listening to testimony over a blankly period of time don't you think they've figured out what's under consideration and and what it is your honor i think not in this case and just on that the evidence that you're asking us to decide that these jurors didn't know what was being talked about your honor i think in this case that correct even when they've got an exhibit sitting in front of them with each limitation  are you of that the distaste meant that your point have to be it must be that that statement isn't really relevant what's relevant is whether or not there was enough expert testimony in the record case to back it up right you know you're out of work writing about that torque transfer your function a result check check check it's just a loser if you look at the testimony yes record didn't think so he was there too we weren't there we of the accused it was a bell ring that you had complete description now even in the past dr nichols is giving extensive testimony i think you'd say on literal infringement right correct have is like couldn't the jury based on the extensive amount of discussion of literal infringement be able to perceive a insubstantial variation from that  function way and result illustrated by the fan demonstrative exhibit why isn't that linking enough if they've done enough with the literal the jury can permanent injunction and to exclude why doesn't it have the authority to do less than that the mid continued operation under the patent not to impose reasonable cost reasonable world but the law offer arises a total injunction correct and it's equitable correct and so why does the the act the law have to express fully authorized something in between of the soup out what it's worth to him let's must look at this for second if he says they may continue to infringe but i'm going to impose a royalty right is not what happened ok that's not what he did let's assume he just said i'm giving damages based on this royal people or everything in the past then you're going to have to sue every six months in the future right to get her recovery also we could treat that you're saying as a final judgment but then you realize you're going to have to sue them for all future enforcement of this and this hypothetical future that it's not within his power and it's monetary late assuming we get by all of that do you think there's still a problem with no analysis and which under which we can review whether or not he abused his discretion in other words from what i could find in the r please tell me if i'm missing something the only reference to twenty five dollars is really one frights and i'm imposing twenty five dollars no discussion of why he chose that among the but that was the appropriate amount is assuming again except my argument that we've rejected understand that the difficulty i'm having if we reach that requires are going through several steps is that the judge didn't say that he didn't point to the testimony that would have covered the future i mean the company license goes to the life of the  and the judge didn't give us any indication that there was evidence he could take the expert testimony has been there with expert testimony with respect to what a reasonable boyles he was for the period of infringement before trial and extrapolate and how we could the basis of an on going into the future you can't live a good something that hasn't happened yet you know but the hypothetical negotiators you know are take that into account when they decide what reasonable will be with b but didn't the jury explicitly back but all that evidence back there of literal infringement and slight variations could have been in the jury's mind right they they heard it all it's not enough we're honored to support presidents if they don't walk them through