have issues the fact that there's evidence on both sides of material little fact who gets to make the final call that a jury of the judge that is likely was presented in this case we had a six day jury trial your honor during which number of witnesses were called we started out with nine jurors one of them had to drop out during the case six jurors listened to sixteen hours of testimony six jurors saw the number of exhibits six jurors got to handle the actual product and look at the prior art and so forth the jury deliberated for two and a half days during came back with a split decision i did not win entirely the jury came back and so not all some of these patent claims are invalid but importantly the jury said two of the claims are not invalid in other words radio systems failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that two of the points were invalid the jury also said those claims aren't free support a contrary conclusion that no reasonable jury could have concluded that the jury did and so then the question becomes what is the substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict so why don't you point us to that so we are to be happy to do  a a criminal matter where the state has to prove guilt it's entirely maybe dangerous for the defendant can say i'm rusty and i can present any contrary evidence this fails to rise to the appropriate level of proof but beyond that your honor so subjected their expert mr west practiced sense of cross examination we pointed out specifically in the context of the relevant claims claims three and seventeen with respect to the plane's three work functions of particular dimensions we pointed out you have to admit the obvious no dimensions are shown in that path and mr was purpose forced to conclude that the patent did not show any particular dimensions and that it was pure guesswork on his part as to whether the three eight exceed the three a's limitation this is all on materials that the mr was brick testified to with respect to claim seventeen business of whether the housing is designed to contact the animal skin the bungie reference clearly shows a strap over a line the housing well as shown in bondi everything we can see in the monkey reference shows the strap interface between where the housing use or the animal skin would be this is long test my well even though that's what it shows it could be those it could be that you could have narrow strip maybe the housing sticks out farther again it's pure guesswork on the part of of mr conclusion of the various cases or of motions were made for directed verdict the judge said well i'm paraphrasing he said i don't think i can decide right now jane well i'm going to let it go over the jury but after the jury verdict came back it was not shy at all about saying the jury was wrong so that's exactly what happened during the course of the trial be i'm not going to direct a verdict because time what do you what do you what are your your what do you say was the  error in our brief to the end i think we pointed out in a reply brief we never had a sample of the bong product on the product so far as we know we're not sure whatever even physically existed so our going on is the drawing here we never had an actual physical product there's enough you can see that's on there and it was common practice in the industry to have to read on electrodes you see pictures of those at page twenty six of our opening brief i think i see where you've got that but i also see where the reference itself particular reference there's been a decision that the electrodes would be threaded electrodes in and electrodes not only serve as the electrodes but they seem to also serve as an additional element to secure the housing to the collar but i don't think that there's any i'm not sure that i think it's reasonable to think that you're supposed to stick something else on here to service the electrode when fifty eight fifty nine are expressly described that practice being the electrons being likely because there's absolutely nothing about them contacting the animal in any way shape or form what it's clear ll about how this thing works in the context of an animal i think we're gong was talking about is how things are mounted within the housing so it's a very very cryptic reference but there's gotta be context right for the item to work for there to be an electrical charge there has to be contact between some sort of conductor and fifty nine yes but we're not sure of is whether the animal skin directly contacts what we see at fifty eight common in the industry to use throughout electrodes so that doesn't mean you're saying because he hadn't seen that the time where witnesses stick to their story but the jury sees what's going on and doesn't believe it and say in this case because it was clear and because there were inconsistent seasons to westwards testimony is brought up during cross examination that the jury would be testimony that they did up i think is making a really base unit he's concluding that based on what he sees in the drawing but the court's precedent was either standard says a lot there's something clear you can't just use relative right what i am saying is i disagree that no way no how could it be or could we be wrong on this when there is what is a clue a question that could go either way and i believe that in this case it is a question that can go either way body to determine that question is a jury not to judge now because you know a year and a half and three thousand miles away later friends decides the jury's won the purpose of that's what our system says and i think on this case there's certainly enough here motions their expert testimony to that effect was i think he tried to on redirect he tried to say that he tried to say what it could be i mean the fact of the matter is we've brought out he's never seen those he doesn't know he's guessing say that could be this way and again the jury is a free to say we don't buy it so you know going back to that figure twelve might pointing to to swing more you've got those election fifty fifty nine but i think maybe your fully enclosed structure what we're saying is it has slots or to the strap to go through and furthermore that those elements of the need do not support an electrode which is another part of the definition of the of the housing is determined before during fla  disposition of the case at the time that it was actually try the primary issue was the invalidity issue we had not much based upon the court's construction claims we had not much of the in infringement case i think that the the courts determination that on their motion to reorder the case was that really we were the real party that had the burden of proof going into trial so the court allowed us to go further for the first i don't see that it prejudiced them in any way but getting to the more substantive issues this court in so many times that the presumption of validity is a procedural device it's not evidence and it of itself the the evidence once we put on a product they should case the burden of coming forward with evidence shifted to the  that testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses dr in the navy and mr gary i would say they did not testify as experts but they testified it is as skilled in the ar the references themselves before the court and the jury and so we are in a situation where the the proof it went on in the court was solely the proof that we put on and there was no high as the high points or it shows a high point surfaces that clearly would contact the skin of west rick's testimony was consistent with what the reference show even to the extent that i think if you talk about the little openings where the strap slides through it's quite apparent that that collar strap pass to be narrower than the overall dimension the cross dimension of the collar housing that suggests that along that whole side of the collar housing you're going to have contact with the animal not just at those points d and he was going to have it all the way all along the side so you are looking at a reference when you look at bondi that clearly and convincingly shows electro that are shorter than the high court surfaces if they're shorter they can't be more than three eighths inch higher so you have a clear and convincing showing there and you have our infringement expert and i had to make the case for infringement through cross examination of mr westward and he was able to read claims on number of pieces of prior are over the radio systems objections i got him to do the same with the fuse product examination during his direct testimony that there was a long felt need here he saw dogs were getting sores on their necks because these collars were to tell you the electrodes were digging into his next week or the next nobody had done that before he solved the problem he solved the problem he testified that at a trade show radio systems president came up to him and talk to him for half an hour about there's talking about all this great we're very interested in this technology shortly after mr waller came up with this radio systems comes out with this infringing collars and  so i would simply bring that out and then as far as the strap on bonk collar go if we don't know what the strap is why wider than the housing or not we don't know whether these logs and brought this out again across the logs stick out to the side and strap close contact skin support the skin showed one of these figures we showed a skilling over bumps and how it makes contact with the animal that's what's meant by design to contact the skin we don't know that from boggy so for again those reasons because of all these