inappropriate because yes this is judge waller i have a few questions about the law and the concepts regarding hearsay testimony that connect his knowledge regarding s k p i's sole provider status was not gleaned from one conversation but quote close quote from quote c not point to a specific document to support and of course those are the civic layer foundational issues as well as relying on the testimony of someone else taken out of context on a single question where s k p i's counsel was asking about whether he was aware of any other documents any documents that he had and he said he we are references where he had his i'm sorry that's not what i asked you where in the blueberry or the grave grave did you discuss that and i apologize i have the appendix numbers i don't have the references in the blue brief or the great brief look as yes better have them when you use that was my point that i was saying earlier that this is general business knowledge that a sales director would learn in the course of their business from talking to various customers mean yes go ahead if you're not arguing if this is records exception how is this not an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted because it's  as in the previous case and where this court found in rule thirty six this was appropriate if personal knowledge acquired through perceptions based on industry industry experience is sufficient foundation or lay opinion testimony most knowledge has its roots in say that's burlington verses nebraska robinson versus watts detective agency which we cited in the br hearsay otherwise a sales director can learn without speaking with his customers and i should say that is just one mirror piece of evidence that is not even the totality of the evidence that we have  back and forth filing we're in your papers did you make this particular argument that you made raising grey and it blew a forty one that it constitutes a business meant exception relying on mr i could not find and you cite these cases regarding hearsay except i couldn't find any cases that you cited making that argument to the just a court so yes if you come up with citations because i can't find that they that would be helpful customers assurances that its bill that had been supplying would be transitioned specifically from the old nomenclature to the new nomenclature and that it terms of for instance the j series consultation card that it was referencing specifically g s twelve point five which  that gets to the relationship between c and ultimate phone makers downstream doesn't address song i don't believe addresses the question  with respect to the two films for which you claim a s k p r is the truth the precise provider that's what you're claiming in your briefing here right yes that's that's one of the pieces yes because the korean film knowledge of sujit if if the court is going to accept it then that is yes then much b s k v i a but it least it's five to ten percent at a maximum could be anyone else where in your papers when we talk about the force for the trees taking each piece each piece in isolation if you if you start and i promise i'll do this very quickly but if you start with the timeline of nov th two thousand and fifteen the jury reaches a verdict of ten million square meters of infringing film being imported within less than two months s k p i is alleging that it's going to add a line it's going to immediately to indemnify in ops and they tell the customers that you're at risk of violating the jury verdict if you don't transition to the new film which could only happen if there's importation they offer a a round and so both the design around and the the d j complaint both indicate that this is only about technical infringement not some change in the market the washington state testing there's no reason to request as saying if there isn't in fact a importation of your product and there's no reason for you to respond by testing that there's importation of the product and that during the th same ballmer you can call it a new product and then the japanese complaint is latest two thousand and eighteen they finally admitted it because it benefitted them that they were selling infringing products that was coming into the united states all of that raises a question of fact and should have been included should have been trendsetter in total not in isolation picking apart each piece of evidence discovery it engaged with the district court and multiple rounds of briefing it had two hearings and it had multiple roadmap on how to present and importation case including this court's decision enlargen and the prior case between these two exclusive suppliers theory which is unsupported but the only evidence that we are purportedly an exclusive supplier for these two particular accused is the inadmissible hearsay from  the district court properly and well within its discretion disregarded that he is testifying based on information he had from others mr dane referenced different sources there are some portions of this i'm sorry to interrupt this or isn't there some portion of his testimony that arguably could have been based not on information for others but just on the nature of his position and his own experience at the company and if that's correct with that why would that be problematic as hearsay let me see if i can address that in three points your honor so st of all it's a circular argument because conoco would just be relying on mr stood you say so that someone in his position would have this knowledge there's no corroboration and if this is the kind of information that would be common knowledge in this industry there would be something in the record or something that conoco could easily develop the particular as in it at the hearing but also may not have come up at the hearing but it raised in the in the details comprehensive tentative order that konica have the benefit of before that st hearing there's nothing addressing the court concerned what mr dane may be industry or common knowledge and i also want to point out my rd and final point here because we didn't have the opportunity to address this this was a piece of mr c g s testimony that support that this kind of information again information about another company's exclusive supplier status that testimony was never presented to judge hill for you can tell us the that by the docket header at the top is from several months before the summary judgment proceedings and about seventy docket entries before it also concerned a different topic it was specifically asking about anaconda because information about  films it wasn't talking about some general acquired business information and again we just returned to the point that it's mr c g s say so there is no other proof