infringement in mexico is going to imply that you have a an invalid pattern that if states we don't believe that the question of whether or not it actually infringes in mexico is relevant with what we believe right it hasn't been alleged anywhere they that there's been to your reaching out to them your view would result in a scenario where every distributor and every manufacturer would have a d j action in any jurisdiction they choose to file yes but do you not see the problem with what you're asking for a product is sold in a distribution chain suppose it's manufactured by a company a and distributed by companies b c d e all over the entire thing and we believe that you know it's bad enough to be in a jurisdiction in mexico where things move that has still informed me that they're going to if they when they go to bring that mexico that they're going to see in th ground and to significantly undercut the whole approach of requiring a definitive case or controversy and then just then zero contact with my client versus their client relating regardless of the similarities between the two and this basically says to someone if if you've made a decision to enforce against a third party pat in a foreign country and it has a lead similarities someone can accuse you of being tantamount  implied even though you've had absolutely no contact with directly no act directed to the d j your points are very well taken i'm cutting you off only because i understand them completely i don't want you to think that that i don't but i do want to ask you what if this hadn't being in a foreign country what if this had been as i'm sure you've heard a manufacturer in the united states with a single u s patent how how would you feel about his arguments about whether or not there are adverse legal interests under met him you know if we were talking about distributors in your patent he chose to sue distributors but not the manufacturer and the manufacturer wanted to bring a separate d j action against you in the us it was all a do us patent you understand i thought yes i know it's not your case i get that but i'm just curious what your thoughts are or where your arguments go in terms of whether or not that would be  there's an awful lot that comes in play i would offer first of all in heiress as judge still coin it out there's a requirement of one of two things either an indemnity which is not alleged is not in the record here or an accusation of indirect infringement while in aramis some of the system claims the statement was that i think the court said and some of the system claims all of the components were provided by  in terms of it's at least confusing and doesn't totally answer this question the i would point out that eris is also the same logic as eris has been applied in the the creative other people selling the same product under the same patent in the united states no i think i'm sorry i'm confusing that that there was a customer case and there the court again found the absence of the two steps an heiress and therefore moved  on and similarly when there are suits against host of competitors so we're all in the market together doing all the same thing and they're picking off one after the other under the same patent so they haven't said anything directly to me yet and even there this court has required more it's required something for example in micron micron was last in line with the dram patents and that the plaintiff was going after people one after another but there had been all the older there had been communications directly to micron and there were multiple statements that they were going to enforce the rights against all infringed so there's there's something else who one is going to pointed out the cases require an act they require a communication they require an act directed to the declaratory judgment plaintiff that indicates that the that there is an intent to enforce a patent right immediately is looking for an action it's looking for thing the that patent owner has done it no longer has to create a reasonable apprehension suit but it has to be something judge moore basically face the threat or it has to quit doing the conduct you don't have the right that the form you don't have to get arrested from a lot of criminal cases and analogies that would be true if we were totally in the u s and we've got a supplier manufacturer scenario and there's have a very narrow case that it needs to be decided merely because i think some of these other issues that i bring up and we're discussing are troubling to me because of course if if certainly a manufacturer and a sole supplier would allow for d j jurisdiction because it is the same product not an identical product that the actual song is a product when the question becomes what if you know to distributors or to manufacturers are making identical products and then of course comes a little further what is another identical respects but they're circumstances it is possible then that situation i could see an argument being made that that has a lot more supporting it than here that that might give rise although it is a slippery slope that that this court  a whole different country how different precisely because in that case you would be invited to infer from actions against other american companies it's not that they're american or not american it's not where you pick up the phone it's is us patent its conduct in the us that's that's a more permanent way of phrasing it but but you would you wouldn't you be offered facts that are closer and being urged the cumulative effect of those might be enough to tip in favor of jurisdiction and while that's conceivable like here even though everything else is saying this court's decision earlier in the year and i think was novartis says that i think it was in validity not not a french mint but just who has the burden between the preponderance of the  why someone might sue under its rights in mexico and not have made a decision as to whether they're going to do anything and certainly not commit an affirmative act in that regard i don't want to keep the court you no longer than hoop put uncertainty and or require a a competitor to operate in an environment where there's uncertain about whether or not they might be legal ability in there is a real and concrete standard and then the so here we have action it's against not against our eye but against its product in a different country and here we have an identical patent with identical claims and in our view you know there are there are allegation that they haven't ok i think both counsel cases taken