right the last argument of the day in the film numbered twenty fourteen dash sixteen thirty three sixteen forty three and sixteen seventeen arlington industries incorporated versus indeed in order to ensnare bridgeport's new connectors are also had to come up with a different claim construction than the one is proposed in the underlying litigation which shows that a fair amount of doubt if this is the wrong second the district courts construction of an external cylindrical service violated fundamental principles of plain construction and is contradicted by the unambiguous plain language of the specification and the figures in the pat court's claim constructions is wrong for four reasons first it is contrary to the plain ordinary meaning of cylinder second it is inconsistent with this court's decision in international rectifier versus judges construction was consistent with the specifications the structure was described in the specification is substantially cylindrical and it was contrast from a structure that is exclusively cylindrical here in the specification first off the limitation and external slimmer surface appears nowhere in the suffocation throughout the more one or more than one means that in order to interpret this claim properly you have to interpret it as being one or more than one that then is consistent with the figures in the past and  consistent with this description in column nine of a divided that is not the school shown in any of the figures indeed under the district court construction there is no smooth cylindrical surface because he c common line that makes reference to some kind of outer cylindrical section and each time it brings up the phrase it talks about flanders on the right inside also says that in the summary of the center of the invention the common to a dyed cast member including at the end down down and smoothed out a cylindrical section having an outer diameter with flanges that accommodates the springfield adaptor but there is the parties do not dispute i don't believe where are the reduced diameter seed element one thirty two is defined as all the space between the central plank one thirty in the left one fifty and that necessarily includes not only i think what you would call the main cylindrical section but then also a very skinny rectangular subsection to the right of that right before the lip that is raised up in terms of its diameter compared to completely uniform all the way through it at least as illustrated in described in this patent that raised area we've called it a different diameter it is not a flange as used in the patent the flange is either one cylindrical surface then doesn't that show that this patent is defined external cylindrical surface in a way that it's not something that has a consistent diameter all the way through that would be an incorrect construction your honor because it shows two diameters and throughout the past when it is referring to that area the inventor did the patent he never used the term approximation when he was describing for example the  say it's one or more external cylindrical surface that is consistent with what is shown in figure two it is consistent with the passage of the lack of use of any term of approximation in the specification with regard to that parties agree that that's the ordinary definition and there's no disagreement that a cylinder is an elongated body that has a circular cross section which remains constant along the bodies of your legs so you want to lend to both mean a perfect geometric cylin judge lynn said that that means it is got the characteristics of a poly not that the ordinary understanding of it in the court said we have to hold the patent he subject to his choice of words the pe the other side interprets that dictionary definition relating to or having the former properties of the cylinder as meaning a cylinder something that's cylinder  cylinder i mean everyone agrees that this is a clear unambiguous term injury given it's plain ordinary meaning there is no dictionary that you can look to that says relating to or having the property the properties of approximately the requiring only one surface that was the wrong and ignoring the indefinite article that was the wrong fork in the road that then forced him in effect to say that well since there's multiple diameters here it's got to be approximately the form of the cylinder and here ensure and protect the due process and notice rights of an entity or persons here when our own tin had to come up with a different plane construction than the one that they proposed in the underlying litigation how is it bridgeport to have any notice or knowledge that that's going to be the claim construction a new claim construction they would apply in this proceeding with a different methodology for determining infringement than they did in the underlying litigation that right there raises serious indicate that this is an appropriate case for a summary contempt reseating and then you add to it the fact that we have our own patent that arlington distinguish between  here in this action versus the original action yes your honor we absolutely did not change our claim construction in fact there was no claim construction provided for cylindrical but we still pointed to and actually if you look at leave it at a two eight was no cooling construction actually provided but we didn't change anything with respect to this wonderful gift because the the dispute never was truly joined as to what aspect of the connectors corresponded with the leading in the external cylindrical surface it certainly does surround that surface but if you even if you break it down because its surrounding all three serves correctly again we don't believe that there's three separate services and actually the district i think very correctly noted when it was doing its colorable imitation analysis which it was required to do under tivo before it got to claim construction and i think it really constructs the court and how the court the judge was looking at that because it was required the court was required to make a factual determination under color of a limitation as to what was the claimed feature both in enjoin connectors and in the accused connectors and after listening to three days of testimony from the expert it was clear to the court that the extra  wonderful surface had varying diameters and that it just has to be in the approximate form of a cylinder because that is that when you look at the product of bridgeport i enjoin connector it had this had the just like the patent as your honor pointed out just like the patent actually shows that even though the patent figures show these raised portion they still refer to it as the external political surface or the seat they don't actually refer to it at the separate portions they always refer to it as the seat for these after to surround and so when the port identified that as the product that was infringing and so going back to your first question to china to me about was there ever a finding there wa fine there was a finding of infringement of that enjoying connector because bridgeport when they admitted to infringement they admitted that every single limitation was met by their enjoying connector and so we know that their products have to have it met that limitation and they do have varying diameters and the for the fact is that the patent specification shows varying diameter so the only consistent claim construction is what the court found was not limited to a perfect cylinder is broad enough to encompass varying diameters but what the court where the court error is after it found the product to be content and a fine bridge for it to have just violated the permanent injunction and in case what the court to really keep in mind but related and actually had more limitations because it was a structure claim and this was just a method claim that there were different limitations they were very very very similar but reality was and surrounding was actually the limitation in this case it was actually a subset because it had to be surrounding the entire leading and in the patent but what's what's interesting about that though is that once supported those found that the contempt was met where he shared was in fundamentally misunderstanding what the third circuit's