first points made by the district court they were wrong and we don't see any briefing from alcatel denying that they were wrong m of each of the accused products and so on with was separately care charted noticing this sentence did not contain a citation i asked for documents supporting this claim in response tell him oh admitted that not every accused product that was immediately corrected and we show in our briefing there was a letter to the court that immediately corrected that mistake in this misperception by trial counsel what happened during the q was when new product lines and new families products were discovered when answers came in where alcatel of knowledge forty six different products within something like seven product families had the same standard capability all of that was charted during the suit so you're correct  get underneath the characterization you find that it's simply not sound for example in our i can't remember which three but one of the briefly pointed out in the just in the docket sheet alone you can see that there is the usual amount of discovery being exchanged between the sides that's not a patent he sitting on his hands interviewing today i recognize that one of those types of discovery served by the patentee was a request for admission actually two sets of requests for admission you don't serve qwest permission unless you expect you're going to use them either to fend off summary judgment or to go to trial so this is not a situation where the meter and efforts characterization to really really hold water and i think the major efforts characterization was also really painted by this grossman's perception by the district court unexplainable completely on fathomable that this case did not involve the plaintiffs happened to be prepared to prove the power boat goes over the products the standard is called power of ovaries or not it's just in comprehensible that that mistake existed in the district or to the opinion and frankly that i believe infected all of the rest of the perceptions and characterizations by the never probe of the rest of that device to decide on the wireless or not that's that's fundamental look at also backing this up look at the the pending claims claims mind and the ten and eleven those device not a wireless device the reason the final issue in plain construction was separateness the notion of separateness between the user interface connector and the  grounds for calling it frivolous for the patent need to fend off a separate this construction was that the word coupled it's between those two claims and so you have a user interface connector coupled to the communication with things that may be far away and not directly attached it's a broad term so the broad term couples can't be used to impute a separateness requirement and what we see from the caps licensing case is that even when the word is alleged frivolousness was simply wrong someone fathomable and that leaves only the district court believe that that shallow little insincere in its explanation for  decision was to not believe it because supposedly that was inconsistent with the prior argument that the license defense was was futile well what with all that miss it is that things changed because of the district court order allowed in there was absolutely nothing inconsistent a pure error of judgment unfair illogical simply doesn't follow and with your owner's permission i'd like to reserve the rest of the t end and their litigation conduct throughout were cause for an exceptional case i think that required that we not look at the correctness of the decision but we look at the actual strength and therefore the district court did not have the benefit of them in their position and they cannot now rely on it to ask this court to reverse judge andrews finding that the case was exceptional with address each of the arguments that counsel mates in turn counsel has argued that this case is based on a statement or a misstatement by judge andrew that there is no power traveling in power over there not a device that is absolutely now and the courts power travels through the connector too and adapter which is capable of receiving and using power those are two distinct elements and describe through which our travels through which they also cite testimony by out tells whitman again consistent with the court finding power travel through the connector to circuit the circuit being the adapter so the cords edition on what this case was about was absolutely right r j forty five adapter is not a term that is used anywhere in the past t patent does not describe any sort of modification to an r j forty five connector to turn it into adapter figures that say that he saw what just simply is a network ho on the latch and as described in the past and in for rat adapter which is an adapter the first type on the right there is actually if you look at the description and the references within that they are no reference to an r j forty five connector so it's impossible to argue that the six figure six a is actually some sort of modification to an r j forty five connector that turns it into an  the figure doesn't even reference or describe the actual connector and there were women airing infringement conventions the only inference in contention that they made throughout this case are equally quart so it argues that since you have to have a plus and important the only thing that is a connector argue that the adapter the commonplace plug that piece of plastic at the end of username cable that you might have in your house was an adapter capable of receiving power and the judge found that sufficient to be simply for the moment there is no support for that in the specification and shall move had identified not with respect to adapter of the first type shall argue that adapter of the first type isn't a disaster of a particular type and that the construction that this court found that the disk does this report found to be one of the worst that i've ever heard because an adapter of a particular type is effectively and kind of a desk but the claim language here is adapter of the first type the patent owner was specific of the first type to call this any generic adapter reads out the terms of the first type now i shall move to argue that that's just the pattern convention that should be are that it must be capable of receiving power and that's consistent with the claim an adapter identifying the presence of an adapter of a first type and for continuously providing power to that  the argument that they made now and the subjugation also teaches that other types of adapters that can type and third type do not receive power there are very clear and not so conveyed adapter of a first type  after were first sight is not limited to adapter of a plane and a rather other wireless adapter absolutely the claim would be internally contradictory it makes no sense because it would not be able to perform the later requirements of actually receiving power and that's central to what this invention is really about this is all about power in a remote device and if it happened here in adapter and if it can't be receiving power then it's that there is no sense of this invention the claim differentiation argument is similarly flawed first of all it's weighed never made of during the claims injection process never made in the scored during the briefing on the c s claims nine ten and eleven refer to ether not token ring and wireless lan these are not types of adapters these refer to the pro operational protocol which is another term within the specification and the and the claim that talks about the form of communication that does not refer to adapter so claims nine ten and eleven are living in narrowing a different limitation and therefore do narrow the claim and are not inconsistent with the senator the construction of adapter of the first type  positions that were litigated and the strength of those positions and the only argument that shall move made on this issue before the district or one patent drafting convention and maybe an error that was made at the actual hearing with no support and no explanation and then withdrawn and never made on appeal and the specifications support that but that that we need to look at the fact that the patent doesn't reference separate but the patent while it doesn't use the word that figures in the text make clear that user interface connectors below are in that particular location are different than all the other kinds of connectors and in fact when the or when those patent owner had wanted to show that things were included it's sad that the h interchangeable which is exactly what shall i argue a century one to read out again the words of the claim they want that plane turned to be an actor and that's because they have a infringement argument that right on it with the term is user interface connector and the patent was clear that it had particular definition now i'm going to move on  are of peace we had to produce illuminance amounts of documents expense and they don't even have an expert that would be able to review the confidential documents and that until the very end of that discovery on the deposition front they hid this is all really the same company and they hid behind their form they may have served thirty discovery on the license that so over all they added in a way to string out this case hoping to four for that's right and i didn't hear that they're just there's only one specific issue where i heard from the shipman that there is no mention of it in the in the trial court and i think that was the kno some some latitude for pointing to places of say that support the same argument so we go show me where you've raised the specific issues in the record because i'm looking at twenty four fifty fo we there is a defense of the adapter of the first type not having to be wireless and it should be construed as particular one twenty four fifty six shall most claim constructions were not frivolous twenty four fifty seven which respected after of the first type shall of those proposed construction was not divorced from the specification or inconsistent with the prosecution history and that's it the the spec in the specification are not by themselves enough to show separately it was specifically on issues of separateness finally litigation misconduct was not an issue accepted by the district court  in fact i would like to cite the parsee versus us on which of seven seventy eight after one succeeds that the case which stands for the proposition that when you have an equitable decision by the district or with in the context of the awards is activities by the offensive party which specifically cause an increase in cost to the other side well let me restate th