of that ten year period they were violating our u s patent rights what do you mean by they're violating your us right and trying to understand what it was and better give you believe you were trying to indicate in the german can through a german litigation get correction of inventors of the united states and that i think if the parties agreed it's conceivable that that can happen i mean that the german court have the power to order that i believe interpreting united states patent law it would have been done right here it would have to and it did in the end it didn't so that's why i am not right now pushing that his heart is maybe i might have before and i think the reason is there really was an effort in the complaint to point out that the u s have rights have been violated and they asked for worldwide damages but there was no express in vocation from the the reference in the in the complaint that's in two thousand and two yes did you make any other did you raise of the the issue in any other form it was unnecessary or honor because we were spending that in the next ten years maybe they would have settled at that point we would hope that a win in germany would have had hoped would have would have brought an end to this but if that wasn't the case we were we had made it real clear they were going to get sued in the us because we put them on notice that we're remember there's not much notice needed when you put someone on notice that they're violating your foreign rights and then you're suing them on on the german or a stop this court in mainland be stand judgment all reasonable inference does have to be drawn in our favor and a reasonable inference from two things suing them in germany head to head for ten years and telling that the outset that they're also violating the us inventor shipwrights of the said oh you lost their opinion and we're we figured you went away we'll see that's that's not right reasonable inferences are supported by facts in our favor commission said there was no richard rule that you have to give express notice what albert said and i think it's relevant here is what you really got to do is communicate to the other side you're not acquiescing in the s violation and that's what was done here by putting that in the german complaint lismore and telling them look i'm not acquiescing and what you're doing the united states but i'm but i'm an individual and i'm not wealthy and i can spend only so much money and in germany there's no such thing as contention that you've got to pay the lawyers so he pretend yours is paying lawyers to prosecute perhaps his second most important patent why second because  market is the biggest country market of all patents that he's got and i think it's singularly noteworthy that the only patent and he's so in the biggest market well first because he does business in germany very regularly it's a lot easier for him to bring a suit near its home in germany and get that stablished rather than go across the ocean aside from from bringing  united states he could have sent a letter and put them on notice that one way or the other with this term a lawsuit i'm going to come after you i have a right in the united states that i want to seek to be indicating court etc but none of that happened so you're facing latches i mean it's a link to delay that is later are we submitted to excuse by the fact that they knew we were prosecuting the german litigation against them so they knew that and be even if you win in germany what's the what's what's the effect of that result in in us in the us last week shouldn't matter what the effect is because if we litigate in germany to the end and we win or we lose then we can rightfully as an individual then turn into the united states on the united states because if if germany isn't going to decide the u s issue and then the end they didn't they didn't want to they didn't decide u s based argument that you introduced evidence or argued your u s theory that's why the finding by the district court is a little bit not not supported by a lot of evidence and what what what put but what is clear what is not in dispute is that right on the face of that second term and complaint we said you are violating our u s inventor shipwrights your declaration filed the united states was fraudulent we obtained under u s law because you said you were the inventor of the u s patent and you work so that's crystal clear they could not possibly say we acquiesced and what they were doing in the united states so your question your honor is is it latches to litigate in a foreign country finish that and go in in the united states well the policy is you should have to sue an infringer all infringers one time it's the same kind of argument you shouldn't have to sue on all countries the same time he's an individual he shouldn't be expected to do that but what he did was reasonable pick the most important country outside of germany to go second he didn't go in any of the on violate the notice of violation of the united states passed right the only thing the only reasonable inference is that they're going to get sued no matter what happens in germany because it's too big of a market for lives month to just walk away from and that is in fact now the fact is that there were two and a half years at the end of the ten year period when liz mind was not what well i should say when visit was not technically a party to in germany and that was the constitutional court action and the european court of human rights but the important point here age they don't deny that they knew about though they don't deny that they knew that liz munt was prosecuting his german patent he's continuing to do that and the reasonable inference from them not denying something that was in there that's already in their knowledge is that they did know that they didn't and therefore that there was a here below in the court inferring that there was a lack of adequate notice to the defendant about the intent to bring a further action that wasn't raised in the braves at all and the only thing it was raised in the bridge was they argued that well and if in fact the claims were aggregated in germany then there is no latches because we were litigat applies in and there's no dispute that there's only two documents at the point of points to point to the two thousand and one pleading in the german litigation that said that was not reserved his right the only other thing they pointed to is this june two thousand and two letter which made it to me and the settlement command said if you don't settle with us we reserve the right to bring appropriate