residents of the four and that's a distinction so in that test at the core has evolved after birth it is not the question is not whether there is an activity directed at the form itself but in it to be directed at a resident directed at california residents and that we have jurisdiction well personally it would satisfy probably one of the tests which is that certainly would be an attribute directed at a california resident but personal jurisdiction would fail in that instance because of the second prong of the test which is that a lawsuit has to arise out of all relate to that activity so in this case i think in the case of bar we have a patent case directed at a resident of california birthing the supreme court recognized that in light of modern commercial harms that it did not make sense and what changed the standard to were expressed the standard out in burger king is now is purposeful in alabama but there's no evidence that any of those cases were filed either in alabama or against alabama residents so the ad descent case involved a patent bridge with cases that were brought in the northern district of california the eastern district of texas and the international trade commission which is yet in washington d c it now and there's no indication next case that any of those cases involve an alabama defend it so the difference here so would have been absent is there's no evidence of is so we can you waited with the interest of the state that it's outweighed by the burden on the defendant so in this case in the case of bar california under the electronics for imaging versus quad case has a substantial interest can imagine it would be concerned about is there any limits to this new personal juror's diction you're trying to get us to declare your limiting conditions are and that the pla has to be a resident of the state in which the suit is beings sought to be broad and the accidental  defendant against some other entity that other entity has to also be a resident of the plaintiff's state is that the limiting conditions you would put well i don't i don't see it as imposing new limited conditions you so you're trying this to the fact that citrix has a we said business in california not simply that they're selling arguably infringing products here that that's right thing in mind that relates to you in fact they just probably was accidental in terms of your relationship that citrix happens to be or have an office in california nothing up here citing to this remarkable case that way we wouldn't know where the boundaries are but let me start by saying with regard to being absent this court is held in akra that more convenient for california courts result that dispute and there's really been no evidence of burden that's present and under this purge precedent it is s s l that has the burden on this point and it has to present a compelling case and  floor before i address this court's precedent i just want to address discuss something in the record that i think goes to the heart of this court's concern the what we have here in this  products identified in the record and juniper makes makes a significant issue about us they are the citrix systems products citrix systems being one headquartered in f meetings in california santa clara california so and repeatedly throughout its brief it it dresses these accuse products and we're seeking an injunction against these products and they have to be made at its regional headquarters in california adopting univers argument would mean it by spice filing that lawsuit in texas s s l has now created a specific terrorist action in delaware florida and california and let's just say that the systems would be the products were not not developed at it the florida company's california regional headquarters let's say they were they were developed  up six different for example so specific jurisdictions this corps has repeatedly emphasized in this jurisdictional calculus the importance of the location of the  and activities and if it's not in first and then the location of exclusive license the and the the i agree that the doesn't have to be judicial it could be extradition judicial but environment it was important defendants had earlier filed suit in the same form same district court same packed campbell pack there it was extrajudicial enforcement but the patent owner had gone to seattle trade show and tried to get the trade show officials to yank a product off the shelf in some respects it's not unlike the late case on which ju heavily realized the late case where the attorney in california tainted ex parte order knowing that it's going to be used by idaho authorities to try to wrest custody a minor child in idaho that wouldn't be too different that steam lines aren't work and for the reasons i discussed in the beginning it's a particularly important in this case because under these facts the state line would become very blurred let's say again the products are are not only manufactured california will sit there they're manufactured in illinois in ohio so the if juniper's argument is accepted the test the revised test would result in a tangled in a tangle inquiry on jurisdiction two points very briefly the first is the argument of counsel which is also in there in their proof that absent confined jurisdiction to instances where there is a judicial or extradition proceeding found jurisdiction sufficient and you can look at the out of same case but they actually provide the guapo to page twelve but there it says these are examples of cases where we have found jurisdiction and it is cases of the cases that describe in additional cases involving traditional proceeding extra judicial proceedings and exclusive licenses but just to argue that that is confined willow those examples relate to activities in the  forum those examples that were in absentia related to those but they were but there's a difference between saying here's a list of things and this is a confined list but there's also a difference between an activity that's purposefully directed to the form we've been to purposely purposefully directed to residents of the former than the situation here where the lawsuit is that you're looking california there should be they should be subject to jurisdiction in california our argument is if you look at the first prong of the tast which is where the action is purposely directed against a resident of california  did s s l direct the activities towards a resident of california they did direct that activity toward the resident of california they directed it from staying outside of state lines so they've done what burger king said you can do it which is you can direct activities the resident of a state without ever going into a state we're not arguing for it we're vision of this court standard for determining personal jurisdiction we are asking you to apply apply the standard apply to three factors and