united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and this honorable court good lying ladies and gentlemen we have two cases to be argued this morning explanation unless you're owners have any questions on that and certainly entertain that if not then i'd like to talk about the ninety seven a patent and specifically the vertical orientation is very important for this claim this claim is a mean plus function the patient to support me is for supporting the arm there's no dispute about that the corresponding structure is a rotary joint in figure seven and when you talk about the planar products there to separate on slid over this pole there's no physical way to rotate either of these arms clock well there's no way to mount a hinges are don't do the mounding in the same way as the ball and socket joint the patent structure yes yes or absolutely so we and and socket joint is is also allows for taishan in x y and z axis the there is a very slight tiny offset of an axis because the the the three joints  z function and they don't dispute the function the question is how is that the same way as a ball joint and your only testimony about that seems to be directed which is a great and has to have substantially the same waist as sand within the result the result is not not not contested so we're just talking about the structures and substantially the same way bit deeper on this issue and explain what your expert said as to why they were the same way i mean you mentioned they're both joining so i think they're both the experts said something about how they're both on the back of the display what  slightly exploded bulging and when you compress the three hinges then you have evolved to if you expand the ball joint you get you can expand it out to three inches they're all located in the same place they allow that the monitors to go and the same a contested fact the issue of not infringing all targus for a single piece of court are and the other part of the j model was contesting infringement of desire degree which they haven't pursued on appeal that's all they that's all they had in their their jame all in their motion for a new trial they argued that the way the weight of the evidence was that the arms are separated and the way to get it ends was that they can just are not equivalent to a the the the jury instructions they didn't object and they and they gave very limited objections to the licenses that came in not to license their certain on appeal so you know we started waiver because there is a waiver if i may address also just new arguments this player started off by arguing that a single piece needs to be to auction that's not in the courts the construction of the court that's not the function that would be to the palm and that's just not a requirement that the district court correctly held that that wasn't a requirement d just point out on this issue of waiver based on the very limited challenges that plane are made and its post trial motions for for this case to be reverse from the exhibits including the ones that were sent back to the jury and the clearly that these arms segments when they are when they are and install assembled we just didn't have the time to go through me but every one of these which they just didn't have merit it would have taken our whole greets and even today now i've heard a new argument from them that we somehow waive the bias and spring and and