exceptions to the norm rate rule is for the special expertise exception because they are the district court judge refused to consider institutional knowledge as a basis for finding special expertise exception and so despite the fact that there is no dispute that there was institutional knowledge that was absolutely required to try the cases these litigation has been going on for fourteen years between arlington and bridgeport  products the same patents the same related without the same witnesses the same expert witnesses and being counsel on the other side of the home all of us being out from outside of the state and the court looked as the interface decision and actually ea despite the fact that there is no limit on what constitutes special expertise and is what this court found in my waters the only thing that the patentee or the the winning party in the contempt proceeding have to establish is that there was no one in the forum that had the same special expertise and in that case in this case there was no one in the forum that had both the patent litigation expertise and the institutional knowledge that my firm and myself had in this case and there's really no dispute that there was this institutional knowledge it's just that the court as a legal issue decided that they could not consider it because they believed it would swallow the rule we know that's not correct because an interface to the district court following the interface one decision found that the special expertise exception was met by the plaintiff law from having tried a previous case and said that that just by having tried that one case that their special expertise was unique in the attorney's fees in the first midstream and so therefore you don't have to because we know that no other law firm could take it but it also made a very special specific finding that the special expertise exception was also meant that when it went up on appeal first it went up and we called it interface three there they found lost the case and they didn't actually discuss the reach anything to do with the special expertise exception that actual decision was vacated that's what bridgeport had missed misapplied in their case but when it went back to the federal circuit again they just found that they didn't need to reach that issue because they found that the second exception had been met but what's really important what we noted in our brief is that when it went back down to the district court which we refer to as interface five interface five the district court came back again and said that the special expertise exception has been met by the mere fact that the unique position that the plaintiffs law firm has gained by trying this case again in the same issues again found that he where judge computer just based on his own misunderstanding of interface and what he really where he really was misunderstanding it was he pointed to interface one in said that there had to be this bright imposes bright line rule that you had to go in to interview law firms and what we kept trying to argue to him and what clear is that interface once there was no issue of institutional knowledge it was the absolute first lawsuit being brought and therefore just coming in with a new law firm from a different city when there w hundreds of other law firms in new jersey that did this but that was not the case here in fact there are so few law firms that even do patent litigation in the middle district of pennsylvania that the only law firms that bridgeport even tried to even identify was our expert witness and excluded from that from the ability to to consider it but what the where the poor actually compounded is error is that even then when it actually went to determine what the actual properties to apply it actually didn't even give arlington the ra which it did pay for its local councils so there's every single bill had been paid in full for their pennsylvania rates of their attorneys and they actually arbitrarily the poor arbitrarily reduced those rates and then gave the washington d c firm which the court recognized was substantially more experience gave just the pennsylvania attorney fees raise instead of a premium to that so it was just the poor tragically found there was content but ignored the third circus rule that an innocent party like arlington should be made whole when they did nothing wrong here and they should be put back into the position that they would have been in had bridgeport not violated this injunction and if there's no further questions right now reserve cylinder and then for arlington to come in here and in the contemporary sitting to ensnare our product they had to come up with a different plane construction and entirely different method of showing infringement before it was look at the device  thers three cylindrical surfaces that said it's not an issue here in this case in your opposition brief below you you did identify you know all three portions of of the seat as being  composing the external cylindrical surface right well off in the proceedings i was never to say well we at one point we were we're trying to determine understand what are we to a degree or forty seven and we indicated there are straight hurl all sides on the three cylinders that compose the quote unquote cylindrical surface on the old design yes so it seems pretty clear that you w failing to limit in arlington how it sought to prove infringement in the underlying action it failed to preserve our notice and due process rights and addict did not consider that the fact of the undisputed fact that our connector operates in a substantially different way to achieve substantially better results now on plain construction you the the limitation is an exorcism of service that clearly implicates because it's a comprising claim the indefinite article a rule ok so it has to be one or more of you then look to the specifications see is there anything that that is the clear and unequivocal if you will exception to the rule throughout the specification when it's referring to this area it is international rectifier the inventor do you want to make a quick point about the attorney fees across the peel well i think the the district court didn't care it's correct there are no third circuit cases that have this institutional knowledge exception there are the district court cases do not allow an institutional knowledge exception as the district court said if you if you accept the institutional knowledge exception than any them in the third circuit state that at this moment they weren't going to reach a decision because they didn't need to the district court in those cases found special expertise and they base it on this particular issue and other circuits have based on the exact same special expertise test that the third circuit uses and the interface tests have found that institutional knowledge meet the special expertise exception and it really makes sense why the concern over that it would swallow the rules the court mentioned that if there was just a generalized relationship that you can just bring in your former counsel that you've known for twelve years that would be one thing but there is absolutely no problem when you look at a case that is this interrelated and the fact the part of the part expert witnesses everything is the same for use it for the court to say that that doesn't mean when you combine it with patton litigation of the expertise that in itself can't meet the test or even set in by a lottery that all the party that is the winning party has to prove is that there's no one in the forum that has that particular type of special expertise and nowhere is it limited to that special expertise must mean only substantive knowledge of an area because in this case the use of the what's going on at office what was going up here at this case what's been going on in the relate in the in a related party and knowing things like for example what dr williamson had to by two in previous cases or for example how bridgeport had actually testified about these products and the fact that they function in all the same ways those are relevant what winning the case and therefore should be considered special expertise for that reason we asked the court to remand i'm just that issue ok thank you very much for your argument