resolution by this court and under the prince or more precisely isn't the question whether what is a litigation royally under section theory or i think the ultimate question is what are the litigation of all of the parliament used t itself is silent regarding whether a stipulation by the parties is sufficient evidence upon which the court made toward or sex damages against and its friends and party what happened in the past friends with lawsuit from which the son agreement s very few phoebe's at all and so they're willing to settle for a high royalty rate and then possibly get hit with sixty percent of that and they're in real jeopardy with their the court's order which it was in the rule sixty eight judgment the court expressly set forth its findings based upon the stipulation of the parties that dollar fifteen cents per television with a reasonable royalty and that is what i route reasonable rules that set forth in the court's judgment was anything more than a stipulation by the parties but it was a stipulation that was informed by the extensive litigation over the door to the defectors and it was assessed by them or in accordance with the law  adopted the stipulation between mitsubishi in parental guide and that was reduced to being it was reduced to writing in the courts final judgment that is all the definition of litigation world requires adversarial presentation of  section two eighty four that we can even begin to get there i don't believe that there's anything in that says they need an express determination incorporates at least the requirements of the statute including a finding by a judge or jury based on  eight well because your honor if you look at that the provisions of the contract the twice this agreement if you if you look at the definition of litigation it says that pac relevant to the georgia pacific packer there's no pac binding role left for the court or the here in the that that satisfy the express terminations requirement agreement i don't think  in looking at all the provisions of this contract together which we must do if you change that provision in the litigation wrote a book and you read it together with the beer terminations definition which requires that we could have gone to trial and we can stipulate it's t v and that would have been good to go but the judge says no this requires me the words of this agreement require me to do something and i didn't do that he rejected that position the final judgment of the court silk located at two sixty six i'm looking for that for the record side but the the docket sheet that your honor was referring to is the docket sheet from the proceeding below i believe that's correct or honest that up to she from the proceeding below in this case not from the previous patent for any case the the definition of litigation royalty is referring to a final judgment order from the previous case stock if i can make just one report and that is this that conditions preceding it in a contract should be set forth expressly if thompson thought that it was quote buying the trial close quote as it has insisted throughout this like a sion it and its three sets of lawyers should have included language to that effect in the agreement but it did not the reason that it is so important for conditions preceding to be separate expressly is because parties wrote why on to express language of a contract in shaping their behavior parental guide made its decisions and how to proceed against mr vishy by relying upon his expressed language of the agreement which only required parental guidance secure a final judgment or words in the court that expressly determine a reasonable royalty based upon the expressed provisions of the agreement were no guide reasonably thought that the way concluded the patent for intimate litigation should have triggered the contingent payment and it's thompson's responsibility to ensure that other conditions