the district court and therefore found that federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction the district court then subsequently entered another judgment that awarded more than two hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees to only and so if you were to agree with us in the prior case that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and therefore there is no federal jurisdiction then did that both the original judgment that we just talked about and this subsequent judgment would be vacated so so that the same result would follow there but if you were to disagree with us in that prior appeal and you were to find that this case did in fact arise under the federal pat laws then what the district court did on this feed judgment is apply a florida state law statute and that shifts the responsibility for attorney's fees to the losing party to the question of attorney's fees but the question is that your position i want to know what your position yes our position is that the federal court has no jurisdiction period and so we had no jurisdiction in the prior case we just talked about  law the statute that shifts the traditional american rule about when attorneys fees should be awarded to a case that you would have decided against us arises under federal law  between federal katla on state contract law regarding the measure of damages for breach of settlement agreement and related to terry fees and costs and that case we said that because the claim for the contract breach didn't require infringement of the pat t that it was appropriate for the court to look to the state not determine for the appropriate standard as for the morning fees seems to cut against you in this case i'm not position that this case is a patent case that presents claims that must be heard in federal court and can't be heard in state court and they spent time litigating those issues that they say are federal questions and then the district court applied a florida state law statute not a federal statute to say that's time you spent litigating all those federal claims us federal questions this florida law gives you the authority to recover attorney's fees for those federal circumstances to say well i had jurisdiction because there were these federal questions float not me there but it never came to that so the appropriate statutory regime for evaluating attorney fees remains in the state because it's morphed really into just the state question is in that hypothetical with the district court's opinion be problematic i think that would be a closer question than potential we have here again they've taken the position that that this case doesn't volved patent issues you just heard extensive arguments about how integral these patent issues supposedly were to this case but then they're turning around now and saying well forget about how integral those pa really whether a state statute can usurp congress's authority to decide under what circumstances it's appropriate for litigants who are in cases involving questions of federal law to recover their attorneys fees and it's i think this florida state statute gives a particularly interesting example of why we think this is inappropriate because you know the claims we're talking about here really all intertwined this is not like a case where there's you know count the florida statute has to do with this pretrial offer of judgment so basically that apollonius served a pretrial proposal to settle the case our side did not accept that and this florida law says if they then prevail in the case the sensually i'm simplifying a little bit then then they're entitled to recover prevailing party attorney's fees there's no judicial discretion actually under the that morrison very interesting  litigation by basically saying you know will he if you don't settle this case and then you go down the line lose you're going to have to pay attorney's fees and it sort of worked a little bit although these issues get litigated all the time in florida because then the validity under the florida statute arguments that are typically made in florida courts dealing with these offers of judgment and whether there's entitlement to attorneys fees but you're absolutely right it would be limited to how this issue is ordinarily litigated which is that it's  are it's clear that this statute seven sixty eight twenty seven and a clear applies a substantive law to all courts within florida including federal courts so the question is what are the statute and not under our law you know where florida substantive law applies to the cause of action this would apply to the cause of action because it's florida substitute lot because it's a contract if it's a  think they started to hurry think case about whether it's preempted or whether there would be a conflict with the federal law of the of the american rule where the prevailing party for substantive law if there's a if there's a under the first prong in christianson where it is a basically a patent infringement claim within it then i think you'd have a problem if it was a direct infringement cause of action because then you would have to look as to whether two eighty five for attorneys fees to really party in the patent conflicts with the state law with the application of the state law and if it doesn't conflict and you could probably apply it if it does conflict then you would say you know in and there are some cases that discuss that where there is a full you know what statute of federal statute  where the reply federal law to that cause of action and then you have to look to determine what is that cause of action say but then you'd be involved i think in that issue because we don't have that here we have a state law claim which applies to florida state law and also has pattern issues state for state law applies to the cause of action and therefore  this court about when attorneys fees are proper others pages and pages and the southern reporter of florida case law about when this florida law is proper and those are two very different standards that apply and judge newman the florida statute about attorneys fees does apply to the whole absolutely is recovering attorney's fees and for litigating federal issues and and congress has already decided when it's appropriate for a wedding and to recover attorneys he is really getting federal issues and those standards as you just mentioned are in conflict and so the federal standard pre amps that florida standard and then finally the last point i'll just make is to the extent that they're right that this can be parsed and split apart based on some issues being state and some issues being federal the district court clearly made no effort to do that here in the district court just granted their feet you motion outright and so clearly encompass within this judgment for attorney's fees that they've been awarded are all these