sword of rescue to caught a slew of my client's second cause of action against not only this defendant but other defendants with respect to the five five two patent under the doctrine of equivalence in this case the  originally the case was first time around was filed in the united states just to court for the middle district of florida in case of succeed the seven hundred ninety in that case the jury returned a verdict in favor of my clients with respect to infringement on the five five t patent against the accident worldwide inc at that time there was not a party to the cause of action in this accident worldwide l l c and in that case at the end of the close the case actual world wide ink had moved fo judgment as a matter of law post verdict which the court for the middle district of florida had affirmed and then we took this case that kate that decision before this court in case ten dash fourteen twenty one which was heard in oral arguments and  presidential opinion it by this court was rendered in february of this year in which it declared obviously affirming the judgment as a matter of law our position before the district court of why was we had thirty defendants listed as well law but if the court goes back and looks that when it went in hop amid one when the record was before the court if not i'll be glad to supplement it but at the close of the jury trial case there was an oral tennis application made for an injunction with respect to the original infringing device and it was only two devices manufactured up to new clued in november of two thousand and six so first this device these devices were after november of two thousand and six secondly with the issue before the court oh no i understand that because the next to shoot the next issue would be was what was the issues that were litigated at that time that there was only a limited see within the five five two pattern your honor and it was only with respect to the in synchronism issue sister but he said you can always go back to the middle district of florida for contempt proceedings and of course our position would not have that occurred had this court reversed the jam well and we're back in that position we were not going back to white boarding to judge  well he took he took what we said out of context because we were all argument we felt and one of our positions of course that we were blindsided because the court never really need any oral inquiry at oral arguments it was basically you mr appeal you think that the the other misconstrued what dr hans jurgens was saying the mechanism is the apparatus is the patent itself and of course looking at column seven lines three through eight sets up the variables of what one needs to in order for the patent to first work and as we also pointed out later in column seven when we talk about the middle frank talk about the corner frequencies it's important to have exact corner think when cease otherwise you may miss the mark and dr hans judgments in the five to patent has a specific number there is a specified number listed at starting at one thousand hertz to several thousand hertz and again our position would have been is that not necessarily below one thousand which may or may not get horizontal therapy there are other variables that have to arise at the time and so of course that's our position to say that well it's did there's no significant changes it's non color and we said well wait a minute the patent talks about what is required within the corner f s to make it work and figure to shows this at points p twenty three p twenty four you can see that within the figures that you may not necessarily get horizontal therapy depending on where you are in and within the quarter fr the middle district of florida called during claims construction that's correct and again as we said we were in the or in order to generate in synchronism which was later in also within limitations but a different so again our position was that this was not a collateral estoppel completely different issues they announced that we were limited because they need changes to the device and they were given that as you said it even though we eventually had the case reversed for enhancement purposes they were given that credit so we say it's judicial or stop will had they had shown up in or going to hear today that's exactly your point that would be argued cannot have it both wace is one or the other and therefore we respectfully request