we have a busy morning we have six cases on the calendar judgment against and also to be reversed for at least five reasons i'll address the personal jurisdiction and extraterritoriality issues you have to remember this is a contempt case and as a contempt case must rely on valid judgment below here the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over cipla under the georgia long arm statute and rule for af to those of the only two bases that marial pleaded in this case miral have since conceded that it didn't have jurisdiction under those grounds and the district court has found that the didn't have jurisdiction under those grounds paragraph thirteen of the two thousand and eleven order because there was no personal jurisdiction there is no valid judgment below and the district court would have known that elsewhere than white why wasn't there proper jurisdiction your honor of enter in reviewing your opinion and such calm i believe there are three bases for why rule four k two was invoked improperly here the first is that rule for k two didn't on appeal that there was an independent basis for jurisdiction or for k to the case went back down for any appropriate amendments for any appropriate rulings on the merits and that's all we really asked for here second it wasn't a default judgment case the problem here is com there was no question as to service a process the brass can and are firm have been served properly and they appear in court here the second problem with rule for a k two is that the rule expressly requires service of valid service of a summons just doesn't exist here the only plug in the only pleaded bases here where the ga long arm statute and rule for asked to that was completely inappropriate because india had a ceded to the hague convention four  contempt should be vacated yes there and that we should send the case back to the district court with instructions to dismiss or i guess the underlying default judgment yes rebecca and then what should happen should give the also an instruction to transfer it to illinois or just a flat out dismissal and leave it at that i think the right answer flat out dismissal your honor and the other district courts in which there's been a proper designation of an alternate forum like cipla did here when it then identify the northern district of illinois the result has been that the corps found that for k to doesn't apply once judgment action on the same issues in the district of delaware and that particular actions been stayed awaiting decisions in this appeal so it enough to to a definite and also for a don't you also have to that the forum has to be one in which the court of the case could have been brought because of its the could have analysis and here once a simple identify the northern district of illinois it was consenting to that jurisdiction and that has to be the appropriate analysis because the other the other alternative would be that you'd have to examine the sufficiency no contact with the northern just of on oil if there were sufficient contacts in and of themselves then we'd never get to the step of the four k two analysis since the  that there are insufficient contacts with any particular state but sufficient contacts with the country as a whole so if we start examining specifically what those contacts are and determining whether there could have been a specific jurisdiction contacts analysis whether we're just it's good enough to say i want to be sued in illinois or i want to be shooting california and then that's it if someone has a has a bone to pick it's with the rule itself because the rule is already at the bounds couldn't establish contact with any particular forum or any that didn't exist before and if the price of getting that remedy you know there was the case that in the us under federal jurisdiction is that they have to litigate in alaska or hawaii or in this case illinois and that's i think the way the rule was written mariel chose to go down that path we didn't make these decisions for them moreover all of the acts that in which the ship was engaged in this case all took place in india they made the product and then the year they sold the product and title passed and mumbai and from an extraterritorial perspective we have another layer here that's really problematic if you look at the international rectifier analysis this case tracks and then that set result is going to take the case well either arizona takes the case or the first courts will call it us is that is that all you have to do or is there something else i mean you have to set the you have to set aside that you would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court you are satisfying that comes with the form of the consent in other words if you look at the rim case that's in our papers in that case texas court looked at the case reviewed the designation of delaware as an alternate form and dismissed god family and country illinois court same story michigan designation dismissal that is how the courts are following this track your honor i see that my time is up but is there any other questions thank you  eight the filter intervened in but sir did intervene in your honor and that was because the rule to show cause that issued in the georgia court specifically named all serious product and culture was careful to intervene and preserve its rights to a full determination of the issues here the infringement issues and the invalidity issues develop their believes are in play with this particular patent but beltre did intervene only after its product was specifically put at issue non charges to default judgments have particular rights in particular concerns with not being held liable in contempt for violation of an order that it was not a party to and in this case the net effect of subjecting bell serach to the default judgment word or into a contempt proceeding that arises out of that to have judgment order is to deny vote for the right to a full determination of the patent issues that are relevant to its product and to this patent been an issue here by mr se that is correct your honor and then since then since then in the wake of the contempt proceeding marial made a motion in the delaware court to dismiss our action and it was dismissed based on the holdings of the contempt of the contempt hearing so now bill serra finds itself in a prison and where the contempt hearing so there's no the thing pending in delaware there is something pending but not relevant to this particular case i should be more clear your honor the delaware court in the first declaratory judgment case only dismiss portions related to three twenty nine patent and the pet owner plus product there were other patents and other issues that remain there since then we have filed there as filed in the court received a twenty eight j letter on this another the let me ask you you and mr city both or if there was a lack of jurisdiction in the initial case lack of personal jurisdiction and mr sidney in his time the podium focused on the fact th original complaint that led to the default judgment was directed to in terms of personal jurisdiction the georgia long arm statute no hand in his view of four k two issues what did in your view on that in general but it but i would say what marilyn to do here was get