electoral property stolen from l g and went on to collect license fees and after their theft was discovered they engaged in several rounds of appearing to reach a settlement and appearing to be willing to execute that settlement but backing out and defend statue imitation and whether mr cannot because who stole the ip when he was an l g employee and then masterminded the patent applications using a centrally a straw man is subject to personal jurisdiction so he can answer for that wrongful conduct equitable conduct here in terms of back and forth over whether the settlement would be executed and so the question then is when was it reasonable when would a reasonable person institute claim again and when you say later and into sales of nine ok we accept the fact that as part of the settlement you're not giving us the five million so i think anything that he did with regard to not transferring the patents in a timely fashion lol you into acceptance in september of april offer did say that focused on the offer and the transfer and certainly defendants have never said in this litigation that their view is that the agreement precludes the claims because they're still taking the position that there's no agreement and they haven't gotten into your thesis a settlement agreement itself entitle you to the signed million dollars no argue with the settlement agreement doesn't address the question one way or the other but the a good meeting of the min side million dollars and why would that create an excuse for you waiting years and years and years to pursue the claims of five million dollars i don't think it all that into believing things one way or the other i think l g s view was and the reason it was willing to accept the agreement ultimately that left the question of the five million unresolved was if indeed this settlement was going to be quickly consummated worrying about the five million dollars was beside the point what else you wanted was to get a stolen property back and to get the patents and so what happened was honor and i think the questions as we view the case is what what what would and what's the reasonable period to two what would equity allow in terms of a period of time to not have the statute on the patient's run and our submission is what i thought you know i mean isn't it typical that this is a cruise when you know there's some kind of speed well i think that in two thousand and six that there was a dispute about the terms of the settlement agreement and you also  embarked on that or that adventure together seven year process of getting the contracts upheld and that that is the appropriate period of time there's obviously in the case law there's there's nothing one way or another most of the cases deal with whether not there was there was something done at all our submission is that as a result of the inequitable conduct defendant should not be able to force us to basically litigate the same issue at the same time in two different places that detail in on page thirty of our opening brief and pages twenty five to twenty seven of our reply brief based on public information i can say that he stole the technology and used a rodent as a front to apply for the passe  raised the statue limitations defense which he hadn't and so that the the district court reason for not looking at our motion to consideration of reconsideration doesn't work based on the fact that the he did not resist actually  involved here and that they were alter egos if a corporate veil could be pierced i think there would be a very strong argument that two ninety three would reach the non named patent the corporation that is in control and that was essentially under the law the same entity as the corporation that was that named patty that there would be a strong argument that and i think there would be a great reason to one with turp or two ninety three to do that as other that shows that confer longarm jurisdiction generally interpreted in terms of merging and cities where there is an alter ego relationship because otherwise you obviously the really bad guys are not subject to jurisdiction so i think the question here in the argument made it that similar kind of argument that they're really one of the same should apply when an individual uses a front man a centrally as the name dependency but that person is literally the patent dname only but the entire control of the process and everything else is being done by someone else that led to the personal jurisdiction decision and certainly there are the district court has wide discretion with respect to sanctions for misconduct and here we have with respect to the pleading before the district court w mistake but certainly as the case now stands the district judge having seen some quite significant misconduct by mr cannot exclude say and i think would be well within his authority under the rules to say as a underlying claims sometimes they're related to their they're quite broad and sometimes they have the effect of precluding the entire defense or the entire clan depending on which side you're on i think the district court has wide discretion here and district to not go frankly it's hard to think of within his discretion and this is a case where he should be entitled to exercise that discretion given the fact that there was this no one misrepresentations on the primary personal jurisdiction issue ok we're getting close to using it on a much time  brief and we said it to this court in our form nine convenience section of our brief so that is in the record also l g display just claim that the very affidavit that led to the district court's personal jurisdiction decision w the event to the district court didn't cite mr tucker's affidavit at all in ruling on personal jurisdiction it certainly didn't rely on anything mr its not to have said and i would i would respectfully disagree with it seems to be taken as a given that mr made all of these misrepresentations there's only one party in this case that's actually been found to ever make a misrepresentation station to the district court and it was l g display in footnote six of the district court's opinion where it where it made an allegation regarding claims against apple was on supported by the record and that's it that is actually in the record beyond that l g display is still continuing to make a misrepresentation about the state status of the parties settlement agreement claiming that it existed what  into dropping its tort claims by a settlement agreement that it told the district court the district court at the time didn't yet exist so that's just not possible your honor the one other thing i would mention is that there were no tort claims in l g displays first limitations defense i don't know whether or not the district court was taking into account that fact when it made that determination this was a motion for reconsideration your honor and motions for reconsideration give the district court a pretty wide berth in terms of how it's going to handle though we've set forth what we believe is is a grounds for the for upholding what the district court found under prudential move which is to say that what l g display was asking for was pointless because ultimately at the end of the day at the if the district court hadn't had assumed that position would have failed that mr talcott had actually alleged a defense of statute of limitations and i was a harmless error question this would have been a pretty easy elegy display is resolved the reason it can be harmless hairier honor is because before the district court even gets to that place it first has to bring the troops not go back into the case he had been dismissed from the case long before the summary judgment even came up he was dismissed for lack of g display raised which is honestly a frivolous argument for bringing him back into the case claiming that he's a patentee of the patent since it now they've raised conspiracy and agency allegations here in this court but they never raise them below they actually  forfeited agency below but excuse me but on the patentee issue l g display argued without acknowledging that there's a statutory definition of the term patente and it means that you're the legal title holder of the p now they're also in their reply brief in this court the first time they acknowledged that definition exists they are now raising in all substantial rights argument and arguing the mistress not to have legal had also potential rights to the patents and sue i'm sure this court is very oppose the motion and raise the conspiracy allegation and the district court rejected that then l g display attempted to bring mr sinatra back into the case and he didn't raise conspiracy at that point when it and that's the motion that that and it didn't arc in affirmatively didn't argue agency but even so there would still be the question of well where did it please can you sue me where did it plead conspiracy it didn't plead in any of it in either its original complaint or in its proposed amended complaint it made no effort to raise this issue with regard to these new alleged facts about mr tucker until it came to this court and that's just not appropriate if it's not right to ask the district court to overturn its rule if you meet this court overturn the district court on an argument that was never made to the district court so there aren't any other questions about mr snuck at the last point i'll make is that you know everything in this case including the choice of l clause is is asian there's a choice of local or that's binding in this case but in the settlement agreement that this whole case revolves around and and l g display in force that settlement agreement in korea came here and enforce it here too and as the court noted the settlement agreement called for the hitachi license to remain without help these now all the displays trying to get that to having enforced the settlement agreement if it's going to go back on what it is force then it should have to do it in the court where it is forced it opportunity to seek the discovery on these issues and to raise the issues that were raising now so obviously mr cannot because full statements were critical here second of all that no one has found these statements to be misrepresentations the two decisions of the tokyo courts that we've submitted in the record have found all of these relevant facts that basically that mr her wrote was a straw person this with technology stolen from l g with respect to the question of whether we raise these arguments below i would refer to the court a ten twenty to twenty one which is a motion for reconsideration with talks about these very arguments about alter ego male peers thing and apply them in this context and  refers to conspiracy in agency it's all getting at the same thing which is when you have individual who are in the same thing position as companies that are altering those they should be treated as one in the same finally and i just get the court to have any questions we raise the question of the ceiling of the notice of interested parties which the motions panel refers to this court and i don't know if the court has a questions about that question thank you thin