true that distribution network so to a why ship products from finland to delaware retailers well i guess the other side would say that it was really a s w oh that's and allaying all the what's wrong with that characterization it doesn't erase the fact and suunto over why in fandom and receives orders from it's us tribute your place is infringing products in boxes which labels on the boxes and has fed ex delivery to delaware retailers that's a direct action from finland to delaware shipping products to don't know where yes the us distributor has a large part which is expected in a us distributor and also helps with the website but there is no there's undoubtedly that so in the owns it's website and holds itself out to the world as having delaware retailers whoa notifies and go in finland that somebody in delaware some retailer in delaware needs a shipment of of these products and then gives some to  the address of the retailer and then and then what happens you are correct in that that the orders received in finland from asa law the address is given to for finland to where the ship infringing product are a much infringing product puts it in boxes gets the delaware address makes a label puts it on the box and then has for example f a fed ex or or some other carrier the liver it to the delaware retailer and who is paying fed ex right there and that in there is as the discovery indicated that the pays for the delivery but it does not negate the actual physical act finland finland shipping products to delaware nor does it negate the fact that santo advertises itself to the world as having done it where retailers in addition to those contacts through its terms and conditions on the website this went to a lie as ongoing data privacy obligations to customers those data privacy obligations arised through customers purchasing products on the website and i refer the court to joint appendix one thirty four where clearly identifies the controller of you or the user of the website personal data and contact information is in finland so so into has ongoing data privacy obligations to the customer information for example financial information credit cards there's no there would be no issue that if there a data breach by virtue of that obligation they would be liable so they have ongoing data privacy obligations to delaware customers and then lastly there's the issue of warranties provided by sun told by the os about us retailer our distributor is responsible under the distribution agreement for local maintenance and technical support  customers of the united states of a true the those the actual warranty obligation not the implementation and the testimony below clarified that it was the repair and replacement logistics that the local distributor hundred two up to perform on on that record of the agreement the shipping of product to down to where the data privacy through a warranty application as a functional matter i don't under i don't see a connection that sent overly as in serving some theoretical warranty obligation what is the tangible contact or relationship a really as under what you're calling a warranty obligation if it's as well if it really is doing and responsible for all the repair replacement the route to items your honor firstly the actual object separating the obligation to satisfy customers demands rests on santo in finland but the implementation of that obligation is as your honor is recognized through the local distributor and by providing the technical details that it's contracted with santo ly to preach to provide so that separating the the logistics and and the legal obligation and it into two separate areas and another issue is that as the case is presented to the court here it's becoming upon palmer to provide a prime aphasia showing the person jurisdiction under that standard delaware in particular and then uses this store and there are a lot of cases relevant here and one of them is muffin tire and we hell i guess it isn't what it is stream of commerce so i mean it's still nobody has yet stablished a choice between your connor something more or brennan simply putting that the product in the stream of commerce i not this court does not need to make a choice in this particular case because there is well more than something more than shipping data privacy warranty well wasn't wasn't that w hills said they didn't need to make a choice either you sure aren't and that's that's our position that we would respectfully request because the massai don't need to make a choice no this court does not need to be on there on this record of choice does not need to be made because of the additional conduct of shipping product having the data privacy of the asians holding itself out to the world as having delaware retailers and i i point just to illustrate that is that the two j want to eight is a screenshot of their website identifying the data where retailers and the retailers are to whom they shipped from finland and we would request that the court me answer your questions if you want me to yeah yeah i mean i thought there were three but no one here it looks like there's more than three at the time of this website was to twenty four twelve one two three four the policy behind the dual jurisdiction was expressed in the boom decision in delaware is to address congress as it existed in in today's  world and that they grappled with the issue of how do you fit today's commerce into the four sections and develop the dual jurisdiction theory which is the district court in this case i mentioned has been before has been before or the supreme court of delaware has had multiple opportunities to say it to rebuke it it has not and this court and it was a commission area that energy of tommy looked at the same statute at that the record in this case does not support the exercise of jurisdiction over some toys the record in this case is extensive whole are takes great liberties with the record in the cases that district  that whole our repeatedly have attempted to obscure the facts between what's into oil and what there is nothing in the record that states that under the distribution  the army look at that provision and it does look like it reflects what that discovery reflected which is they've got to put all that together they're the ones that are responsible for getting the shipping love labels on the boxes and and they know some dough i guess you you know where these products are going in the united states you have the destination address you know it's going to the detail there's a retailer  newark or dover delaware the distribution agreement does provide that if oz will once as well can use the sentinel own logistics but the record does not support that in this case what the record testimony of this case from mark taylor who's the president of asshole indicated is that oz will