the competition in the company not significant at least that's what i gather from the record judge the district judge in this case applied a standard that he called meaningful competition which may be  abundant direct evidence of direct competition between the parties for example in the court's opinion there is discussion of the battle between each and every light for the lights of america sale there's the battle between each in america for everglades competition neat yes it would it would suffer past economic harm that is a standard that this court has never apply this court has said that direct competition is evidence of irreparable harm it's the direct competition standard that this court has looked to the court has never applied a meaningful quote meaningful competition standard which requires a patent owner to show a but for the court has held in and the answer to your question your honor is the court has held that direct competition between between the patent owner and the infringer is important evidence of a rubber ball harm it may not be sufficient because the court has to analyze all four of the e bay factors but i submit that this court's guidance is to the district courts to look to direct competition and not to elevate that standard to require that the party show what the result of the district court's opinion if there are two results of the district court's opinion one brought in and one specific to this case the broad result is first of all there's no injunctive remedy for infringement by importation or offer for sale and in fact what what the district court is effectively saying is that a patent owner even facing competition for the biggest customer like g e has to wait until they lose a threshold amount of sales before they're entitled to an injunction so the so that the parties know what to argue and to frame the issues even for the district court to exercise its discretion in appropriate way this court has held in for example the mighty case unfortunately not a a published opinion but this court has held it has never required a showing of the past damages this court is also held in another case that the patent owner should not be penalized for their ability to maintain their market share in the face of competition and then be deprived of an injunction and that's very important in this case in particular your honor because we're dealing with l e d s and one porton aspect of  case may well have expired as well so for nature to wait and lose a sale i'm not even talking about the design win aspect of this case which we've discussed in our briefs just the nature of the technology is that if you lose a sale same market but competitor meaning that you know your toe to toe and your honor with respect to lights america with with respect to g e and i can cite to numerous other this is a situation in which need share acted with a an injunction is to prevent a defendant's planned non speculative harmful conduct before the purse that's why i need your brought this suit and we can again there are documents in the record not like there is not that is not likely to happen based on the evidence that has you know lines the way i've read the district court's opinion literally and i specifically read conclusions of law sixteen sixty one season sixty one and sixty two where the district court summarized what the direct competition between each and every like in the whites of american g situations of which there are two of many and what i just take the one example again that general electric was needed as largest us customer a vital us customer the district court describes direct competition and then at the end of  that doesn't count towards an injunction because nietzsche did not show price erosion to a bug for a level of causation again so the district court held for the first time there is no precedent for this in any decision of this court certainly where a pat no winner has been put to the burden of showing past harm by but for causation and i repeat once again the effect of this is to say there is no injunction right he said forty one percent the actual number which the parties agree based on the evidence is twenty seven percent each of those licenses is a technology cross wastes if needed it doesn't get an injunction in this case actually what it will have to do now and what nietzsche is willing to do is to file another lawsuit but in the ordinary course of a patent owner doesn't get an injunction in a case like this it's only recourse it's only it's only a remedy is effectively a compulsory license with a royalty that's devastating in the alley d industry for the reasons i mentioned l e d's lasts so long that you don't get a chance to recapture that business with techno each of those licenses a technology process license and most of them are royalty free and light and even where there are royalties there in specific circumstances and essentially it is not important your honor thank you injunction all right but i'm going to limit my my my argument to just to fifty happens just to some of the issues up the first that the district court committed  self powering so one would expect a person of ordinary skill in the in the or would understand expect that the power is going to come from an external source and indeed that's consistent with stipulation eighty seven which is that a twenty one zero seven the various quote various components within the l e d package permitted several functions including one supplying electrical why every every one of mitt of the witnesses from both sides agree that the chips were connected are chips were connected to an external source and if if  itself they also conduct electricity that's too broad a construction and in it's so broad as as as to be effectively