seals the cable using the connector body itself and without a separate ceiling or a clamping member and in particular the p p c one ninety four patent claims a cylindrical body that includes this wonderful language itself the actual flame language that the cylindrical sleeve which is deforming inwardly is included in the cylindrical body member and here's where the district court err the district court erred by adding to this playing plain language a sentence and the sentence the district court added sentence is quote the structure can be comprised of more than one piece and is therefore not limited to a single unitary one piece component and for well that language that sentence doesn't appear anywhere in the claims and sell no i don't well i recognize that but i think you know arguably the district court did exactly what he or she together is that with the issue it's been we can take two pieces and put them together as opposed to having one unitary piece only well here's why our bridges are cannot be a separate so wonderful sleeve it cannot be two pieces it would it would not perform the other functions required by the plain language and i don't know that i can put it any better than what the court of international trade said and i'm just going to i'm just going to read to you what the port of international trade said as to why are separate gripper should not be considered part of the connector body the court of the court of international trade says that corning's gripping ring is irregularly shaped at least with three different diameter so it if it was considered to be part of the connector the connector body could not have a cylindrical sleeve at the opposite and that is attached to the post and the c r t went on to say that the grip or should not be considered to be part of the connector body the yes you can see what it says quote another shortcoming of known connectors is the need for an o ring or similar sealing member to prevent more oyster from penetrating the end connector between the connector brother and the other sleeve separate overing sent o ring as a separate ceiling member and there are other types of separate ceiling members and in fact that's exactly what corning did here we use a separate ceiling number that is stuffed into the connecting body and that doesn't go over the a sleeve or rear end of the connecting body and to form it in really it's stuff inside and that is exactly the prior art that this patente is is disparaging and i'd like to follow if there's a few more examples of with the chart and we've reprinted a part of the chart at page twenty four of our brief but here we see the patentee to find saying his own claim terms defining the essential elements of the invention in the chart at page twenty connector body where in the slim people leave is included in other words party unit unit terry part of the connector body and not separate floating pieces ok now you could conceivably manufacture of this connect sleeve multiple pieces but you can't have them if they just reports on conduct unconnected not interval otherwise they do not meet the they do not perform the essential functions that are spelled out in the claim like the separate pieces floating about then they do not perform the essential function of the invention and one way to mine that might help illustrate that point is if you imagine a wall of water a line or sewer line you it's composed of different lengths of pipe to be sure the wine could be manufactured with the pieces separately pieces welded together or joined together but if they're scattered about the lawn if they're not connected then they're not performing the essential function of the invention and that is where this falls apart here because if you don't if you say well why isn't why can't the gripper be separate hand what exactly does is it teaches a cable connector that has a separate piece that forms in the late to the cable and i'm not citing that to argue that p p c spends are invalid my point is that p p c is patent should be that the enhanced damage award must be reversed in our view and i think the genesis of the enhanced damage award with the district court's factually erroneous jury instruction and as you know because we've talked about it the court of international expert opinion was provided to p p c and there was no objection so that did all happen and in about the two thousand and three timeframe and then we go to trial for the book before the instructed the jury that the c i t decision quote did not involve the same claim terms or claim definitions that i have supplied you in this case and went on to say that the issues infringement before you are different than those in that case and the judge says well i'm happy with what i've done and mr leavelle says ok and well i don't think it was acquiescing added he fought very hard to have  this conversation that i have this exchange occurred after the fort gave the jury instruction and you did issue about where the claims with the same but it seems like at least on this goes on to say you know what i'm happy with what i did but we have a whole discussion here about you know mr little bell is objecting to the court's instructions about the c s t decision tenders a different one and the judge says well i'm happy with what i did and you presented your record so like a page well ten twenty seven yeah i'm twenty seven when with certainly not an acquisition certainly not acquiescence mr leavelle had already said that the judge's proposed instruction was wrong we do propose another one and then the judge happy i'm not going to change it you reserve your record i'm happy with what i've done and foremost rule they'll just says ok that that's not acquiescence you cannot read this record by saying mr little did not says that's right but i just if you want to have an accurate statement of the differences and i think if i were you know like if mr of a valid explain what we've been discussing here like it is well the whole missile of those instructions mr lavelle's response is not folsom he says it matters the science and he's trying to say you want to have an accurate statement of the differences that's what he says and to be sure it's not all that fulsome but it is important i don't think it can be contested faction to have a factually correct instruction to the jury and this instruction was not factually and strip correct and that's the lavelle was objecting it so i don't i don't think you can it's fair to read a waiver into mr leavelle statement that you want to have an accurate statement of the differences it seems obvious why you want to have an accurate statement the differences because you don't want to mislead the jury in this jury was basically mislead worse yet it was basically instructed to just disregard the c t decision and that the prejudice to corning was manifestly