specifically arrange for all shipping to destinations only  up the product and then physically you know put the product in the boxes and then put our shipping labels on of the boxes and then took an out of sometimes factory and through fed ex mail them to destination address should be written into the shipping label right so to me am i right or am i wrong yes you are right that suunto packages the products correct or determines where they are two retail stores in delaware that sell the accused products there are twelve accused products or there may be five retail outlets but only two court of the record have the sales of those two we're talking about less than on average one watch a month for store that is not substantial sales under the church leet didn't mention the beverly hills fan decision at all  what are we to make of that because when you look at the facts of beverly hills fan which we're bound by as we you know reiterated f t g the facts there look pretty similar to the facts here there were only fifty two vans in those in virginia that was known on the record and that was deemed to be enough here we have double that i would assert your on of that everyone has fan is far different for a couple of key reasons in beverly hills span the complaint specifically allege that the foreign company was selling and shipping and to the jurisdiction in this case the complaint paragraph no rule in the distribution it is only oslo who is directing the sales in this case in beverly hills fan it was specifically found that the foreign company and the us distributor worked in concert it was a specific finding them there was no such fact or record in this case which makes us different from beverly hills for now but what about the distribution of agreements why doesn't the district reaching agreement and as well here you know who are sister companies by the way represent the creation of a distribution channel indeed united states with the understanding that  toes going to be handling the front end of that distribution channel i e that outbound that just to get the product out and let and into the united states and then through a mix of website hosts that lists the delaware of delaware retailers or the product is available as well as and to link those outbound logistics for product it knows it's going to delaware among other places why isn't that enough to represent that these two companies are working as as partners in concert to create this distribution channel where  that the products are going up into delaware among other places because the record doesn't support your honor with the record support but what did what what was in my summary that is not in the record the dealer locator as the record is clear the dealer locator that lists places in the us for purchase is only maintained by as well not by sort of sent to has no knowledge of it and the record reflects that in this case one of the one of the decisions in this case sell or this court song garden two thousand and fifteen indicated that jurisdiction can't be imputed from the activities of one back to another through contacts which was established in the lower court maintain and replace broken products and the record is a figure that's plain how it would replace a new product earn a defective son to a product with one of its own products the supreme court and assign judge o'connor's opinion was that in the stream of commerce it requires more than simply releasing a product into the stream of commerce that's not enough there has to be discovery to see if the o'connor test was passed in delaware under the dual jurisdiction theory the boom case on which poll or relies on so much also recognized that o'connor's decision asahi was the law delaware and in that case it relied on general jurisdiction the boom case of dual jurisdiction was a case in which the form in a factual shipping fifty thousand tonnes of  years in the delaware and they found general jurisdiction this is a case where there is not substantial revenue we're talking about less than one watch per store per month or so to understand where you're proposing that there is facts of this case do not support jurisdiction under any of the decisions of this court or the supreme court i'm not suggesting oh a widespread rule medics expressing a change in the law i'm the facts in this case are not that the retailer makes orders to scinto of or that suit or is shipping to the retailer it's or let me ask you a hypothetical yes let's just suppose that the retailer likes the product order similar there were with the distributor and contact suunto directly with your argument then differ in that instance your honor you would have direct contact between the foreign company and the  accompany normal sounds transaction the warranty on the shipment both are by as well in this instance when you say that oz was doing the shipping of the product come to pick up the product because the company that brings the stuff over is doing so for oz will obviously oz will isn't taking a flight picking up things and bringing them very i'm running out of time can i have a look problem with that finding is under this dual jurisdiction theory the second prong of it requires a finding general jurisdiction on specific jurisdiction general jurisdiction and there is no facts to support general jurisdiction here and pull or has not advocated general jurisdiction so that's a failure in the finding of dual jurisdiction in this case posing council's point and it is can you explain what if anything is wrong is the statement that the for the second part of the dual jurisdiction theory to be satisfied case that the intent is one factor tend to serve delaware and then does the that's the case arise from the accused product being in the form and then as we discussed earlier my first or my statement both of those are satisfied here the fact that general jurisdiction is mentioned as as a council said in is given but as i said the first part is it doesn't fit was with moon and second it's inherently contradictory if the requirement whereas if somebody had just to demonstrate a general jurisdiction then you wouldn't need dual jurisdiction it off because you satisfied or jurisdiction so inherently to compensation by the distributor satisfaction from the from the distributor yes it's not clear but in damages aspect perhaps yes in discovery perhaps no because it's a foreign person for one and it is not part of the case and there's another defendant that's not part of this a feel in the delaware case that's part of the case part of this infringement action and then there's the issue of a potential injunction so that if there was injunction against the u s distributor does not prevent the foreign entity from the using a different entry to the united states or direct entry so that there is financially for past damages