just report properly  numerous non accused films of those same thicknesses that we sell there is nothing in this testimony that connects this purported theory to the two accused films that seven sales team report i'd like your comment on that document but i'd also like to ask whether that document was cited to the district court in the responses the materials that were submitted to the district judge in opposition to the summary judgment motion because i don't remember seeing it may have been there but it this is docket two hundred and ninety three days fifteen i'm sorry dash fifteen this case involved products that were not even made or sold until two thousand and sixteen so that is not prohibitive besides the fact that it is incomplete because this is a complex move tight country set of manufacturers we are by far from the only manufacturer and this doesn't have any information tracing any product certainly not these two accused products at this theory or any theory a guilford recognized a konica is trying to hang its hat on the evidence that was presented in the prior case the old evidence it's not relevant here and nothing connects that evidence to the current set of facts  different set of facts we have different accused bill we have different a different time period that doesn't overlap with the evidence cherry period and the prior case and notably and this is something that th over the end product makers here are a different set of manufacturers than in the prior case this case accuses apple and samsung directly importing cell phones there's nothing to very specific questions first what is your response to their reliance on the japanese complaint yes one of the japanese complain relation to the prior case ok it was a reason i ask is mr day and i think referred to the japanese complaint and said that it pertained to two thousand and eighteen you're saying that well it whatever happened to involved in that case so in addition to defining the subject of that complaint being the prior case that was before judge brinn all attachment to identifies the films that were at issue in the japanese complaint and those are all didn't attempt to develop any evidence from any suppliers in this market and so whether from the tsunami or from the participant in this market there's just a complete black hole the court based this where there was no evidence about how the steps to or step three operated we have the same situation here it's it's not clear that this chart is even relevant to the time period but the one other point i can offer judge pricing is that you'll see at the top it's defining the korea market supply chain whatever period that might be that's an incomplete picture there were other we might filmmakers you numerous and to tease each wealth all of the supply chain in this kind of complex market that's why it's so important to actually trace the film and judge judge filtered recognize that konica didn't even do that we don't know the reason sophisticated party it was in prior litigation and this exact same legal issue but it chose not to develop any evidence for any of the other companies in the supply chain we have no insights into how the cases like this turn on there is an exhibit which is cited several times in the connect his papers exhibit number fifty and email i could not locate with confidence where that was in the appendix and perhaps i should ask mr dane but if you happen to know i was looking at eighteen for fifty four but it doesn't seem to square up with  users that relates to damages in the earlier case the finding by the court was that it was a class of infringers the problem is for damages we can only determine a certain amount the reason we can't get middleman is very simple korea is a convention signatory does not sign on to article twenty three which relates to pretrial discovery so it will not  allow businesses to be compelled to produce documents or testify so you have to go through this other route which is why you have to trace the the close market  thousand and ninety five percent was definitely argued below and if you look at appendix seventeen to fifty five at age three we stated s k p i continues to dominate the korean film market by its own estimation had a roughly ninety to ninety five percent share of that market by two thousand and sixteen and it was in our supplement statement a statement of facts as well but old product and all the pieces of evidence i cited if you take them together show a transition from an old nomenclature to a new nomenclature they can claim it's a new film but that's a genuine issue of material fa imagine to be taken to the extreme if on november th the day after the verdict as k p i had argued it redesigned its film would canada have to reinvent the wheel and say now i've got to prove wholly a new supply chain irrespective of the fact that a day before we know that they had dominated the market and they were supplying infringing film into the united states this is a summary judgment stage where we need to show a genuine issue material fact each of these pieces in isolation do irrespective of mr susie's as the mony each of these other pieces at least provide a  endeavor to prove the element of importation that existed prior to this case that is to say in the facts relating to the previous case and eighteen japanese complaint was important it wasn't important to show that they were admitting their new product is an imprinting product it was finally it in mission after they had denied it to the entire prior trial that they knew their product was coming into the united states they knew that ten million meters were coming in markets don't change on a dime so the very people who testified in the japanese complaint of that would be the people that we would call in this case to show you knew then so you know now that's why you're indemnifying that's why you're testing for washington state we have a right to do that at trial as long as we raise a genuine issue of the forest and not each individual tree and try to pick it apart i mean the jury should be allowed to say you're transitioning to a new nomenclature if you look at  nomenclature so why shouldn't the jury hear and reason reasonable inference that the new allegedly new film is the old film it's just called something different we have a right to present appendix to be difficult to to use to try to figure out where everything was and some of the things i just wasn't able to find i mentioned in swiss cheese argument exhibit fifty mr dan that anywhere in the joint appendix again i couldn't find it but it may be there somewhere doesn't appear in the in the joint appendix so is well it's i just not as confident as you are but if you say that that is the document that is exhibit fifty