jury is if you're having difficulty looking at those words in that product look at the two products compare them they don't have to be identical but you can look over their heads and that's an improper instruction we don't have to show on appeal to the jury actually looking into products because we don't know what the jury did we have to show that it is the influence that that made the decision we need to show that you cannot instruct the jury to not every one of the two products must be identical as a jerk and even as an attorney that's just to me that some of the elements of the two products should be identical not all right there in order to find out whether they're identical or not at all i have to compare the two products and the believe it is a slightly different shape form is exact same function so that was the issue when the judge told them they only asked one question they only got one response it was only two sons does not like was buried in the original the judge said yes i wish they had never raised to because they have i think i need to be a little more responsive than just saying yes thank you very much it's a i'm going to go out figure out what the answer is come difficulty but you have these two plastic bags sitting right there you're not sure or maybe you think you can maybe think you can doesn't matter the judge comes back and says you can look at the plastic bags but you don't want to find a preventive one that not only the first sentence that quite clearly you apply the planes to the product right absolutely so that just yes right he says when you're flying the claim language for the product you can look at the two products he says however right after saying the credit claim language the product he says however not every one of the two products must be identical so it's telling you as a juror here's a short time to get those two plastic bags minutes or fifteen minutes you can start a time and kind of ask about something that's perfectly fine guitars is going to take me two hours or a day and a half and it takes me six days the judge can give him that leeway and both of those are perfectly fine but what happened in this case and we think that we think that kind of treatment would signal to a jury that is of preferential position of the court for one side versus the other to decide this is very important we let him talk for days and days and days and days you saw the guy directed the jury to the punch and claim to determine infringement stating that each and every element of the has a claim of on and then i started to constitute infringement so when you consider the instruction as a whole it cannot be that it directed the jury to compare products or determine infringement but even if the instructions are not completely for close the jury from doing so from comparing product and he lives there would be harmless not but i think his argument may be a little different right i mean his view was that it prejudiced the view of the during the three steps to the party given the differential treatment that the judge gave the kind of set the stage for thinking well this guy's got a much more important case we should have listened to him for much longer time so that's a little different right i understand that you're going i think that the difference is that when her back was for them it became an insult and it needed more time it was that the idea yes or no and now looking back of the entire trial is there anything in the record of the judge appearing to come down harder on one side than the other or hectoring one side as opposed to the other ms jones has said that you know the trial went on longer than planned and that the judge didn't blame either of the parties for that but looking back from your perspective of the record do we have a record here that shows the judge leaving aside this issue about the end of the trial in the time of giving one side for want of better word a harder time than the other so as to convey to the jury a prejudice against that side the judge actually did say that that most of the blame described of the whole trial for us to say that this jury could reasonably conclude that there was prejudice directed against one side when as you pointed out the judge came down harder on the other side free flowing discussion of what sorts of things you want to withdraw from the word gas to my suggestion tell them that all if one of the elements is missing you find an infringement that just different be find infringement and if you don't find any look at the doctor law clerks second sentence so there was no opportunity to object beyond the fact that i did actually raise an objection to the perry products and so to say that we didn't object and therefore this jury instruction is not correct however even if the co that we didn't formally object which can correct even under the clearer standard which is would oppose counsel since drops to it's clearly an error to tell them in the context of comparing their claims to with however so it modifies the first sentence it invalidates the correction first sentence by saying however not all the elements of the two products must be identical you're telling them this is the context in which you do the that my bridge i said it's harmless error they're allowed to do that as long as they don't construct even the georgian did not understand after we had the the shearing six months after the trial they had a hearing on the motions and the judge