legal action didn't say from all these facts is it reasonable to say that there could be an inference from those facts that mr lippman put your side on notice that he as a legal claim in the united states on correcting the united the inventor ship the united states that you know i don't believe so your honor and the reason is is that there's only one figure ship issue and that's what seems to be same fact same witnesses it's the same invention are you saying that a german court could resolve u s patent rights i'm saying that a german court could determine the inventor chip issue  to under german law but not under the united states mark that's correct your honor i would i would do so it would require a second legal action that is one in the united states in order to figure out who is the proper the united states were identical and also that there was some kind of law where a foreign court could enforce united states law but i don't think either of those two premises are true they're proper notice or whether there's evidence in the record from which there could be a reasonable inference that he gave you proper notice well that the court dealt with that i thought quite appropriate only piece of evidence that they point to is this june two thousand and two letters saying that you know you should settle up with us both with the german litigation and any other claims that we might have issue years i think ten foreign counterparts to distribute patent that exist so it didn't even specify the us it just said we want information in damages for anywhere else a german company your point is that it would appear to be limited to germany yes that that would be the reasonable inference and then they did bring this is later action in germany where it looks like they're going to they're going to pursue their claims there they followed through on they followed through on it in december of that year by filing the second german complaint and they point to nothing else as giving notice  all it's not an automatic excuse and second of all if it's going to apply you have to give the defendant adequate notice especially parties had previous dealings with each other you have to put them on notice that they're likely to be sued in the us based on the record in front of the inference based on the facts to find whether or not there was adequate notice their whole argument on appeal is well ok we'll agree we did a greater claims there in germany and therefore alleges doesn't apply that's the argument we responded to because that was the argument that they're raised in the only argument that they raised in appeal and you know if they're going to go over there i mean our priests give all the arguments but essentially if that's correct if they did aggregate their claims that is next lateral sample is really race to the cat they picked their forum they made their claim they lost they had a foreman fair opportunity anyhow and economic prejudice as well and again those none of those findings were appealed to this court so you know at the end of the day either they aggregated their u s claims in germany or they and if they did those claims were decide against them they went through appealing to final judgment that cases over if they did not aggregate those claims  then latches appliance because the as as a court found out found in none of these issues are being challenge or disputed on appeal it was over ten years from when the point of knew about his claim until when he brought his claim here that presumption arises in that the june two thousand and two letter which is really the only piece of evidence that the side of you know all kinds of mischief with the us patent office well again there is one inventor shipley we are we are aware that mr lippman was claiming that he was the inventor of this invention i think the point is is a declaration that's false it puts a notice that he was seeking damages worldwide for the inventor of the one inventor chip claim and it was reasonable to assume that they were pursuing those claims in germany not in the us i would suppose whether the us right claim was aggregated or not determining shouldn't make a difference for your latches argument because or didn't aggregate your point which is ultimately that lives might never really properly gave notice that he would ever file the second action on the other side of the globe in the united states yet and that's what the district court found in that finding was not appealed this is the first argument that let's not mislead today this morning that somehow that was of a wrong movies it's not there and that it seems to me that this is not so much about whether you got notice or the notice was was appropriate notice or not i mean that the wreckage clear that you were put on notice and and somehow you know you knew of a potential the problem here is that after you receive that amount of time went by and the district court looks at that and says is that a reasonable delay or not frank whatever you make of the june two thousand and two letter i suppose the fact is there was nothing that happened after that to put on notice that they the there is no dispute whatever that the ten years that my client spent litigating in germany was perfectly diligent on his part there's no one saying that he deliberately slowed it down or anything prejudice well there's no prejudice because prejudice must involve a change because of and as a result of the like so the delay in suing in the united states must cause that prejudice to their change of economic conditions to give a truthful declaration and it says to this the defendant in number four sattler falsely delivered declaration in the defense to the defendant pencil this a paraphrase that he was the sole inventor this was submitted to the appropriate american patent office and its  earlier it said of six months six it is generally known during entry into the national face in the usa it's an absolute requirement of the applicant to take an affirmation of that's that's just how the paraphrasing here view or t don't need to your honor if you point out that they are violating u s law i'm i'm suing you on my german patent under german law and i tell you by the way you're violating my u s patent under u s law i don't have to take the next step under our command or  that you can wait ten years to take the next step if they know what we're doing for the ten years he they were sitting across the table they knew we were in germany this isn't a case where we went away and they didn't know what we were doing they knew for the entire ten years what we were doing which was