our witnesses are relied upon it imp credibility of counsel that that argue that so i think that that the prejudice is manifest and i think out of this record it's not fair to say that there was any waiver way beyond my small  cylindrical body member cannot be made up of separate components joined together in a single unit it could and the reason they said that is their own expert it said that in his deposition he said that the patent to now focusing on what the claim construction actually said the portion that the court at and the court simply said the structure can be comprised of more than one piece and therefore is not limited to a single  says we're describing anything other than a unitary piece and but if you look at the specifications i think the most instructive point is a column sex line forty seven where the specification talks about a first body member to describe something that has a separate compound that's the opposite of a disclaimer would say the connector body there are the cylindrical body member has to be a unitary construction so there's nothing more than the parent that there was a dispute over the two piece or one crease and that corning intended to argue to the jury that the claims were limited to one piece and so the court added that so at the time there was probably just plain language but the court added this particular sentence saying there's nothing limiting to one piece of structure so really this was a case about infringement and the standard of review there is substantial evidence and corn may argue was wrong i mean is a big difference is there not between calling out yes there's this related c i t union but it did with into dealt with entirely different claims versus what is correct which is that they were significant not so the court says you can't use it for infringement but you can use it for well fed you're not you're not dealing with my question well what is it they can't music for infringement right but why do you think that that's true that it couldn't have well first of all the court did not tell the jury that the claims were all completely different what the court said was that the c i teach ace did not involve the same claim terms or claim definition so it was there was testimony from corning's expert that the c i to decision involve one of the same claims claim one so it's not that there was no overlap between claims it was claimed terms or claimed definitions so what does that mean well if you go back to earlier in the case in the appendix one one zero zero seven four the district court had already instruct the jury to say the c i t case did not no overlap now we get to the actual objection to the instruction it's ambiguous i i'm not i'm not sure whether it was preserved or not the court did say you reserve your record we haven't argued that it wasn't preserved but it's certainly think the court here could find that it was not because of the way the dialogue took place so if there was a all alternative i'm not aware of that your honor that's certainly on those pages one ten one twenty six and twenty seven i didn't see that and again to go back to what i said at the beginning about the court intention here was to make sure the jury didn't confuse and frenchmen and well fulness and that the jury was not to be considering the c i t decision for infringement because there was a different claim construction and that  instruction that it didn't involve the same claim terms or claim definitions what the court was saying use my claim constructions not what was in the other case there are other reasons though that the c i to decision wasn't particularly element and so this is likely harmless or one is the timing it was eight years after corning started infringing they had gone back to the infringing design eight years before that there was plenty of evidence for the jury to find concealment copying all the other factors that were presented and the c i t decision to the extent it had any relevance it wasn't something all of a sudden absolve corning  back to the same design of that very same inward paper where the compression right they did they did do performance testing but they hadn't actually taken it and cut it open to see if it had gone back to being an infringing that unless you do the analysis on top of that cornice catalog still have the same drawing that showed the previous version they hadn't changed it they hadn't changed the model number they hadn't changed the part number and there's a finding by the district court that this wasn't enough to say that p p c should have known about the infringement so how did you ultimately discover have they came out with a new connector and the p c looked at that one and then they saw that corning had gone back to the tapered compression right and so they went and looked at the other ones at the same time that's what tipped them off and that's damages here that's an abuse of discretion standard the court went through the read factors in pretty good detail and that the court exercised its discretion and only doubled the damages here so it's not at the polar and as the court said and that was certainly within the court's discretion what about your friend essentially what the district court already did here by wording double damages it was to take that into account the timing c i t decision which came eight years after they were already infringing once the suit was filed corning continued didn't litigation did not involve the same claim terms the judge came up with that on his own but you can see at the bottom of page fifty one of our brief exactly what we proposed and neither objecting so we we did an objection and we submitted an alternative instruction and now i also want to close by just cause by just pointing out that this one piece two piece of dichotomy is really a false dichotomy as i said you can have a water line with multiple pieces but it doesn't work unless they're joined in a single inner core unit and here you can't have a separate r gripper cannot be th body member because it's not joined with the connecting body it's it moves independently it moves actually it's inserted under the connector body not as claimed in the patent over it to the form the pieces in as i said in my opening remarks if you have a bunch of unrelated pieces if you have a river that's not part and parcel of the cylindrical body member then you've just written out the rest of the claim arc ripper doesn't hang out there in under the judge's claim instruction you go this or it all of those additional claim element you've just written them out and that's the problem with the judge's extra sentence that he added where he it doesn't have to be an interval one piece body the problem with that is that you can have disconnected pieces that no longer meet the claimed limitations here and that's exactly what the c i t