i think it's consistent so your honor we agree that the word on it wasn't disputed when we proposed the term because it came up unclaimed direction is this a means plus functions or we said yes the sliding means is a given and itself along a pipe and bumping into the parent member so it's like in the past your spouse has a bearing member essentially like a two of some sort and the thing is coming and there's a little ring inside here so it bumps into this right so in what way is that in any way different from something that as i said is in a restaurant that prevents the resilient forces trucker carefully went through that and said there is nothing in the slides that that is inconsistent with his report the slides may not have been a part of his report but but look but experts use demonstrative aid that trial all the time the court said those didn't even go to the jury they were demonstrative eight i don't understand your art when i read the briefs and you saying this is the absolute worst thing that the trial court did and yet it seems to me the most easy one to conclude that the trial court has the discretion to allow that front of the jury that you have to put it in your work where we disagree on it because those those were the basis other than those lies which we got the night before the committee trial if you want to stick with what's in this report and give the conclusion that we're happy with that we the reasons we were given the opportunity to cross examine him on those slides if he had seen those live we will have gotten our own experts they would have to post we didn't so it was like a movie deal with the nicer way of showing it to the jury but is there anything you didn't argue below and you haven't argued here that there was an actual new opinion about how the citing these operate well i disagree th disagree with you on that point where are we in terms of overturn record on the reply and the summary judgment reeses expert came in and gave his opinion on reply of what that term means and from the district court summary judgment decision but that's purposes of this question that the jury instruction about personal liability of ortiz and over the other fellows is plain air that it is also there isn't even an argument that it's non prejudicial in the usual sense namely that the evidence would have required a finding of personal liability even if there had been a correct instruction those arguments i think are not even a but there is and  didn't disagree with either of those two propositions the district court said and this is what i'm free says here it just doesn't matter here because the partnership was health liable and as partners the individuals are liable for the partnerships liability now i can imagine ways in which there would be a difference in consequence but i'm just imagining them tell me what difference in consequences there actually is according to whether the individuals are person aren't subject to a personal liability judgement in this case and the situation where they're not there not to give the standard of the room your instruction the prejudicial standards very unique could not have changed the result but i'm a smart i'm assuming that the district court also assumed that the district court nevertheless said there is no challenge to be to be too one there is no especially harmful error to correct and we disagree because only what the concrete differences that presumes that the jury found that the partnership acted truly the other individual  presumed that you did not argue here that the partnerships liability is indirectly affected by the iranians instruction about the individuals why you brought this up in response to jury found langton or teasin friends using that rom jury instruction that direct infringement could include do so that's why you're on everybody presumes that the two pro actually whoever they want to whatever works or doesn't what's the relationship between the lighting and the two pro i mean there was a lot of cute testimony here it looks like he lighting didn't even pay its its proper due to say an active corporation and so i mean the fact that there was some when it wasn't a valid corporation and other times we make a go ahead and pay and it becomes a valid again and then it becomes invalid again and that's what that's the best he ever said about its status but it never said it was an active corporation but he did say ut you have an appeal the finding of liability by the too happy you is that the part of this appeal appeal the argument you're saying that well the reason it's relevant is because the two we should assume that the jury would in a funk be to libel and therefore are only left with these two partners when that issue is settled sound would be everything with all that and if the jury instruction were incorrect but you have an appeal the finding of liability by the jury of the partnership so it seems to me that that door is closed in terms of doing anything about that wrong about that i think you are wrong your honor i think this you need to be addressed also because of the claim stretching issue if you agree with my claim construction well yes ok i appreciate that let me let me just spend a couple more minutes and i ask doesn't just one jury instruction number eighteen and that's the willfulness question you challenge you did not object to the jury instruction correct about that at the time jury didn't seem so analyze the objective reason in this where is that argument per serving we raise an objection we feel it was in the record not at the time the jury instruction was objection to but means being displaced of all on the to be the curie thing right but you never argued that that the fact that the judge allowed the jury to make some conclusions with your non infringement defense was objective fully reasonable and therefore there cannot it will forms if you rely on the single infringement issue that went to the what they're trying to do now is fake the construction of word on in plain to where the phrase it's supported on the reconstruction there was a budding vision there was nothing say and you did not argue that that was a correct instruction at it the district court did not signed and you do not argue that it was non prejudicial in the usual sense that the evidence was so strong that not only could a jury find individual liability under proper instruction but it had to the district court found that you argue only as to fact that it simply does not make any difference whether there is a judgment or personal ability to play in direct responsibility for the personal liability that attaches to the partnership if that's the case tell me why you would not give up the personal liability judgment against the individuals if you're in a couple of issues