your sticks in right in the first instance they now concede that they didn't have correct or solicited should have amended its original complaint when i say they should have gotten it right when the initial default proceeding happened they should have had their basis for jurisdiction correct then and now what we're going through is a process of backfilling to try to make jurisdiction proper where it wasn't right in the first in the first instance and your honor there are very specific requirements of a joint venture agreement with there's no agreement with what we are supplier supply of supplier in the sense that ultimately the product was manufactured by step but there was no contract directly esswein fellas there and simple  i we take possession of the product in the end india and then bring it to the united states and sell it and you know the import of the import of the probably don't i don't believe we literally import the product from what we do is we take possession from a third party in europe and we know that ship was manufacturing the product but that's not the test year we take possession in europe and britain says be in india and bring to the united states international rectifier exactly the same thing happened suppose regulatory approval was on our package judge but that's something that we would need to sell in the united states in any event in this case in this case what they needed to show was that simple exercise some control over bell sarah sarah went with specifications for a new formulation to two third parties who then dealt with step up simple up manufacturing to those specifications and then we sold in the united states there was no showing of control on the part of step over they're saying there was a middle man there right there was a middleman it's that's your shelter that well that's not my only shelter you are i think that helps make the point here that simply did not hold health care there is no contract w but even without those q e d transactions in between this would be the international rectifier case and the international rectifier case the enjoin party so directly to a subsidiary of the nonparty to the injunction and in doing going to use about thirty seconds having honor and then i've been i will sit down the problem fundamental problem with the tivo analysis here is that the default judgment did not provide the foundational requirements that had to be met in order to do the analysis there was no protector plus product there was no cipla product that was specifically analyzed in in the default judgment case there was no claim construction that was specifically done there so that could not find to you ask the question about whether a defendant can simply name after the fact i'd like to be in arizona we said in our brief walk but let's say why because that was pretty attractive in january let's go to the light let's go somewhere else but let's whatever we do let's just make it so that the plaintiff can't have the opportunity to choose a sport but we've shown in our briefs i think judge raina that that's not the way that rule for k two in the way this court's decision your opinion for noticed that this game could be played with regard to the transfer statute well now that we have rule for k two this is the game being played by our friends on the other side in order to try to avoid the effect of this did phone judgment just off so touch comes a little different in that it was the removal case to start with in i s i the case that the inside of from the seventh circuit judge easterbrook opinion and that is that the party pleads there are minimum contacts with a particular state let's i want to sue you complaint was filed and and the cello entry that you have to have personal jurisdiction at the time that the that you unishe data suit and and in fact that's what judge lamb found he found it after the fact because he didn't because nobody showed up to defend against the complaint in two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight but ultimately rule for k two as i was talking to judge shaw about just a minute ago really only works when there's another party in front of the court and they can say oh no we don't have those minimum context that's why this comes up in the way that it does you know i assign touch comes so many of the other four k two cases there's no rule that i understand that a party in default can rely on the jurisdictional grounds of pled if there is another jurisdictional around that gives the court personal jurisdiction and jeffrey that i think i'm remiss in not mentioning here in this context that we know from this record that both of these parties had notice of not only the lawsuit but the injunction well before the contempt proceedings took place in particular cipla we know from the record in this is at page the leaven thirty default judgment process on this we don't make this product we don't infringe well that's the judge properly said you know there are ways to do this sixty b for example is a very good way to do this wouldn't simply do absolutely nothing point i mean i know that there is there is law that says that they take the risk of not appearing in the case but there is also this for k two which comes up as my colloquy judge schaller earlier indicated it frequently comes up in  fighting to i have i for the proposition so i don't think that when a party in particular a party like this to have actual notice and in fact tried to get the court three years before the fact to vacate its default judgment on that grounds i don't think there's any ground here for saying that there was there is a there's a right to rely on a particular jurisdiction law in particular i'm sorry ron i just wanted to add one other point if you look for example of  model forms following the federal rules of civil procedure there's no requirement that a specific jurisdictional statute be planned and once there is one plan i still don't if there's not a requirement to plead one at all i'm not sure why there is a reliance interest that i don't think you did is it enough for defendant to simply avail themselves or to say i'd rather be sued in north dakota what else have we have they have to show that at the time of the lawsuit they actually could have been sued in that other forum in other words if you look at the affidavits that were put forth in the arguments that were performed at the time judge wright what do they need to do to show that they could have been sued they've got to show that at the time we filed the complaint there were sufficient context contacts excuse me with their their stated illinois also mr bryce pleasure previously represented civil also suggested california might be a place also during the hearing low they have to actually show that we could have brought the suit in illinois they never do that and they didn't want to do that because that's fundamentally contrary to their corporate strategy trying to avoid the united denied that there were contacts were little mind correct well in fact in the two thousand and seven lawsuit the judge went sites they did deny that they had any contacts and that's the case where they said  but that's what that's what the blokes want so it was sending lots of product into this country not just marial infringing product but