plaintiff's d j plaintiffs intended to copy the defendant's product and that product was advertised as covered by the defendants patent second fact again alleged in the amended complaint is in the past intended to the didn't t parts of a screw and not around it this is it's a seventy dollar product and that's what was in the complaint we're not talking about a chemical processing plant where you need billions of dollars to repair it took dora has taken no action directly you in all i would say the record indicates not has there been something there has not been a j i a steve you aren't cringing there hasn't counts as you're supposed to under the statute since you have a patent and you mark your patents and you're saying that's enough because you're announcing to the world i have a path and that is enough contact with you to require you to rush to the court to exonerate yourself from future infringement no you're not you don't know your honor that is not as position the second fact that i want to point out is that j took additional steps it sued a third party under this patent under for this product and in that context under all of those are the nicest that's correct your best no action directed at you that isn't directed at is an action directed at eight in the sense of j any nameless person if you manufacture this product you will be sued we contend that this product is an infringement now do i have to say a b c company by suing one sues manufacturer number one and then manufacture number two and then manufacture number three but never send a letter to manufacture number six i see no logical reason why manufacture number six has to sit in wait either in this case not go into the business or just under the law to have d j jurisdiction it has not infringed it has taken steps to infringe and one of those that it has once received a quote on a seventy dollar piece of equipment you have anything more in terms of an established business  offices and manufacturing plants and anything which shows we're doing this no your honor they are absolutely not doing it they're taking the steps short of infringement infringement dvisories the word you always have the word if because the courts president is very clear you need not infringe because one to infringe you then risk trouble damages and attorneys fees and that is not the requirement by the way why  and then settles in and if i will had indeed gone through a trial and been up on appeal then there would be no reason of course because we would know that the patent is either valid in order and or infringe there be there'd be no case it would have already again we have set out a couple hypotheticals in the brief and i just can't logically if you say that if you manufacture this widget you'll be sued why is it that you have to say hey steve you're the one who has manufactured i'm going to i'm go sue you that you have told the world that you're going to be there to determine forcing your patent against this product if you have a different patent a different product a different company that are third party that you've sued yes those are the prior cases but to reach out and require the d j plaintiffs to have been contacted directly and specifically by name is something the supreme court precedent just doesn't just doesn't support it's in all circumstances test and to require that the pla which in this using the overlapping standing right in is just disability issues we view and we believe the judge viewed as a standing issue and i think the court is exactly right and in the  association of molecular cases that was biggie your honor but not on these grounds was vacated because of the case involving the mayo and the natural phenomena that mobility i understand your honor but the case we've been really arguing in the order on the briefing had nothing to do with the declaratory judgment a spec of that case that case was decided in if the court didn't require some communication what we would have is a situation where anyone could have a subjective fear now cresco tells us you can't have subjective it must be objective now the supreme court said that medically and you can't have the apprehensions standard anymore but there still has to be an objective standard if there wasn't anybody could target a successful company that bases its success on its patent portfolio and decide i'm going to hold you up because i have suppose i'm i'm thinking of building it and i've gotten a price quote  we didn't write them heck we didn't even though they existed and in fact they didn't exist before six weeks before they took us to these services is that practical and in a business sense you have someone who wants to sell a production line different product they know your copy your exact product their copy they say they are it doesn't make sense to find out first of all whether or whether the threat you making  the scores most pre and post many humans have that it's never been this kind of issue i think if there is a complete lack of communication is tolerated we're going to have now eight species of work vers patent trolls who are going to arise like i suspect a did in order to sue you threatening to invalidate your path so you see her lying on the lack of nowhere and if again if that's the standard then the next reverse patent troll is going to have the subjective injury because they want to do it and they're going to get a quite price quote they're not going to have a prototype they're not going to even be in the industry to drain it if they were a real competitor and they wanted to do it to do it and they say we're going to do it what are you going to do about it in the senate a letter that puts us the to the task and perhaps we could have ignored the letter i've seen cases where even if you ignore the letter it's just a simple controversy doesn't arise go as the court said into three now the supreme judicial court of massachusetts gives advisory opinion because we would not miss but the constitution says our courts in the federal system cannot be must be an actual case of congress the implementing statute a clear toward judgment statute requires a sane and throughout our jurisprudence it has never been a subjective feeling it has to be i don't think the court has any reason to hold as being purged by j and j indeed the court has held adversely to jail this is not in my a situation that if allowed to go forward would create a crisis in our courts i'll i can say is i remember what happened when the court whether the plain language of the statute with the market if the court opens the door now to saying if you can be subjected and all you have to do is get a price quote that you don't even have to tell anyone about that you don't even is not particularly bad the court determines what the law is if the laws are incorrect the legislature changes and that's exactly what happened everybody did their role here not everybody that gets a quote is going to be suing microsoft it's a fact specific situation you don't need manufacturing facilities to make this you call you you pick up the phone you call the china you send them a string screwing up and  and you get back thousands of pieces you put a website up and you're done you want to you want to infringe or potentially infringe on a patent for microsoft or apple you have a whole different jurisdiction the dispute definite in concrete touching the legal relations having first adverse legal interests clearly there's a patent holder believing that this product is an infringement and the person that wants to produce that product claiming that it's not an cases would go to eighty eight judgement come up on appeal then we would have a case here instead it's the scare tactics of the the plane to the patent holder has no problem filing ten ten fifteen suits settling them all it chose to put its impact on the chopping block so to speak by suing module and sue and saying that this pattern covers this product and i'm going to sue this is the manufacturers running case of a hypothetical scenario if you were crying to get the judge to ross i don't think so your honor it is a specific product it's a specific pat a plaintiff that does not have a product and that is clear that a d j plaintiffs need not produce a product the response was i think a quote from sierra that you know the product could be changed easily and so you're dealing with the hypothetical requests in that situation they had that was not an attack on the pleadings there was testimony that the product was at least a year a in design was one hundred fifty thousand watt power supply here again we're doing streams and nuts and bolts technology that's been around for thousands of years under these circumstances under the pleadings that we have to take as proof as set they took concrete steps now i certainly understand that perhaps on remand that pandora is going to challenge that and will be a summary judgment issue or to be something on the