made please the court my name is michael sue court and i represent defendant fang town and we respectfully request that this court vacate the district court's orders because service was improper and because an injunction t if you did you're allowed to appear right i'm sorry you were allowed to appear yes and if we can if we you want us to vacate that but the judgment there's no judgement actually on or there's a search judgment one is a no so i don't understand how you can appeal the your claim of improper service when there's not a final judgment you can appeal the injunction because that's an order that's allowed to be appealed from twelve ninety two but i don't understand how you can appeal this service issue a service issue which you arguably did not raise in front of a district court well your honor first we did raise it in front of the established you've got some interesting things to say but he convention and whether there was an adequate showing as to whether the address was known or not known or unknowable but i don't understand how we're supposed to make a decision on an undeveloped now and there is i don't care that you're here sire you have to have jurisdiction to be here and so i'm telling you that i don't have the i don't think i have the authority to do anything that you ask with regard to the service now tell me why there's jurisdiction under twelve nine hundred twelve ninety two to decide to do sectional issue because i think it is a collateral issue and because there is nothing further that is going to be developed in the record it's impossible we'll have a preview if you appeal from the final judgment no so it doesn't fit the final order doesn't fit it all doesn't remotely if you've heard us talking in the last case about how when there is no jurisdiction there's nothing we can do in that case it is really quite absurd so you know we don't need to repeat all that tell us now what you want to tell us about the junction because vapid we have jurisdiction to hear and tell us tell me specifically why the claims that you made with respect to feared parties are right rather been something that if they may come up in the future you can vent go to the district court and say injunction an injunction may not issue perhaps an evidence of irreparable harm to date advanced access has either been unwilling or unable to provide any evidence of harm irreparable or otherwise and this is despite you did five year delay in bringing suit after defendants product was on the market and there's still no evidence of harm despite advanced access is repeated assertion that the injunctions that issued that's because you say you're not making the overbroad you're making the basic argument and you say there is no presumption automatic presumption after e bay for and you say there has to be market but as i read e bay well there is no automatic presumption you don't necessarily have to have market data you can have indications of it and not automatic presumption but one can conclude as a district court did hear that there is evidence of harm but it has to be evidence here either can't just be argument and there is not is not a case where i'm saying that the evidence doesn't rise to the threshold there is no evidence and that's why the injunction should not issue please the court roxanne healings for and bends to access the apparently with respect to irreparable harm the district court did rely on three pieces of evidence  come to that conclusion the declaration of an employee a police employee that licenses licensees depend on the integrity of the a c s technology and expect a a c s to vigorously enforce its rights it relied on a declaration of that d v d fab software shows unfettered infringement of copyright content through circumvention and it relies on  that they vary by ability of a c s l a's business was threatened in at the inability to prevent circumvention which if this rate its business damages will be an adequate rendering the actual an imminent likelihood of irreparable harm to be great the court did not presume irreparable harm the court even though they relied on a case that may have predated  predated the copyright where copyright stated that you could not presume e bay thank you but what they did was they relied on another anti circumvention case which never presumed irreparable harm so you know that that clearly wasn't presumed any went on to find it based on the facts of record and when defendant came in mr tao came into i'm you know it is that the statute itself but here somewhere the d m c a statutory scheme itself recognizes that violation of intellectual property rights frequently causes irreparable harm and where and where statutes and substance so provide injunctive relief is appropriate if there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations absent such relief and in defendant mr towel had continued to violate the injunction in fact there's yet another motion before the court the lower court for contempt mr coude to this day continues to violate the injunction  the primary injunction would would be the only way to stop of the injunction to touch on that just a moment i think it's clear that he doesn't have believe he doesn't have standing to speak for his harman's and so the the court recognizes two exceptions to the limitation on asserting legal rights or interests of third parties mon is the lead against interests are closely aligned with those of the third parties i don't believe that's that his being affected by that third party fits into that category that's where he has a close alliance with the third party service providers and they provide services to millions of entities and individuals i don't see that as an exception the other exception is that third parties are unable if they're unable to assert their own rights and there's been no proof that these third parties aren't on able to assert their own rights put third parties on notice but it did not it did not enjoying those third parties it's merely a notice and those third parties would be allowed to come in with and i  take it that what i understand mr tao is is objecting to third parties outside the united states and this court recognized that in the injunction he needed to issue it to maintain the status quo and he understood that he does not have authority to enjoin actions wholly outside the united states but he found that the record clearly established the defendant staunch refusal to comply with the terms of the pulmonary injunction he found that the plumbing junction may incidentally prescribe certain lawful conduct it is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and that's from philip morris versus aa to media so in conclusion we believe you know the district court did not abuse his discretion in entering the plumbing or injunction and finding irreparable h thank you ron with regard to the reparable harm issue the advance access has pointed to three alleged pieces of evidence but none of them show harm they might be evidence of something but they are not evidence of harm much less irreparable harm there is no reason that going forward during a regular trial schedule would provide would have would cause irreparable harm to advanced access all of the injunction was issued your honor had asked whether we submitted evidence that contradicted it it was impossible we were not there so you weren't there it's it's not as if people didn't know proceedings this wasn't done in the dark of night there's a question about the appropriateness as soon as i get that but your client himself admitted that he that he had received service it's a long question but i think it's the answer is yes i think it's important to keep in mind that eleven days before the injury first injunction before the first hearing the advanced access sent an e mail in english only to the defendant in china and that was that's how this case start loving days later i'm sorry i didn't know there was a preliminary injunction but the permanent injunction think that is he never said a word about notice he said service by email is not allowed in china that's what he said he never said i didn't know about it he acknowledged that he was aware of it two days after the email i agree that he  wasn't enough then the district court could act under its discretion so of a question we have to have we have to look at is given that you could come in and didn't was what was  face it is not enough we say that these advanced accesses is some of the largest companies in the united states they certainly had the ability to bring the evidence if it was there and they chose not to