usually sorts of very quickly when looking at a claim by a patent owner as was made in this case that there is one or more terms where infringement really turns on the interpretation of those and my expectation in this case frankly was that there is the term network provider which jumps out from the claim that was asserted claim one that would be the point of contention that there would be some interpretation of network provider that could be compassed us a software company that does not issue phones to people that does not have a network that people use to track their phones but there would be sung such construction and i was very surprised when we got to the point in the case where we were to exchange claim terms that there was no construction proposed and that the construction that i saw in the specification that it was a wireless carrier such as veri or eighteen team that device recently agreed with that and shortly after before we even submitted these things to the court i thought well i will certainly win summary judgment that's the case because it's impossible district courts under an abuse of discretion standard i find exceptional case so whether or not you had a pretty nearly slam dunk case on something judge doesn't get to the or doesn't know absolutely and that's what was going to say next is that at that point that's all i thought it was but but the reaction that that came from after the exchange of claim terms was all the sudden out of the blue were dismissing everything we're giving you a cut and not to sue you just have to promise not to pursue your rights as a prevailing party or to waive all claims and in the course of that discussion before i could agree to that i felt like i need to satisfy myself there were some interpretation of network provider that we could make us correct that the way the claim is written the subscriber is somehow contacting the never quite providing sort of from a shouldn't get certain responses back in response to this dialogue that takes place from how this this is a just an estimate by i would say about half because the work that we did actually most of it would have been before because because up to that point we were responding to infringement r response in the schedule and so many days after receipt they must be must be served so i the trouble that i have with the district court's order is that i understand you have a problem with that the question is whether or not the district court abused its discretion and not have the same problem you have and that we can i say is it true i mean i know everybody's been citing a nonprofit case which doesn't make everybody terrifically comfortable here but there is at least one non presidential opinion from our court that suggests that says that even if if one of several theories had no basis that's still not enough or certainly not necessarily enough to overturn the district court's conclusions  under abuse of discretion so that's why why do you have more than one count blocking your honor if i believe that directly for it is the starting point that was the starting point for each argument that i made in district court but that wasn't the i didn't stop there it was just that the direct infringement case had this difference that there was an admission that they had known from the beginning that we were not a network provider that's simply a very clear statement that's a direct in to correct for it so the fact that they say we knew you guys were not yourselves they never provider doesn't mean that they didn't have a reasonable basis for a theory of two seventy one infringing i agree that it's possible that they had a basis however in their pleadings and their contentions they always made it sound like we work they allege in their efficient attention the definition of their provider if that it was asked and or some other people and with respect to the doctor because once all i ever saw any pleading was just a blanket statement that said dr acquittals with no further explanation and i don't think that it's a not for a claim to be considered as a legitimate so our position is that in the district court looked at the theory that was being asserted that the claim the claimant sult the steps that are involved  performed by the kinds of things that by security has come up with since which include things like cell towers and so on i think claim is actually quite clear about what does require and and we've never cooperation between two legally independent parties can be combined to form a basis for the record never mind what those cards are but it says something  as a standard than the earlier interpretation suppose for a minute and if it is is the reasonableness of their complaint the sanction ability of their litigation or to eighty five be in force however purposes of of this feast motion i will concede if they have a theory that could be stated under the law as it was or even changed by if they had a factual basis to make that there was some other party horizons website so there is clearly a network provider involved with ours the you go onto the company's website not any carrier and when you find your phone as it shows their own contentions google maps finds your phone so they understood from the syrian case that it was possible and i agree that is legitimate basis for an infringement claim that there is some partnership with a carrier such as arisan in that case whoever in this case you can see from their own infringement intentions if there's no trace of any other party so i agree that it's possible that other parties in the abstract could have been involved that could trigger the the factual basis a good faith basis for the infringement claim but i've never seen any i know that it doesn't exist but i've never even seen why they think that that evidence was out there so that's that's the problem i see a problem but i should probably say that's what makes the case seem exceptional because i think that most patent cases that are used to get it in the way that that were used to turn on a question of play destruction which which may win they lose but at least the party has some faces to think that they could in this case i don't understand how they could have ever thought they would prevail and since i raise that point i have not been encouraged or or dissuaded from that believe and i've read all the different arguments and all the different it's helps to show that there is some reason to the district court's opinion focused substantially on the conduct of the party and actually pointed out that the conduct of divisive purity below is the type of conduct that should be allowed not sanctioned the initial licensing letter the device security center was not the sort of heavy handed liberal aggressive licensing letter that has been chastised by some ports it was quite gentle