february st two thousand and eight report that would demonstrate hamas who was using the confidential information but that was the a different concealment argument with respect to not returning the information that's new it didn't have its information back that the return of information the non determinism was a not a material breach she was to me that that was fairly within the right of the jury to decide to my question is looking at that so it seems to me that your arguments to the jury that you'd never you deny use such as confidential information goes against does not help the argument concerning the jury verdict i think i understand one of held against you why should we disturb that finding by the jury because no reasonable juror could have found it how am i to return the information and sonic's basically has never argued that it that and that that term them you want to save eight minutes and that's fine but if you want to continue a little bit into your rebuttal time that's our right to because probably across appeal is sort of lighter fifty two of the blueberry you say the district court and joined the monsoor indefinitely from selling the accused products even though it would never be independently action affectively a punishment for an earlier breach what your legal authority for that statement i mean is that effectively it under your standard isn't every injunction a punishment well found awarded a permanent injunction in this case and the party had specifically negotiated a seven year confidentiality period and after the seven years was up no longer apply by the district court awarding a permanent injunction and states that as the party disclosing confidential information would be the sole owner of any patents or resulting from the confidential information and so the finding does comport with the record that's not what the injunction does it's not limited to product it is if it's limited to products practicing the disputed patent because it still doesn't say anything about the confidential information contributed confidential information then the m t a presumes that information disclosed between the parties is confidential under section one unless proven otherwise which sonic's didn't do the record demonstrates that the information reality is both parties exchange confidential information on section five of appendix twenty two the receiving party acknowledges disclosing party claims ownership of the confidential information disclosed by the disclosing party and all rights arising from such confidential information they respectively disclose the only thing that they're referring to that they're not aware of confidential information was testimony from sinuses dr kerry who said he wasn't aware of any but he wouldn't be in a position to know translation of the japanese patent that's inaccurate and we actually disputed that on the record unfortunately not in the appendix because it wasn't submitted in the briefs but if it would please the court we can submit pages of the transcript from that day of the trial and we also know that cross a concert asking the district court and now this court to transfer a list of foreign patents without ever giving the court the patten numbers so there's patents in china correct but certainly not