please the court there are three issues i'd like to talk about today in my prepared comments of the sufficiency of the two thousand and fourteen notice letters and providing actual notice to the in the old defendants the error made by the district its ruling that plaintive cannot recover damages for identified products if the infringement result it is a result of the use of some of the functionality of microsoft's software and finally some of the problems i think w microsoft there is no notice to microsoft you're on about what the order is directed to and whether the issue is not whether we can get the plaintive can collect damages from microsoft but whether the plaintiffs can collect damages from that defendant appealing to the two predominantly to the issue of the o e m liability and less well we're appealing no i don't believe so i mean i don't think there's any question in fact it's indicated in the original brief that microsoft was recover damages from those parties if they were in french mint arises at least in part through being utilization of some microsoft software and that was one of the issues that was sought in a clarification of the district court order because if you look at  that that's correct are in that that's why there's a there's a dispute here because microsoft and this is discussed in footnote for the courts original opinion microsoft apparently has agreements that say look if you're infringement arrives in a park then you can look to us in the direct you to it to the nd patent one point is i think the issue that you may be raising is one of divided in joint infringement because it an example where a bell abra i don't think so but i think what i'm trying to get is you have buried specific allegations of soc specific notice this one talks about dell upgrading the software and dell stores the software in servers engaging in the activity so i think that one is specific and i think that when you can appropriately say is directed to a dell computer operating to a dell so because it says dell servers they are now i'd like to contrast that if we can with the six hundred and fifty eight patent and i'm going to ask the court to look at for example the notice letter that was sent to the fu in its in its supplemental opinion was axed clarifying it actually said that the letter provided notice to the like look at least seventy three but what it said in its discussion was well if the infringement arises through the operation of the seven hundred and thirty three using anything other than microsoft software you can get images for it but if the identified product infringes because it uses microsoft's software then you  to start with the product the product that would infringe but it's six hundred and fifty eight dollars claims one is not microsoft's software this is fifty eight dollars claims directed to an apparatus that has to include a memory and it has to include a processor and so a microsoft operating notice letter does is it identified the light both east of and thirty three dollars products as an infringement product and we think that this court notice law is very clear it says in order to provide info notice of infringement you basically have to wait going to file a particular allegation of infringement and for example in the anstead opinion the judge laurie wrote it said what you need to do is identify a specific ringback claim a specific patent in a specific with regard to the the hardware of the laptop and in the memory well your honor the microsoft operating system will include some poach anality that describe you want to gamble as a connection manager and it can allow you to determine which methods of communication you're going to prioritize whether you're going to use why five st whether you can or you cellular st where they're going to do it through a direct ether net and so when the microsoft's operating system is placed on the computer you can certain things it's software that may be preloaded on the computer or maybe load it after the fact but it's the software that is adding to the apparatus that achieves the functions in that limitation so whether it's software provided by for just two or software part of the operating system by microsoft and then the product this all your allegations when this particular project the laptop is sold it's got memory and it's got a processor that performs these functions for your identification of a particularly isolated example and i would use for example i think the guard opinion talks about two letters that said your trackball products in french and those were found to provide sufficient notice for the trackball products that opinion also said they did not necessarily provide notice for some mouse when products which i believe if you look at the products actually didn't include a trackball so by identifying a particular say specifically only through operation of microsoft's software or only through operation if you just sort of software then the broad identification of the product should control and you should be able to recover damages for all the areas of that product that in fact infringe regardless of what the the underlying basis is because if you're required to provide enough detail to articulate all of the underlying basis for your infringement what vendors might supply components that are used what rd party very software to microsoft until two thousand and seventeen when the lawsuits filed nothing in the record whatsoever to say that the proprietary software works in the same way that microsoft software that they're interchangeable judgment if not a printer meant as to both microsoft and as to microsoft products and services and so what the district courts and that is what mooted the underlying d j action and gave rise to the final judgment is the district court's decision that not only can you not recover microsoft specifically on page fifteen i think it is and footnote four of their brief they say there are other software products at issue in each of the underlying cases that are not microsoft products that's not what this case is about that's not what this deal is about subs whose products are contained within the box that is being accused of infringement they don't necessarily have to identify them by name but what this court has said and continually thereafter is that you need to give a specific charge of you there is no specific charge of infringement anywhere in here as to any microsoft product or service let me say it's