here so the first part is that the only issue that they can with the instruction of a fourteen second sentence and dealt with personal liability of corporate officers does not affect not stand here and say we will give up the personal liability of the individuals well we give up the personal liability of the personally bill or the judgment first person that we can give up the part of the instructions were to personal ability as officers because of their partners in the partnership between a problem which was sought to be partnership which didn't object and the partnership with what is directly infringing the path they're liable personally as partners of partners should be so that does not itself support the judgment of personal liability against them here they might you might go after them for personal liability for the partnership liability are you willing here to say that you will give up the judgment of personal liability for the individuals and if not it must matter to you in which case how can that how can we possibly while you're on the work with there was also the judgement of personal infringement by length and their t's separately from instruction number number forty how do we know that's separate from the instruction the instruction that may have been in fact the sole basis on which the jury helped them personally liable well if they held them personal liability as officers were is the instruction number the the other parts of the jury instructions were basically saying that the individual personally infringing so there is a difference  appears nowhere in your red brief can you answer straight up are you willing standing here to give up the personal liability judgment against language that already we're not a we're not ready why not because the personal liability flows from their partnership as be to their personal liability judgement does not flow from the person alive from that partnership liability and what and there was certainly was no instruction that they can be held liable product so why do you give it up this is a little out i think that and at this point i mean to the extent that it would help them avoid liability i don't know i have to look at all the different issues associated with the action they're able to avoid my problem is that the possibilities that it might matter are the very possibilities that seem to me to make the reasoning if they're real that make the reasoning the sole reasoning on which you defend and the district court found that you may as well leave them in place not withstanding the plane possibly president question the prejudicial air of the instruction it seems to me a race to a race that that it might court also separately from this discussion of the partnership liability said that there was and i think if the words were were there was abundant evidence of their personal liability and you had separately brought claims against them in their first  find them liable no it does not argue that it merely says there is sufficient evidence so that there is not a j m o l entitlement of non infringement on their part curricular but the jury found him personally infringed not necessarily personally liable that they might the first leans on that instruction not not not necessarily not necessarily it might have it might have it might have known the instructions the instruction was working the second prasanna liability is officers because of of corporate infringements not because of their individual infringement the jury had enough evidence to find them individually infringing and therefore more did lead billeted for the individual infringement so while we were liability of individuals somehow track transferred into direct infringement but due to pro there was no instruction for the jury to find that we've the jury found be to pro directly infringing and therefore they're liable but given given your questions and you you explain first of all put completely to one side whether it matters that the jury was asked to address the objective recent homeless portion of the district judge didn't discuss that didn't say here's way their non infringement defense was objective really reasonable so i guess i have two questions one did they ask the judge to decide that i don't think you judge kaante in the motion for new trial stated that their positions were not reasonable he wasn't going to overturn the verdict because the claim constructions on which they found to be infringing were the exact same construction that they proposed so he's basically saying the claim construction didn't go to the jury the claim construction were reviewed by him he understood the claim construction and he said that based on your claim construction you were found to be infringing that takes care of the objective problem because if you didn't i'm sorry how could that possibly take care of the objective pran unless you're standing here and one thing that every loser has made by it i guess what i'm interested in is the explanation for why taking the claim constructions as a given there are none infringement defense was not objective leave reasonable wrong evidently but objective lee reason ok so from the then none infringement defense which went to the jury on one term was based on their client construction and their structure and oppression of their device every part of their accused device the claim claim one read on every part of their q device so the jury was asked as to whether their defense of not infringing which is a factual matter  and that that is a matter of law and i'm still waiting for the explanation for why it was objective fully unreasonable and for in your view taking as a premise that it was incorrect at the jury could properly say no you're wrong it actually this element the whatever this resilient restoring forces element the only issue that actually went to the jury that actually does read on your product why was it an reasonable objective plea for them to argue the contrary well because under the the mayor case the question when the defense is based on the legal issues then the  court should be deciding to questionable when the object the bill prong is based on the factual the defense of that is based on the factual issue under the mare case it can be decided by the jury and if it is that i am trying to prong underlying facts currently decided to be decided by the jury correct and and then only the legal implication of those facts ultimately is what the current decide and that's where the port here said the only legal implication is whether or not the claim construction was was right or wrong because every other determination was a question of fact correct and in this particular case judge conti looked at the legal and the what would a jury found based on factual actual issues they found