my name is jay heidrick i represent the appellant's all the polls in this case it's my first time arguing before the court of been here several times but i appreciate the opportunity to be here today with me as well as  begin your honor is that we don't have to over rule redwing to fit in this and where we have what i think the difference is with redway is that red wing says that if the letters that are sent out are demand letters and we want to by practicing the two reasons you are one in that in that case there were specific patents that were identified as potential infringement there were specific products and there were a limited number of letters  are some but one thing that is present here that also this was not present redwing is that that was looking at a jurisdictional issue from a company that had no other contacts with the state and that's what reading looked at is there was no other contacts other than the demand letters that were sent out here playing on corruption is a registered l l c in the state of texas the entire state of texas you know it's a district argument and your argument has that in fact they're just right on  it well it's more than that argument is that they're registered to do business in the entire state of texas including the northern district so if the northern district were a separate state it would still be registered to do business there which is a contract that wasn't isn't in reading or not to say something about there being as we all think that the laws pretty settled that if you do business as a general rule in the district you're probably going to be subject to personal jurisdiction there and so when a company's sole business is to mon honor that is a consideration that can be made but the cases were also on different on different case past as well where there was litigation pending in the eastern district texas but those cases were ahead well ahead of the schedule that i agree and see the point so but getting back to the point of why we're here today as to whether or not planned on corruption is subject to venue in the northern  texas the they are conducting business in the northern district texas it's the only business they conduct and if you were to take the license solicitation letters that were sent by plane of corruption and that goes back to the exact point of if this was a software company that said take a license to our software we wouldn't be having this discussion it would be very clear i think a lot of that's what the three is to allow the district court to make those those determinations that if there are one or two letters that are directly sent out that specifically identify like was the case in red wing or ad was said that said we're reforming you have our rights and litigation district the adjacent district has all been resolved your honor the there are no pending cases against the the banks that were sued in the eastern just the regionally have all been time that this action was filed those cases have all been resolved and there's one other point i'd like to make us to why these are business matters is that in the adjacent litigation in the eastern district texas when it filed the complaints against those entities all of the actions that were brought by pete he were in the eastern district of texas which is incidentally where jack henry has an office and doesn't have one in the northern district of texas let's get down to specific a declaration and j five four three mr little yes little marlin del it's little your honor mr little says he sent letters to various banks but the record doesn't show the total numbers of on given his lack of specificity can we assume that the specific facts would be adverse to him i don't believe so your honor i believe that would be the burden of the move on a motion to dismiss to cleanly or really the burden is when when a parting fails to disclose facts isn't there a presumption that those facts would be adverse to him isn't that the way the law works well i don't think there was any finding that letters to any other party were relevant so i don't know and why did he say it i believe he was just being honest in his declaration that letter sent out to various banks i don't i don't think i don't think the fact that there were other alleged case where let's get down how many how many banks received letters from plano encryption i don't recall off the top of my head really really it's been through two rounds of litigation in the eastern district of texas but here i am ok then you don't know how many of those banks were located in the northern district i do not your  and you don't know how many were located in the eastern district i know at least four of them were located in the east from district of texas i know for approximately thirty letters oh ok so we do have approximately thirty and is anything still pending in the eastern district there is a case that is settled your honor that has not officially been just missed but it is the only remaining case now pending in the east from district of texas there have been two prior litigations both of which went to markham and had substantial work done and then in the eastern district of texas there was a d j that was filed in whether the one whether the defendant purposely directed its activities at the residence of the form to whether the claimant arises out of or relates to the finance activities within the form and three whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair and if you argue that plano encryption doesn't have sufficient minimal contacts in the northern district and that corresponds to the first two requirements however we recently held that these first two requirements are satisfied under these circumstances specifically in new world international we said we've knowledge that the defendant purposely relates to the defendant's activity namely the infringement letter in light of our holding in new world are you still saying those two requirements are not satisfied yes trotter i believe that that is incorrect just as he's arguing for red wings should be overturned i do not concede that there was first two elements what