good morning and they please of course i'd like to focus my argument today on the two the issues of acting just infringement and damages there is a fundamental lack of evidence in the record to support the elements of the jury's verdict on those problem with a jury trial particularly is it not how security know what to believe if you're only given one version well of course the jury was given two versions they were given the version for for the actual infringement that was proved a trial and then they were given a damages are supposed to be adequate to compensate for the infringement and what we have here is a set of facts in which money is being paid for products that are not infringing that have not been shown to infringe and so even if one assumes that as the expert testified that in in the real world it would be practical and people might have an interest in trying to do what you call the freedom to operate license  where they would negotiate a license for the entire portfolio of products so as to avoid having to figure out whether the other products do or do not infringe that can't be a proper basis for patent damages where only a subset of the products  for sales after the expiration of the pack and there might be some other form of damages but it's not they're not properly donna's patent damages and there was the same kind of expert testimony in that case where the expert said look in a hypothetical negotiation of course they wouldn't they wouldn't number for the freedom to operate license it still has to be allocated towards infringing and on an engine profits that's correct and only the infringing products are a proper basis for the family members here and it's not as if there wasn't evidence on the record as to what that erroneous information in in the record with that and that legally relevant information exclude you said you're going to talk about inducement if we were to agree with you on inducement would be reached damages no it would not be necessary to reach damages i a sort of a box configuration which is ultimately used as part of the back lighting element for television flat panel television products so the light bar manufacturers take eatings lenses put them in the white bars to light bars are sold again in asia to television manufacturers and the television manufacturers then have distribution networks that go worldwide and so from media these point of view when it is selling these products in asia to an asian company tent that the product be used in a different manner you know is that your company your client knew that the product could end up in the united states because your client had quite fifty percent of the market and knew that it was selling to customers that might well i think that's that's the law i think that the argument that the other side is making if the sales were happening in the united states would be a much stronger argument but it certainly is the law that as long as there is a substantial not infringing use for a product ultimately made it to the united states and was used it would infringe but our point is that it's also that it's not proper to confer an intent that the product be so used when there are many other non infringing uses and that if one wants to establish i was just going to point to our integrations because in that case even there the court said it was a close call as to whether there was enough conduct directed to the united states but with there we have it and the product of the issue there were computer chips that control power supplies of the s distributor for the product it maintained a technical support center in the united states to service u s customers and standard terms and conditions provided an indemnity for patent infringement in the united states and that whole constellation of activit directed toward the u s even that was a close call the court said and here we have none of it literally none we have zero evidence of any activity directed toward the united states the same thing is true in any m c there was a case where there was a japanese providing technical support information to the people in austin texas and it was that set of communications that ultimately the court and even there the court said it was simply it was a factual issue for the jury whether that would or would not constitute inducement and again we have absolutely none of that here these we're going to file license for this patent a one time lump sum license don't you still in a proper damages calculation in an infringement case have to allocate the they damage it that lump sum license between the products knowledge to infer knowledge of the patent knowledge that ultimately some of their products ended up in the us as a way to show that they intended for their customer to sell their wasn't blindness i thought that was something that would really go to knowledge more than intent you know intent you need to have some sort of maybe affirmative act in order to they were providing customer support in the last they were reaching out to the ultimate customer in the us having conversations with them visiting them what there's no evidence of any sort of contact they have knowledge of the patent they have knowledge that the manufacturers that they sell to do ship into the united states and they have fifty percent of the market but you have no other facts like the facts found in power integration that show their where the lump sum covers future sales of a product shown to be infringing in the lucent case for example there were three specific software packages at issue and there was a question that it's true of course that sometimes you win sometimes you lose because you don't know which products are going to be a hit and h regard to footnote seven of astra zeneca what the court said there was that it was not going to decide the question of whether it would be permissible to adjust the world to a rate for the period of infringement in order to take account of later sales in the pediatric exclusivity period the court certainly did not approve of that practice the court said it was not going to reach the question and in any event that's not what happened here right what happened here is the record is very clear is that their economy  did a calculation in which she said the lump sum paid up worldview for future sales of all the products accused of infringement is five hundred seventy thousand dollars and then she went on to say you should multiply that by a factor of eight because there are other products that it would be convenient to include in that same hypothetical negotiation but if the court room pruitt were to approve that you would be opening a pandora's box of hypothetical negotiation because why stop there and why not throw in other patents that might might be of interest and i maybe they'd like to patent or not but that's not at all what we have here where at most we have such first of all there's a question about knowledge of the testimony in trial because we know that we sell to like our main factors or sell to t v makers who sell all over the world there are multiple sources we're not the exclusive supplier maybe they end up in the us maybe they don't we don't know it's true that at some point the other side sent us a letter saying hey we found some of your t v s in the us but our point is that even knowing and this is this is directed to encouraging another's infringement and not merely that the inducer have knowledge of the direct infringers activity what if you were the hundred percent water product and you turned it over to the manufacturer i think even if we were one hundred percent supplier manufacture this product that would not change things because we could contend that our stuff be used outside the united states even knowing that there was a chance that some of it might end up in the united states what if we're not encouraging them what to do all their ar for this product but what if the only market for this product within the united states that would be a different server if the only market for the product were the united states then i think we would have a problem because then i think that exactly the logic of the contributor infringement cases that i loo into would apply so if if there is no other place that these can be used except in the united states then it would be fair to infer that when we saw them we intended that they be used in the united states in an infringer matter but that's not the facts here and in fact it's entirely the all the record shows is that we saw these products in asia to asian companies intending for all the world knows that they be used exclusively outside the united states we don't have a duty to warn our customers not to sell these things to the u s and even if we had done that that would be effective because our customers also themselves of the united states they sell to other companies in asia so it sounds as if what the other side wants to do is to create a duty on us to go to our customers customers and warn don't put our products in any keys that are destined to the united states and there's not a single case of this or that puts an affirmative duty on a company to warn others not to infringe all we have to do is refrain from and