a charge against the fujitsu laptop and in fact they couldn't  products rather than just saying fujitsu you manufacture a laptop that infringes this patent because you need a specific charge of infringement and it matters what that charge of infringement as to a particular product is that it can't you just isn't president just your company manufactures these products here our patent claims we've looked at this and we think your products operate to infringe these claims no that's claim right and they're saying your laptop is the apparatus that infringed it and it does all of this isn't that specific notice of and print it does all of this by way of your proprietary software this no not necessarily it's because they don't explicitly doesn't buy any specific charge of infringement with respect to software which is what these patents are all about these patents are all about software they're not about i mean sure they run on a generic computer and i think i seventeen and i think it was one of the last two of its suits against computer manufacturers the one against valve they explicitly called out for the st time in that complaint that microsoft automatic updates and connection manager that these lawsuits have placed a cloud over our products we have our customers are being accused and all these different lawsuits and so we're seeking a declaration of not in french and as to our products and services and that  cases cannot continue that allegation or incorporating into them any allegation that any portion of the claim limitations are being satisfied by virtue of the microsoft by virtue of that's correct but the cases are all continuing as to the only data but certainly only as to their proprietary software it is their proprietary software that performs any of the functions that's correct so it isn't the killing that microsoft can't be the basis for liability in those but the district court was wrong to preclude us from getting damages for the microsoft but that's the final judgment that on appeal here is only the final judgment from the microsoft e j action that that appendix fourteen and what the i don't really frankly specifically accusing microsoft products and we were granted the right to intervention in those cases and then when everything was consolidated into that and yeah well if when microsoft that was the basis for your intervention that our proprietary that was what the d j said is that because i or no cannot recover damages from both microsoft or from the o e m s or infringement by microsoft products and services and it with both of those that were declaratory judgment that seeks judgment of not infringement as to microsoft's products and services and that piece that had to be combined with the other piece that moved at the whole thing if you affirm as to the ability to collect damages from microsoft directly that doesn't move the entire does the patentee here provided notice as to a particular piece of proprietary software nothing else that's what the district court found they haven't disputed that on appeal and there's no record evidence whatsoever as to how anybody would have known that microsoft products or services for  products that use microsoft operating systems that result in some of the functionality in the claims that that that is the issue one of on appeal and i think judge moore you're right that the judge's decision below addresses that terry stop where we got notice but not us from microsoft and the judge granted partial summary judgment and said yes you can proceed again for damages against microsoft and now the others yes that order is not immediately available i would agree with that in the parties where you can see cases are still ongoing final estimate of issues certainly are i think this goes to the declaratory judge the nature of the the action filed by microsoft microsoft filed the declaratory judgment which of course has to have some underlined real dispute for the parties for rights can be impacted by the decision and if you look at the declaratory judgment action that microsoft filed a large part of it in fact the only important part of it was this issue of whether customers who use microsoft software infringe the patent and or get liable to damages because it was that damage liability and all that but the judgment that's the only judgment that spinal is as to microsoft well they that's the only final judgment but the final judgment as to microsoft included it is based on a particular issue and that issue is whether or not the customer because if the if the court's decision  not but that's the point of the final judgment will and i'm still confused as to how the declaratory judgment happened when microsoft somehow turns the cases that are still ongoing against the laptop makers into a hater that received a final judgment appropriate for appeal it seems like it was a partial summary judgment that's an interim law kotori ruling that has to wait until the final judgment in each of those cases well i matter how efficient two things one is a question of whether you can affect the really certified in this circumstance to to address the issue and the other issue i would raise is focusing on the declaratory judgment and why i believe this is a final judgment in that case it has to be issue it doesn't conclusively solve the issue of whether the underlying lock makers got notice or not in the declaratory judgment action look like i am entirely on board that it would be incredibly inefficient  but we have the final judgment rules for reasons and i don't really see a path forward here in reaching the cases with the laptop makers of the of the declaratory judgment action because i think it's pretty clear that if we didn't have a declaratory judgment action and we only had the partial ruling about microsoft we wouldn't be here if there was not i agree but but the reason i believe it's appropriate for the court to address that issue is if this court was to vacate for example this this decision then the basis for the dismissal of the declaratory judgment action is gone because at that time there is still a controversy between the parties as to microsoft's liability resulting from infringement of these pat nobody answer to them no and i would say i think microsoft thought it was what when it brought the action we thought it was appropriate because there was enough of a concrete issue to be appropriately resolved and the board accepted the jurisdiction so i think your question is