good morning ladies and gentlemen we have five cases before the court today the last was submitted on the papers the first four aren't going to be argued this morning first case before the a separate separate aspect if you will and it is yeah yeah he accepted the findings from the jury and then he went on as hello i think it struck some video and still consider in addition to that wilfulness finding whether this was an exceptional case and or agree just enough to warrant and hence damages true and we're here to determine whether or not there was abuse of discretion in what the court looked culture of copying or there's copying of their products here there is direct evidence of at the inception when after knowing about so samples product was patented at the inception the no but my point is that that is activity that takes place during the course of the litigation not prior to the suit it certainly is actively in the course of the litigation  considering agree just says and terms of order of enhanced damages as compared with just a determination that there was willful conduct well at least due to problems with the court copied it was that's part of the absurdity of the situation to find that credible where the court said that it was you know that there is this evidence to show that it never reached the decision maker and i submit but then you just say that he changed his testimony accordant said it did reach him i mean i get you it seems a little fishy to me but he was jury obviously must not have believed this change testimony on a clear so my question is it is it your view that the court is allowed to reject that credibility determination and make a different credibility the district court went out of its way to run contrary to how the jury must have determined the facts in order to find willfulness turned a blind eye to the pirate that stole this technology and build a company from four people to now one of the largest manufacturers and without a developed infringing product in matter of of determining agree just as you're supposed to look at the point of infringement all right so if that's the case then of what relevance is litigation contact or litigation defenses to the overall in that the question as it does the district court have the right to basically say i am going to make different credibility determinations then did the jury well first of all i think  true answer to that number one i think a lot of credibility this comes and i think the different courtrooms are the witnesses directly are better better better than a jury no but asking this court to reevaluate the credibility yes and number two at the day of your question there's two cases first of all jurgens of federal circuit decision from this court that said that just record can weigh factors like posts of the case that were not considered by the jury so even though the jury it and then there's another at least be required to explain why despite the willfulness finding which covers all of these basic issues that the court's coming to a different conclusion and we believe the court did in this case for example of explain no actually addressed the question of whether they continue to apply in full force after halo and after comma does i think i've i've been trying to remember whether presidio applied t on the supreme court very clearly said that the liberty and good faith belief in validity it is does not relate to the question of infringement they went out of their way unanimously tell us there are two separate sections o the statute and the one doesn't impact the other except to wipe out liability at the end of the day but whether infringement occurs and whether or you have an intent to induce infringement is a different knowledge that there was nothing and then he went through any knowledge hello and case law and then went through and did explain why why it was the nine inches discretion and handsome and the jury deliberated for twenty minutes before it found infringement professional analysis of the georgia pacific senators did he submitted expert report he did yes and i couldn't find it any place in the record i don't think that was submitted on appeal so he did submit it and my understanding that these generators i mean the there were actual individual replacement sales right correct so putting aside the whole question of whether you look at the full product or you look at the individual piece individual piece was not and wasn't regularly so but part replacement was solved correct correct and there was and there was a range of numbers for those sales for and this was was this number falls within that range cracked the jury number no the jury number has actually been driven with fourteen thirty two in the sales or actually like the revenue the entire revenue not profit the entire revenue of a transformer but it was higher than can you start with the cross appeal least five hundred dollars based on these points he was sequestered from trial oblateness as were sequestered from trial he didn't have the benefit of the records showing the value of this patented technology which dear jim knows well of the value that they wired from it and they didn't offer any expert testimony they did not include frankly they never found it there is no expert or they were frightened of criticizing after the fact some of them some of just counting the hours it was six thousand below circle no matter what six thousand dollars they were they were dumping in the market we had evidence that they had copied they didn't have any cost of our indeed all of this the jury heard the jury heard the when they didn't provide any evidence contrary and there's evidence that the transformers those are replacements to customers that already bought one that's not fair market value of that product what mr jefferson did was explained to the jury i'm going to find the value of that technology all i have before me is cost savings right now then the jury heard with the value of the technology mr jeffords happy form the evidence of the dumping no he didn't essentially what you're saying right that they dumped it into the market when lower prices in order to capture the market i would have to look back to whether or not he saw the deposition testimony where we were examining the witness but frankly the witness never would really admit to much but i i don't know yet and now comes if there are any other questions with regard to the continued with infringement for seven years in french for seven years a case went on for five years frankly eight hundred fifty thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket for what these companies what do you or g m gain from from continu infringement all the while telling us that the quick fix that they could have done in a month and they finally did leave the day they traded under the old technology which gave them reliability which gave them a jump in the market directly to undercut dumped on the pricing and eight hundred fifty thousand dollars and now they are the pirate that should be punished jhon case it came out in march of this year this court indicated we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in applying the real factors and declining to any hands  looking at it correctly the transformer in the profit from the transformer it's you know it's a smaller cases but why you look at the replacement transformers a sufficient number for the jury to rely on because it is of sense that you charge your already existing clients more for a replacement part than you would if you're going to sell it on the open market it is in my experience that that's not on wealth but your experience and my experience of cow not to say many don't matter