distinguishes the proper analysis the first two requirements from new world well i believe that under supreme court precedent in particular burger king that sending a letter is not purposeful of bailment ok have a listen to what i said you know help you what distinguishes the proper analysis of those first two requirements from the new world don't argue other cases tell me about what distinguishes it from the new world analysis nothing your honor i i would concede that under the will new world analysis and actually under several of the other precedents the court has always found that the first two elements would be met by the mere sending of a letter into informing so the case comes down to whether  bit well i think redwing who along with a long line of other cases your honor held that it's not reasonable and fair to be hauled into court if you send a letter or serv simply informing somebody of your federally protected patent rights you read though that when you're looking at whether something is reasonable and fair there's a lot of other factors to consider and it's a case by case terminations well in that case if it were fact by fact and unlike breckenridge where it was specifically held that the number of letters and other things didn't factor into this analysis then the specific facts of this case are of the defendant who sued only three of the fourteen were located in the northern district of texas one of them was the corporate parent of the other so there are really only two entities that got sent a letter peachy had no knowledge of the most of whom didn't receive a letter in the northern just listen to me yesterday it helps if you direct your your arguments to our questions we have a lot of questions ok yes you're so so let me keep you in the in red explained that without more infringement letters are not sufficient and could the without more language encompass a business practice designed to deliberately manipulate jurisdiction and raise litigation costs notice letter trying to get somebody to resolve something without litigation does the opposite i mean all that will happen is if you change the rule and say if you send a letter then people will sue and they'll sue first without giving any notice at all and if you won't answer my question which is going to lose my vote i understand your honor also i'm trying to answer my question sure in a hypothetical world if a company was sending letters designed to deliberately manipulate jurisdiction and raise litigation costs for parties targeted by the letter would that be fall within the more in some way that where their circumstance could we find jurisdiction based on infringement letters if it was in conjunction with other activities i don't believe so your honor if those activities aren't is a letter sent to a single bank inviting the bank to take a license in petey's patents the record appears to show that p t sent letters to at least three banks in the northern district i believe that would be an error on the facts or are ok would it have been a matter of time because i would have thought that that would have been clearly stated before the district court could have been the th been lack of knowledge on the part of somebody it may have been a mistake as to the location i mean the districts are drawn not along sometimes easy to follow lines so perhaps that was a mistake of fact and in one of the things i know we would not have of course and i'm i'm sure opposing counsel would not have intentionally said anything that was factually incorrect to the court do you concede the appellant banks have  outstanding well against standing yes i've i understand i don't believe they have standing i don't believe that they should be part of the litigation because they there was no reason for them to be suing my client in the northern district of texas oh i'm sorry i apologize your honor standing yes there they did they would have proper d j standing under met him you know and i apologize i i got lost in the facts thank you yes they would all they have all been they were all accused of infringement at one point in history and would have standing and ok let me follow up no yes or no considering that this case was decided under roll twelve why isn't jack  the district court well we never got into discovery your honor but we asked for the agreements that would have shown you know there are supposed indemnification obligations to these banks and never provided them to ask for them yes and mentioned in our in our in our papers that they have never provided them repeatedly which is why they drop this footnote they're just saying it will give them to you if you order us to but we've never thank you if i can begin with the same issue but it was not our position that the court had to order us to produce them if the court felt like this standing issue was an issue we were whether we want to produce them or you asked for them and refused to provide them i don't recall ever being asked when in fact we wanted to engage in discovery your honor and plan a corruption filed a motion to stay all discovery that would have allowed for this as well to scare various other contacts into wine and just dropping the man on we didn't feel it was fifty three that outlines approximately thirty banks that received letters and these are the ones that we know of that were able to find there may be more as well as their connections to which district in the northern district and mr pitt cock referred to there's only three banks that receive letters yes yes they are and there's also an additional banks that are headquartered or load in order to texas but have offices or customers in the northern district and when you go towards the first factor of directing your business activities towards the residents of the district all of these letters should be considered when determining whether or not play on corruption has directed its business activities towards this district and  district texas and when they sent letters to banks that have customers offices and or a base in the northern district they're directing their activities towards that district unless the court has other