to be infringing look at the how the case progressed given that the infringement was based on the claim constructions and they proposed and they agreed so he  the objective problem he didn't want to murder the only thing they argued that made their defenses objectively reasonable is that they had just one other display simple on instruction and a piece of evidence that the judge had excluded that those were the things that made it reasonable and he said that the bill and the only legal question then legally there they have no leg to stand on so as a result the jury's determination as to the factual elements is consistent with far merit we know what he was talking about in a well i think that when they're talking about the positions they were talking about possibly damages the the was a discussion of what element where brazilian sort of forces come in is that it's it's hard to visualize on papers so that's why she asked what she decided that should be brought to the jury so during during the trial the demonstration of what their brother is and the jury had the ability to see which is something that the district court judge didn't have in front of her when she was ruling on summary judgment so explain you explain please why the position that they talked about the resilient forces at trial is not just law but objective legal reasons ok i can you're on at eight to seventy one this is the athens itself column for line seventeen through twenty five this passage refers to the umbrella reflector shown in figure want figure one on page two sixty nine of eight to sixty nine  what it discusses is the idea that when you open the umbrella and it passes the flame what it called that center plane and it goes past that point the forces of the umbrella push the stretchers in and it a lot once they're pushed then you can open the umbrella there's a force now you have to overcome to close so once you open it it sits there open now you have to overcome because if you look at the passage on in the path it says that the stretcher is a dimension in such a way that you can get to that point because it's a stretcher too long you'll stop before the better if the stretcher is a short enough you gets right through it and  resorting forces the forces are coming and they're pushing the signings and the impact of the bearing body the sliding in is reliably retained in this position shows which is the open position and that's exactly what th made caulking about now this description refers to figure one that's exactly the structure of the day except that there are new and they were arguing in the district were that somehow you have to ignore this passage and the fact that the sliding means it's touching the bearing body somehow it creates an infringement on but the passage explains that resilience restore its forces pressing against the very body repain forces and what had it they had an argument about essentially not the bearing body doing the plucking but something else and i think your point is it really doesn't matter because the claim is just about something stopping that restoring force that's a red or what stops that's correct is a matter of fact when they had as they had it a with we called a very body they had a structure that had another structure fitted into it to extend past slightly so whether you go slightly below the tip or you go up to it it doesn't matter because eventually that's that whatever that structure is that becomes the very much you and your you're touching and you have their positions on one infringement was unreasonable it was happening in the embryo exactly what i just described that was in his expert report that was in his claim charts he's basically showing the jury this is how you open them their burleigh this is how the sliding means or the the body slide part of their motion to compel which we in it had five or six elements in there on one element as your argument a so far a vase that i find them disingenuous and the what's that was one motion there was another motion financial documents she admitted the financial documents in and it's was part of the argument so what you're saying is even if you buy the proposition that one sanctions and the attorney fees were already shift that we're not looking for compensation for that for the funding that with sanctions we're looking for the attorneys fees minus whatever we were to compensate it and the elements where there's danger then factions and i found their conduct to be unreasonable if part in that particular environment any particular clamping were resting means are not required that's different than what's in claim one claim one requires of the resilient restoring course do a ring of particularly joint claim requires your particular joint be on the bearing body so here you have a very body here comes the joints from the stretchers of at some point another piece is not the very body without sense to infringement and we know that one reason is just when denied the summary judgment of infringement based on that limitation that there was an excuse have the parts other parts we don't have that but it is true that judge downs or even even the order where you were sanctions he pointed out unprofessional and improper conduct both on your part personally and on the part of the fine in multiple places where he said but i'm not going to rely on those things here for sanctions they might provide a basis for world eleven sanctions later or they might provide some to term some ability to make credibility determinations later but i'm i'm not going to rely on those things they're out there i find them all improper conduct but i'm not going to sanction those doesn't that work we shouldn't support have considered those things along with the othe to have considered this in this case so far made the factual finding that you didn't properly produce and even thank you for that you haven't appealed that determination but we we did  was erroneous remember this came up on the reply recently we didn't have the opportunity response that reply and when we did in the opposition file january when you learned we explain that the reply was wrong we did produce responsibility fourteen days after his order in january and then we fielded later or issuing must do did not appeal any of the sanctions award any of the findings with respect at least with respect to the  an opportunity to respond to and when we did respond in january we showed with facts why documents were produced and sabbats why your honor we were never given the opportunity and when we did file or opposition he also demonstrated no infringement at trial is how testimony now we go to relate what we were faced with we took a thirty six deposition briefs mr rhys to ask of the basis for the infringement contention this is a