meaningless but that's the purpose of  did a laboratory experiment were where he had someone put a probe on these type are remnants on the side and got the chip to light up and said see it conducts electricity the problem with that lights expert testified without their dispute without this agreement that those high bar remnants during operation don't conduct electricity any explains why and i'm page six of our reply brief we we have a figure of the the device and if you between an external power source and the l e v chip understand that and leave in its limited to conduct electricity outside of the device because if electric because the two fifty had been doesn't describe in the specification a power source anywhere not within the four corners of the device and it's got an elite the chip the purpose of which is to light up when it gets electricity in so one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from looking that if the if you have a device there's no internal power source the lead is intended to conduct electricity to excite the chip the power has to come from outside and that again is consistent with stipulation eighty seven thank you for your new construction appears to be prompting them to find a use limitation other and in so in in use the way they prove infringement was as laboratory experiment that has never been that there's no evidence ever actually been done in the real world no evidence it was done not be conducting it goes straight through and so i guess the point to i i don't think it's a use i think it's part of what a lead is a lead is something that can ducks from point a to point b in here with there's no internal power source that point b is somewhere outside the claim doesn't it doesn't express plain talk about a power source right claims that neither the cla nor the specification describes or power source that's correct s the again the there's a fight fine in fact twenty three which is based on stipulation of eighty six is the field relevant to the inventions field singular relevant to the inventions  the seven fifty seven products the first subheading says proprietary firms said composite outperforms plastic in ceramic same documents same page next heading the cheer reinvent party publication one page for industry praise it's a twenty thirteen document five years after the priority date and it says that she was the first to use e m c lead free material not the end point and what that what the district court did is go through nucci is evidence of competition there are findings of fact twenty four twelve and in four thirty three all dealing with these issues that she hasn't challenged them let me point to just two finding fact four sixteen there is no overlap between that she in every light with respect and that she is top it claimed weren't competition with ever lied ever laid is identified in only three of sector five hundred sixteen sales opportunities reflecting potential sales of fifty thousand dollars ok regarding the two fifty pack regarding the claim construction of the term weed the claim construction was not made willy nilly it was made in the context of the claim in which the word appears frame which has mauled on it involving resin molding it's a molded leaf frame and the lead is the component of the resin package that results when that molten lead frame is simulated that is cut into individual packages so in the context of what the what the claim is telling us which is a lead is the portion of the lead frame that is that it remains in the mall in the in the resin package after  in the context of the method of manufacturing claim not in the context of claim seven which i understand is an apparatus claim that's right but the court found in there is no dispute that the term lead is used  found that is it's in his memorandum all claimed instruction that the term lead is used the same in all the commotion going off the claims so i think if the judge was correct there i would just ask the court in connection with the term lead if you look at ever lights grey briefs on page six there is an x ray of a lead which shows the extending whatever light calls type bars that this report found as a matter of fact and there is no dispute that that is all one component that ought connected they are not separate pieces if you turn back to page five you can see that the side surface of the lead that we're talking about on the side of it's those brown squares then turn to page ten of their brief which is figure one of the twenty of the of the two fifty pack figure one of the two fifty patent shows on the side a square and it's got element twenty two pointing to that square and it says that is a lead so  look at page five of the briefing you look at those squares on the side surface of the package and you look at figure one of the two fifty patent element twenty two it's the same square on the side of the package so i think the the finding there was absolutely correct regarding the but also let me just say that it doesn't matter because the district court made finding of fact sixty one where he said the piece of metal exposed at the side of the package is the same piece of metal that conduct about it we're dealing with a different lead frame structures the tie boards prior to in the course of the manufacturing process connects the one to one lead to an adjacent lee that's that's of an appendix which doesn't do anything and so on but for that construct for the expense of construction nobody would be saying we were in which gave dr the other side's expert a chance to put those pros on there would be no proof there would be no argument whatsoever so the at believe the destruction has cause harmful or the court has in the new questions i'll sit down ok thank you very much for think