only ladies and gentlemen cases on the calendar this morning to pepin cases from the district contract case from the board of and the key part we would like to make with respect to a business is with utmost respect we would ask this court focus on claim one you know is that a claim of the patent because in a view what went wrong with the law was that the decision making th pot company from the client and end up being decide the case was decided on issues that really have nothing to do with what's in plain want and haul what we see here there's nothing in claim one that was not already known in the typical and then to the monitor at night squarely overlapping ranges but on the operating conditions considerably different between high pressure mercury vapor lamps and incandescent lamps in a novel that have an effect on the palate you know i think the evidence  to design a lamp that would be in fact in substantially different a design around that would be able to capitalize on and achieve the same market and the patented invention and why doesn't it turned out really you were s it at this point in do post federal circuit decision can you really stand here and think when we continued to say there were two people who were directly infringing after the federal circuit had issued its prior four but that was a decision of the japanese patent office which was then eventually by the japanese supreme court i believe and that process took a few years but it is socially in the period between about two thousand and two and two thousand actions of what you're accused of that it's not really all relevant to intent but i think if the question is that they need to be intense throughout the period and that the intent calculus can change which seems to be something that was that just of the remaining moment i would have let me ask you one other question where you go up to the district court judge i read the transcript and there's a point at which mr p graham is explaining in objection related to the judicial opinion and the district court judge says to you i felt like this is something you want to reach a stipulation or go off and do sell and anything at and in particular i think can't be reached somebody bring it to my attention and request an instruction i would say something like boom well i can't find any evidence of a stipulation and the damages seem to go to the entire time period but i also can't find any evidence that then during the jury instruction point you all raised it to the district attention like he expressed he told you you have does not need to worry about a carve out period at the in this conference that will be something we will take up at another time all i'm not ruling on the cop out period today one stand and this is part of the tremendous  whether there was infringement during a period of time when the district court had decided no infringement and prior to the appeal so the question is during that period of time how question of whether there was the requisite intent such that there would be liability for it used infringement and that that that's an infringement is actually that that should have been presented to the jury well it's absolute infringement question but the reason that the trial judge said i'm not comfortable putting judicial opinions mine or that of the federal circuit before the jury is what i would like for you to work out a stipulation if we can agree that the jury will come back can say the so complete projectors there would be proper to base the royalty calculation on the cost of the complete projector yes sure the question is not whether either side does or does not to create a whole new electronics business based on that they said well what would projector companies who are selling these people need to pack what are what royalty across the industry would they be willing to pack and they said well one two three per the percentage of the projector which translated to approximately thirty dollars in the records pretty clear on the fact that i disagree is provide the key component that bolt that lamp to projectors for that certainly warrants a assembly and not the projector although i recognize there was testimony about the price of the projectors it seemed to me that that was almost you know the sort of commentary to simply reflect that the wealthy otherwise reflected by the evidence would not be disproportionately high in the context of the overall machine certainly that's a fair way to look at the jury heard and both the damage expert  assembly and additional profits made by selling power supplies all of that was looked into this caucus to come up the reasonable royalty in which the jury in this case did not get what phillips was asking for thirty dollars but slightly higher really proper at all seen you know in trying to reach a conclusion as to what the hypothetical reasonable royalty would have been first on its merits it is proper because you're looking at the entire industry and  differently than the claimed range in the well there they're holligan range with twenty times higher in the working examples in the patent and several quite a bit higher than the actual literal certainly and you would expect somebody to come in and explain that somehow for a minute had a good faith belief that they didn't in print which i find a little bit hard to swallow given that they convinced the district court that they didn't so obviously they did believe they didn't infringe or at least at some point had arguments to support that notion because they did in fact convince the district court of it so what about that time period post district court district courts now said no infringement how can meet can t how can they not reasonably rely upon that what is your basis for saying they can't reasonably rely on that opinion at that point to not be inducing after everything that opinion has issued our position never says that they could not the problem for i was talking is they did not introduce any evidence to that effect and they tried to the district wouldn't allow the introduction of the opinion no but they didn't know what's not correct what i'm saying is they could complete with a district court that the jury would not see the opinions what happen infringe and that there could therefore be no intent to induce in that period thereafter right the problem that i was saki face was one of causation they did not want to waive the privilege because their trial cancer was the author of all their opinions of opinion we're talking about the district court determination of not infringement i understand for them to rely on it they have to show some evidence some exact it's like a super quirky opinion that you look at and say wow what a crazy opinion it might have been a wrong but it was certainly salaried and thoughtful and went through the issues this district court opinion how can we not at that point recognize as a matter of law that it's reasonable to rely on it that  was any infringement during that one year or so period after the district court decision route and it's a fact question all right and it can't be as a matter of all rules because  were they were precluded from doing that they were not correct i disagree i believe i was saki wanted this issue and this cried out to be done as a legal issue as a matter of law perhaps as articulated by  moore here just as a matter of law you should rule that we can not induce we can get a stipulation or carve out a structure right they agreed with that principle at no point that they want to introduce any reliance on that because they had no evidence of reliance on that district court opinion because all of that evidence was privileged communications counsel what about  this appeal because we chose our issues but certainly there were there was an active vigorous dispute over infringement trial and finally i just let's talk about damages in response to the court's questions counsel just said that a projector company projected companies would willing to pay was a relevant measure that may be fine if you are suing the project a company but it was obvious in the project the company never sold the project or gets no revenue from the project