satisfied that they possess the necessary qualifications and before we go on to where the men i'd just like to say on a personal note that these sort of bittersweet for me the bad news is that each of these three individuals is moving on the coming months and i'm terribly the good news is that these individuals are moving on to what i believe will be productive challenging and successful careers in  and i know they will do me proud as both lawyers and citizens and families and close friends are here today to join me and since these chords to become members of my family as well i share in  family in her chambers family and we shared a great moment this year and learned a lot to get there and then make it mean making limited minimal changes in the law and each day they do their best to get it right no doubt that you will be members of the bar in good standing and will conduct yourself at the highest level of quality and professionalism before the court because you had the privilege of clerking for very very good shots and i know you don't get the chance to say summer of two thousand and two thousand and nine they were frivolous i intend to use my six minutes today to convince this court the judge gave us abuse of discretion in not granting rule eleven sanctions for two reasons we are we are you are seeking straight or reversal and the reason is that all our remit on these issues will guess is just prolonging the case these issues are straight for there is no real factual dispute all you need is the accused brought in one hand in the violation which is the question we were just before this court the second question is if there is a violation what's the sanction and the rulings changed in one thousand nine hundred three swords it's give the judges district judges more leeway and so they may impose sanctions really argue that the user can hold the whole thing and just do this and there's a pin really mounted display that is totally and completely from and i understand the district courts have discretion i do understand that and respect that but there has to be a limit to what has to be a limit briefly over to eighty five i have twenty seconds so i'm not going to get anything else besides a recitation of the statute if there are a specific questions i'm more questions i'm happy to take them otherwise all the first came to you thank you  products all of the claims in the patent three site housing and every structural limitations are side with respect to said housing including that there be a printer mounted inside of said housing now the district court didn't even touch  vision no your honor with the possible exception of the fact that the printer argument as with respect to a number of other arguments goes to the weight of looking at the object as using the subjective being a small company would matter and you think it's something that the district court erred in not articulating that you considered in or something like that no your honor i don't i raise that to emphasize the point that we as lawyers  and rule eleven is there to enforce our duty to the courts as gatekeepers in this case it has terrible consequences for a small company like complex we spent a hundred fifty thousand dollars to get to a case management conference so to the extent that it simply got past them that there was no to the newly mounted display screen here they certainly knew about it at least in october not then on january first and we didn't know how this court was going to perform with the number review of everything the district court considered without giving you everything the district court consider including the printer issues and the other issues that were before the court that the court considered extensive efforts that we took to respond to the rule of law issues and as part of that were our intentions of the support for our clients the support for our infringement analysis and so forth includes if you look at the footnotes two through nine are freaking paid page forty seven and we try to break out the appendix into specific number of segments which is a little bit more complicated now that we hi martin yes we do we do take very seriously the the record that's so minute before this court in connection with with the case and and and we assume that it's a minute in connection with the issues that are before the specific findings about that your honor but this is our understanding and we're we read his orders he looked at all the briefing and he asked going to hear me was there anything else or any other job he said and having considered the and he asked a little anything else we take from those words that he did say well then why don't we forget about whether he did or didn't consider it and just have us review it which is what we're supposed to be doing so why don't you tell me why it is a reason friends of contention for you to maintain claims circuit authority for the return of a housing community not no it's not restricted to one and only one house it can be multiple houses and it can be as long as a printer is in the house and you cannot put no thirty case we researched this issue and this is this is what we found was that it would it had been a housing was that restricted to one in only one housing no it could been segregated it could have been multiple hous the person the manufacturers that printer right there believe that this was an objective of jestingly reasonable case and settled out of this case well they do somehow because the sound more economically it did now whether after we got a thank instruction whether we amended our contentions consistent with local rules which require early contentions to be submitted and then the claim construction comes out and we get advice instructions we have fifty days in the world for rules to interface to structurally for contention to supervise the defendants with our final contentions and we were just abide by the local rules as far as for aggression of the case eye contact with both the screen and the suspect those elements are those attributes of the support the construction as well as we have experts that  went in both directions technical and patent directions to look for to see whether this was reasonable or not whether this is objectively reasonable and those two parties both of them came back and said yes that it looks like that's fine it's a broad scope but it's not over the line and that's exactly what just davis came back with and said look it's a broad is a broad claim destruction i don't agree with it you can appeal it if you wish but i don't