r be on the one year statutory bar and whether or not the decision on claim construction in the i p r was valid and or was it correct in the st issue is whether saying that it is different and that procedure set out in the world for dean but that is just an informal you do i understand that's correct this is an informal waiver argue saying that that's effective in this the other issue with all forty that we conceded is that the company was served a cyclist and there is no obligation under forty for a cypress company to respond or be served and if you're over forty doesn't obligate the other party to actually answer or sign a waiver it allows plaintiff if that other party is a domestic corporation to recover the fees that it has by affecting a service under another matter i'm not understanding what you're are arguing that the email reflects their acquiescence to a waiver it also reflects their waving of the defense which they say that the service under the hague convention was defective that's been their argument in the i p r not that we didn't serve them under forty and i'm trying to mean jury and we're going are you saying you were not relying on the waiver itself  st or instead and you were saying that the e mail reflects that the earlier service was proper is that what you're saying it waves any defenses that it was i the materials that were served upon the process server had proper stamp and a proper signature the copy that was delivered to the defendant may or may not have because as we remember the defendant said i never got a copy do not believe service was probably fixed on either war game again that one was served under forty the other was sort of the hague convention which says and we waive our defenses to improper service in exchange for a date farther along for them to file  what for d s s this is not a request for waiver this is service under the hague convention so it's not under forty this is service under for a before be it service under the hague convention which is service right if they don't do that and there are domestic what happened in this case we serve them under the hague convention they accepted service under the hague convention and waive the defenses to improper service they waived the defense that is an answer if i may try it your argument is none of that relevant to what you're claiming you're claiming you served under the hague convention correct and that document that document is doesn't refer to the cyprus or right it doesn't refer to the cyprus or the england service it says we in the defenses we discussed on the phone that he that mr collins believe service the same as process service you just have to have a translation and a certificate from the other country that's all in here what only defect was that when the process server printed out the summons they didn't print out a served somebody sir my question service in accordance with the convention what would be effective if it's filled out sometimes we're not submit waive the defense to that requirement which is different than waiving suit they waive the requirement for a signature and a stamp that what you're saying if they got everything else right if in the u s at circuit without a stamp if ninety days after the complaint is filed there hasn't been any service yet right on over alternatively i can ring from court for example would be the effective date of service rate so it's not like it's going to go on ind cooperation less arguing less fighting about technicalities and i know mr collins on for a long time with all the other cases is a kind of person who likes to avoid that kind of conflict which is the right thing to do and this e mail sets that date and stone in most cases we are waiving our defense that you forgot to put a stamp there for this service becomes effective on its state which was in december und in accordance with rule for correct and you're now telling us it was done under the hague convention and that waiver is effective under the hague convention and you don't need to comply with four d becomes officially aware of the complaint that you've given them whether by mailing by waiver by service of of process by any effective means that clearly for mr collins called me their client was fully aware of the complaint of everything about that and he followed it up with an e mail that said we're waiving our any defenses to improper service which if not on the date you explain this to the get the peter you know the people and i know what we're dealing in their decision clearly doesn't understand what services they said well that's not the question that they waived their defense that in the very next paragraph you say the assertion that war gaming and never been served as a legal absurdity or damning stance of we participated in the district court proceedings including so i can understand why the p t that might have not been able to figure out what to do because i've been working on the assumption that all of this took place either consistent with or failed to be consistent with civil procedure rules for your now telling me rule for nothing to do with it was all done under the hague convention and that under the hague convention that best well most of the questions there is the events in cyprus and events in the u k and i'll turn to each and in turn so with cyprus they contended that they had served in a foreign country by mail and the relevant provision for rule for there is rule for to see to and the relevant provision requires that when trying to serve in a foreign country by mail your are to have the clerk of court mail the materials and to return a sign for seat and the undisputed constituted there were statements and that in that e mail that meant we were not we were waiting our rights to contest weather service if ineffectually so they were best at the hearing even if it was that it wasn't really clear argument the hearing but it was do his argument as the waiver involved in this particular fact situation and not a waiver under ford it's a waiver under the general principles of the hague convention you here today because they did not provide the written materials in the form for waiver of service and they never filed anything before the war so we don't need to talk about that in the in the oral argument transcript i see no express reference to rule for or r just what i can tell an argument about rule forty and whether that was complied with and now this separate argument about whether the statements in the e mail with some theory could constitute an inability to argue that that service had i guess the point that i would like to make is that we're we're we're struggling here with what is the basis for this new argument about the email and the statements in the e mail because if it's not real forward and the hague convention doesn't have any provision about weaver then there's no case law support that appellant has provided for this argument then what is the basis for the argument to say that any statements in an e mail can constitute an inability don't know wrote the mail whoever wrote that e mail with the under the new that he or she was waving and he defect in the service and said s now if that person was representing the party then that party may be stuck with that person's waiver if that waiver is a  and the question is too we've all been assuming the problem with the waiver argument was for the but now he's got a whole nother theory people wave stuff all the time and that email would sound like a waiver if it can be done but can it be done only by hague convention do you have you happen to have any information on that question unfortunately don't have this provision but i'm aware of no provision in the hague convention that permits a waiver of are you aware of any that precludes it you know that's that's where we are but i do think that goes back to a question of whether in the district court whether you're required to now show up for a hearing whether you're district court i'm not part of the district or procedure i mean do you mean me personally i don't mean you personally i'm going back to your client yes you're participating in the district court yes and the question of service was never raised in the and then it says failure to waive and results of filing a waiver and the whole thing is designed for the plaintiff to ask the defendant wouldn't you rather waive service and have us go through the expense which is going to cost all this money that's apparently the only waiver provision and for that i could fly i believe that's correct or i'd like to ask him a hypothetical let's assume for a minute was that your interpretation i think i it's not clear to me honor your honor because that was the point that you're raising here whether that's what they intended or not but i don't think that they were addressing the issues that have been raised  honor go ahead so i don't i believe that you know the wood for decision that we cited on page forty eight of our briefing the supreme court decision made clear that if you have a complaint about the procedural the procedures that the hague convention is just like regular service where a process server you don't have a followup as in forty four dollars you file the waiver with the court what you have is a document shows you serve somebody you have a date they have to answer eithe they d had already waived we have no defense not being properly served we are in default give us something right that's the situation so if i have a process server document and opposing counsel calls me up says i think there's a defect but i'm waiting the defense is to service there's nothing else i'm supposed to do is a plaintiff there's no four d letter that you file with anybody he's been served he's agreed that he's been served he's waived his defenses if he goes into default which is why