is playing construction as the district court used language and its coin construction which neither party had proposed and that language expanded the meaning of the technical term pivot testimony underlying the judgement of infringement i saw that the expert testimony used the word rotate in describing what the legs were doing it didn't say move so why why what is your basis for complaining about the district use of the word moves when that's not even the basis for infringement here i don't do not believe that nearly because the the experts used the word the jury would follow the court's instruction and even the jury had a perfect right to disregard the experts use of the word rotate but it could not i the court's instruction so it could look at what the look at the device that was shown to them and decide ok the legs are moving so that comports with the court's claim construction and or jury instruction and so they found infringement what kind of movement about a tipping point would be turning a rotating well the term move is a very generic term that means languages move about a fixed point into a stored position and the term if you use rotate or turn about a fixed point you would actually need something that the language says you know there's something like a pen or something about which something rotates or turns when you say move and you look at the you know the images and they are opening brief you can have movement about a fixed point simply because you have legs that are tethered to the hub and they change location and soon as the legs change location eleven to fifteen that the legs may be coupled to the hub in any number of ways so right after it discusses the possibility of his intercept then expressively indicates that there are other ways you could co legs to the hub so why aren't your tether strap fitting right within the pattens expectation of other way because that is the coin term is disputed the court looked at it no fiction yes i'd like to return to judge phil's original point that he asked you about which is when the district court added to the construction  move if you have a construction that says rotate turn or move a jury would normally assume that the word to move is something different than rotating and turning and could have a broader definition so even if you say about a fixed point and you take a look at the images of the of the structures we're talking about here as for example  understand him as needing to give the rediscovery a different example so much as he was trying to articulate the meaning and like i do very often with my children repeat things o for it will rotate is it means that you're turning i mean it's a very it's a specific way of turning in the sense that it implies something like require specific rotation but it still requires something to be going into a left right type direction move is now much broader than either rotating or around would assume presumably include rotating but the term move is far broader than either one so again if you take a look at the images a jury could his post trial opinion it's a very high standard seven circuit for a new trial it can only be granted if there is a miscarriage of justice or it shocks the conscience or cries out to be overturned and a three  trial if it was warranted this is a highly visual trial we are fortunate to have all of the products in the courtroom a lot of cases you're not able to do that so we had the physical products there and witnesses testified the terms rotate turn or move are three ways of saying the same thing when you look at the district court's construction and the context of these claims and especially if you look at claim twenty eight it says pivoting the four where the legs are parallel to each other so it's not just any kind of movement it would be moving a leg about a fixed point to go from figure three to figure four which is exactly what all of the accused products was not at the trial so i don't fault him for this but nowhere was it argued that moving was how we were presenting the case everything was from our expert witness to the opening statements of the closing argument dealt with rotating about a fixed point movement had nothing to do with this case it was an argued to the jury and you have to assume the jury followed the evidence the other thing is they say the term move came out of thin air but the judge actually was relying on the dictionary definition which gave an example of a quarterback pivoting to hand the ball off to a running back and the dictionary said that that was movement about a fixed point because this is extends the covenants that the judge was considering i don't believe this is the novella but rather simply changed from the pen to independent form and the appellant said that they were fine with the judge's earlier construction and pivot and they never and they had a full opportunity to do so both  briefing and expensive briefing on this they could have complained about movement and they didn't so i hope that answers the question on the coin construction president that the reason people are buying this product is because of the patent features this is the st and only product in the marketplace where you could use a play gym with the player and then also use it separately with a mat so if you're going from say the child's bedroom to in front of the t v he could use the play gym in both locations and with the hub which is never used before the legs could rotate  it's common sense is right on the package showing off three physicians of the accused products where it's used with the layered man and then in the start position we can see the person wheeling the product out of the house so there was a lot of evidence on the value of the invention which would have supported an even higher oil to raise than the jury awarded and that's i think everything else is pretty well laid out unless there are or closing argument where the the patentee focused on the word rotating in fact again the jury instructions is what controls here and the jury could be expected to have followed the jury instructions and mr de niro is very inaccurate and stating that or suggesting that the district court referred to with dictionary definition in stating or referring to movement in fact there is no dictionary definition that defines pivoting as what we did is then added the ition all limitations into the coin construction to make sure that we had the proper definition of pick a thing that would have excluded the situation such as we found here we certainly never agreed to the coin construction proposed by and by the court in i guess the topics  infringement of course is still open the fact remains that the damages turned completely on the submission of the great post settlement yet for reasons before it was sued and then it settled the case eleven weeks later without any discovery without answering any complaint most importantly grey co never agreement whereby great pro paid whatever it paid and we don't know what it was some some what could have been a small amount of money to get out of the lawsuit to a five percent running