you know we understand what is the reasonable bas induced infringement theory under that rock of mine because there was no public information about the relationship between kaspersky on the one side and that were provided on the other and a key point which persists in getting wrong is the question of whether they quote were a network provider that was never of issue it was never alleged it was never a requirement or the requirements of the claims merely ask that certain signals it was seized at a site operated by a network provider and the theory about how that could happen is very easy to understand because if we're talking about a lost cellphone or a lost i that's how communicates with the outside world and so the idea that there was this in possibility to figure out how the cell tower the network provider might be involved ignores the claims and reality there was never an allegation that they quote were a network provider because there was never a requirement that they be one and if and there was no public information on this at all if there were a relationship between are three other potential claims based on the public information at the time before discovering the next is the docking the quibble is degree which is clearly articulated which said you may not be operating within that work provider but if you're performing the same functions as a network provider would and they clearly all the functions of the claims are clearly being provided if you walk through the steps of the claims about how you find a lost i phone or last i pad that's exactly what their website says happens what was left uncertain based on the public information was which entities are playing what role in that process and it was clear at some point whether by agreement for not  that the facilities operated by that were providers would have been involved but under rocket my that needed to be more than just random it had to be by agreement and once it was learned it was not that there was dropped secondary of course the client there was no information publicly about that at the time therefore at that time once the information was produced it said that's not happening the claim was dropped and that's exactly the point court may which is why there cannot be an abuse of discretion here which is the district court concluded that the claims were sufficiently viable until once they were received and the claims became weaker than they were thought to be based on public information the patent holder did precisely the responsible thing which is to dismissed claims what about your friend's argument that you couldn't get the cost of doing validity contentions what the court held was it's not exceptional that's what the court held and there was no holding below and none required that said once quasar legal argument that is made by appellant is the argument that if there is one claim which they contend to have been basis of side the factual question about whether it was  or not basis at the time made but others which were good plausible appropriate not baseless is the one supposedly baseless claim by itself exceptional here the flip situation is flipped you have a district court decision finding no exceptional case taking into account the totality of the circumstances as it should do and the argument is ma that argument they've made the argument that it was erroneous as a matter of law for the district court not to find it exceptional because of one claim they contend was bad and there's no law support that not and the only law that exists in the non presidential case is not only against that but against that in the flip circumstance where there was a presumption of deference of title to the district or finding an exception out so i think that that decision link for whatever means supports the commonsense view and the just in the view that it's dominate the district courts which is if there are good plausible claims arguing about one claim that they think is not plausible so now it's it should be perfectly clear i think that direct literally frenchman at least that piece has never been explained and was certainly baseless i did not take the position in briefs order today a software company you can look up information about websites and who owns those domains that wasn't after the fact thing that i had never heard before until we got into this this briefing and i spared the discussion of all these little conduct issues that were discussed at length in the opposing councils of briefs because in this case i serve no discovery i notice no depositions i waited patiently for the exchange of claim turned to see if i could move for s and before i could do that they came in and dismiss everything no extra expense was a post on the patio or in this case and then when i wouldn't waive just pursuing whether i had a claim for fees i was sent a sanctions because i was multiplying the proceedings i didn't want to get into that because i thought that that's not really the issue but to the extent that it's mentioned the district court's order i think the things that they discuss statements that were made before any real proceedings took place in the case by eugene kaspersky on his personal blog there is nothing that talks about how i handled the case in the district court that that i've ever seen anyone find fault with i've been accused of not dropping an issue that i should drop but other than that the way this case was handled the absolute minimum burden was placed on the pattern or because i knew from the beginning that the case extremely weak i didn't realize until the complete failure to explain the infringement case that i was forced to conclude that it was baseless not willingly but that was much later when i when i reset conclusion but that's not really  during the lawsuit and i in response said i don't see anything about the conduct of kaspersky lab during the lawsuit that would make us somehow it eligible drivers right i had taken mr powers simply to be a little bit of discussion on the merits of the original complaint and then of more discussion of how all of the negotiation was conducted and you had your opening argument had not discussed the portions of the district court's opinion that said the way they conducted take it so much as an accusation it's more like have we fully discussed the basis for the district court's decision because because if the claim has merit based on basis then i agree these other factors are not important but the part of the order i think that if the court for example that the district court never entertained this bad apple theory because it never reached a conclusion about whether directed or friendship was baseless that was just pushed to one side so that the question that we've been discussing here the district court never had the opportunity to decide that we have th