to capture or that you say they were trying to capture that that there shouldn't be so much fluorine on the surface where the plug fluid m the exception to prosecution history a stop is that there are some choices made by the applicant to narrow the claim that have a purpose to which the equivalent or more precisely the difference between the accused product and a literally infringing one is essentially one thousand and ten dollars gentian so you can't just say they made the choice it's always true that  that with quake the carrier fluid and the walls didn't have different chemical properties and the whole point was to make that to point out that what was being claimed were chemically to stay so that you question of the relative value of the patents covered technology and the other components of the products we i know i know they have the burden but beyond what the distinction was so let me let me can i i need to interrupt you because as long as you're on my housekeeping stuff what about the injunction though as it relates to these tests so say we were questioned by me at trial and he was explicit that he couldn't identify any technological benefit or any technological reason coming are saying that somehow the record supports some clear i mean the relevant question history is two pages and it's a legal question so no matter how many times anybody addressed it we have to decide did afresh and there's a tiny bit of material that's relevant to it right  gendered i thought he put it better than i could which is that putting a diminished amount of had no effect tangential to distinguishing microchannel much code with  and i can ask you this question to this confused me a little bit when i looked at the evidence of was it dr she and the others i thought there were two possible interpretations of what was being said one was that the amount of the fluorine put in there simply had no made no change in the relevant functional property of trying to avoid it here and which you did not want to hear and the other was other possible interpretation is that the tiny amount of the fluorine was things which is it that you think the evidence of your honor i guess i'm just not sure i totally get it exactly different but i think it had no i mean it might have been possible that that a gigantic amount of flooring would have left the non adherence property still in place and at that point i don't think there would be any question of tension she ality so that i'm trying to figure out if the minimal percentage of the florian just had no interactive facts or or whether you're talking about a purely functional this doesn't make any difference from multiple cups to one cup but they did and that's not a gotcha and here i think the real point that i leave this topic on you can tell from the prosecution history what was being attempted there's no ambiguity they were trying to the following a different from or or in substance or or just a different formulation of what you're saying might what you're saying be characterized as saying the argument from the other side that nona fluorinated or fluorinated is binary is just wrong as a claim construction matter it was given a extremely almost binary  claim construction but the term for purposes of deciding the purpose of the amendment could be either simply about the presence of flooring adams or it could also be about flooring caused properties perfectly perfectly i mean you know if you could work around  shift you if my colleagues are willing to to the damages discussion and and that the two issues just for what it's worth the choice to make sure to address that that i guess i'm particularly interested in hearing about one is the argument the argument on the other side is one given that conclusion assuming admissibility has been preserved it was your application to show that that it could not reasonably have affected the jury's germination you haven't that regard i'd like to just ask you to address whether the testimony that you eric ginsburg who i guess is the u s c licensing guy about just how much work still need be done in order to move from the early two thousand when this patent was submitted to see if there was ever going to be a worthwhile  marketable product why doesn't that point rather strongly in the direction of the number the percentage being rather lower than it is thank you is different to be commended miss ability and insufficiency and i don't quite see that you've made that argument seems to me they're making both points with a different standard because you can have multiple precisely this vast majority of virtually all of their products and they place them and they have new products that's all in the record and i don't think there's any significant argument where they have to redesign if there's a public interest because we're happened scientific research in continuity and they've got design products for the primary products they care about and what where is the competition exactly at this point between the  said well we're not offering those now but we have some meaningful plans to offer them in the absence of competition why why an injunction and it's true that we're not true but it may well be that the other side doesn't care about that that the public interest and injunction when the installed base is allowed to continue doing what they're doing so the installed base can continue to do what they're doing it just do people can technology the other technology expert admitted that there were other features of value with the rd let me let me go back to your point that you said you argued this both ways now you said it in passing a few times in your b never see a discussion anywhere where you contend that the district court abused its discretion by even even allowing the jury to consider the license you simply ultimately say it's not enough i mean the  court did say that it was economically comparable but at the end of the day he was convinced that it's not sufficiently technologically comparable but he put it to the jury and you never negotiation this court set in x mark you have to do more than that you have to show the judge your work you have to show the jury your work and i'll just know to judge toronto's very st question the  function in the scientific community responded to the court made pages of testimonials by this point in the community about how important these products for research coded being one of them if you look at the most recent dockett entries in the district court these instruments needed to get an exemption from the injunction to do critically important research as opposed to scientific research because i i do think that that today's has gotten somewhat removed from the labrat precedent that we have about using information which needs our instruments the scientific community which needs those to think they can do something but the existing scientific community is allowed to continue to use the instruments to the extent they were and you've got design around with respect to any future