lots of other stuff and they don't want to be in this court we know that from the published decisions of this court your honor and and this is this is it takes place over almost one hundred pages of the script from forty eight thirty four to forty nine twenty seven he will describe and he is their c e o he describes an intricate detail the layers but here's the critical part simpler is they say well there are all these layers and they don't take title in the title goes here it's in dubai minutes in the united states but here's who's talks about an absence of proof on control well i could dispute has a factual matter i think it's more important to point out that with regard to content active concert is the issue and there just land makes plenty of contempt for ceding that personal jurisdiction under the georgia long arm statute is not available that seems to be i think to be absolutely rigorously correct consistently denied significant contacts with any state marial now shift its jurisdictional focus to rule for k two and i believe that later on the judge acknowledges that there was no evidence put forth in this proceeding with regard to jurisdiction under the long was premised on the georgia law of statute correct that's the way that's the way that our complaint was were written yes and now the the judge has said that this judge very pointed out it's doubtful that jurisdiction jurisdiction personal jurisdiction how does that play into this situation what does a court have to do in your view so we use i think that the law that some cases of articulate that in that given circumstance is entitled to look at the allegations of the well pleaded complaint i don't think judge sauls that any case here cited by my friends on the other side or that i've seen requires a district court to do anything other than take that  confirmed and there's no reason to believe here that judge lance had not done that before entering the poll you know thing when there's a full court just and when it doesn't have another party before it can what would you have like the situation here we don't have another party coming in and saying no no  doesn't work it's enough for the court just to look at the complaint and i think that's right and this certainly when you have specific allegations as there were here in this complaint perhaps it was in a different story if all of  we had i a sigh and front of us to saying that that's not a waiver and courts are entitled to apply the proper body of law and i think that the equities here why with us not with us to play with regard to the pleading that let me go very briefly through a couple of and i'm not going to entertain that argument here unless the court has any questions on with regard to the issue of extraterritoriality i think international rectifier which both of my friends on the other side have mentioned here is really actually a contrast to th acting in concert assisting aiding and abetting the sort of language that appears in the action in concert cases but here again i point you to the testimony of mr steadman and what as well as declaration there is evidence collusion and agreement of action together going on here this is not a case of simple being the innocent manufacturer not knowing what's going on and not realising that the stuff they're shipping in a different result for simple as opposed to in a complaint in two thousand and seven they weren't in fact they probably never would have been at risk of contempt in this action but for their decision to intervene and try to muddy up the works by trying to get this case transferred to delaware  well i think with regard to perhaps to their litigation conduct i have no i have no question about that with regard to the commercial conduct it's an entirely different question and judge lance finding the answer that just chill is my time's ticking down i want to answer what i fink is the last point that was made by my friends on the other side and that was the mr lumbar his comment about t v is the court i think can appreciate having having dealt with the issues in this case  obviously not involve a default judgment and usually in the content context you have an education but here we pled there was a product they defaulted that is admit this the whole about whether there was a product that time is passed and again i think t v itself says that eighty nine that the time to appeal the scope of an injunction is when it is handed down not when the party is later found to be in contempt and i think that answers almost all of the claims that have been made with regard to tivo that this claim that there was no protector plus product and what we had to show no colorful differences was the product that was adjudged in the default judgment judgment that was based on the iranians short term statute or section to allow amendment and to allow civil to appear as it sought to do at that time that's exactly what happened in touch com it's what happened in i s i it's what happened in the district court cases we ari and rubicon second judge rayna you're asking about what else is required other than consent consent to jurisdiction has been a consistently accepted principle both in the supreme court and he valid basis for personal jurisdiction because can personal jurisdictional objections are way bable and here cipla specifically identify the northern district of illinois and judge moore you ask questions about what happened in illinois in the other case the kinetics case that was cited in that case that the allegation in the complaint was broad general and specific jurisdiction seppo specifically said in their amended answer in that case simple will voluntarily submit jurisdiction to this case otherwise the allegations are denied and that set j thirty two ninety nine thirty three under the reason i focus on that is in the same exact time period two thousand and seven when we're assessing the contacts at last with the us simple as a defendant in patton fringe litigation on a human pharmaceutical in illinois ok so if one wants to look at these facts most favorably to the party the four in the final against which there is a default there was a perfectly valid basis yes your honor scuse me your honor on the product watering point just to make sure the facts and our position is clear here your honor if you remove the q e d transactions from this case you would get the same result that we're asking for that is the international rectifier result which had a poor in manufacturer selling to an american or a company that was selling in the united states and there was no finding there was no finding of contempt in that instance by the third party menu by the third party seller and the reason was that there was no active control rectifier ties the active concert in korea council is correct it is an act of concert inquiry but international r clarification here is that the theory here is not importing under two seventy one theory here is active concert aiding and abetting of and of a violation by cipla so that the issue is really not and not what is before the court in this case what bell sarah tried to do here was the cert was the first party to go to a court and ask for a judgement on infringement and invalidity this wasn't some kind of laundering scheme to avoid a day of reckoni