months later for hundreds of millions of dollars he sold d that application as well as other technologies to the lodge for months after that the claims issued the very claims that the logic could bought in the form they had bought them ten sold it to us and then when we sued him for infringing the patents he sold us he filed an i p r now this court is held that was within his rights what's not within his rights what's not part of the of the changes  is that he could avail himself personally in the private litigation between these two parties over the result of the i p r and so the the district court got it right and fact it's not appealed that asin the rest stop applies in this case all the circumstances apply in this case that's not appealed not disputed where the district court erred wasn't in up is in suggesting that because as to the rest of the world this pattern is no longer enforceable or no longer valid it is not valid  as to this particular plane or defended in this case that's of course the whole purpose of asimilar stop as to uniquely position the ass in the war of the pack and say you and you alone because you've already earned money from this patent principles of equity and law and it's interesting i mean the the diamond scientific case and this may or may not be relevant to this appeal that down in scientific case notes that as more stoppel has has one foot in equity and one foot in law in the an allergy to a stop a by dee decision was based on the statutory language and they are correct but going to bed now but that doesn't it hadn't but the whole point of arista interest a very carefully noted the competition between the branches of government in the tensions supple sometimes prevent you uniquely the collaterally stop party from being able to assert a fact in the world a truth a legal finding a change in law whatever it may be the whole concept of a stop list it may be true that the one  our process to extend beyond the particular parties in a given patent dispute well now we are back with the particular parties in a given patent spew and in this case the district for having found that asking where a stop will existed should have said that overwhelming evidence and the clock is ticking as it is in this case because the pattern expires in november two thousand and twenty you can be yourself put the injunction in place and we've laid out in the briefs and lots of questions i won't go through it but it is it is as powerful an injunction cases there can be it is an important but not essential feature it was sold to us that they themselves minimized the benefits to their own product while we say it's critical to ours etc that's all in the briefing with that the remaining damages issues are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in and of themselves of our appeal but if you agree with us on the ass in our stoppel issue then they're worth millions and millions of dollars which is why all those little issues at the end of our brief or i think post and i may be wrong on this and maybe there's a case i'm missing but post jury verdict willfulness there's there's no one to go back to for because it's a jury that decides willfulness there's no one to go back to so read a number damages through the expiration of the three for a patent for yes for complete accounting which would suggest that he did either didn't know or didn't think it was not infringing but then we have the where he actually when he got to the dollar amount he backed  seniors applies to everybody in the whole world anybody else that they had a lawsuit going against even if they had a judgment had met actually good there's bruises all over but guess what for this particular case there's a different rule  race with sponte so we're not we don't have to assert we don't have to assert that we did obviously it was proper her know what if you can assert we can assert it because diamond scientific doesn't take that away from us it doesn't take away the ability to say they don't have asserting we didn't get a judgement of invalidity we didn't we were not at that point to prevail we didn't have to assert invalidity what all we had to do was say the claim is moot and that's the judgment we got we didn't get into how can we be sign or a stop would not be just and a stop of a defense of invalidity and a patent infringement claim it would be the revising of the cause of action itself and that would be a holding awful completely expansive well beyond the range of say that it were vives a cause of action that as for seniors said is void ab initio they have no claim and because they have no claim they have no right to any relief and so you know you don't even have to figure out how the e p a factors could possibly be applied in this bizarro situation where you have a dead patent but they're claiming that there's some great public interest is being served by enforcing it and at the end of the day i just want to emphasize this is really critical  his patent die they lost the ability to a forcing sale and the problem they really have is with arista that's clearly their problem they don't they don't they'd never say anything about for seniors and the consequences of both can be infringed one can be infringed the other one can be infringed ten percent royalty is the reason to do that and there was no during instruction as the just the current judge said there was no evidence provided for a person that my question to you is this is there any other evidence in the record on this apportionment where you explained why it was that whole logic expert was wrong while the of the evidence that we have that matters is that we asked for a jury instruction that at that said divide it was asked how the jury to choose to value the pattern separately and it was refused and once that's refused they do have evidence of a statement but we don't know what the jury thought and there's good reason to believe that these we just don't know and that we don't always a problem nuff i hear you know i'm i'm assuming that my question is valid and what is your answer to my question do we put on evidence that the patents are differently valued yeah like did and no there's evidence in the record that these pats are soft differently valued succession are damaged experts said that the question is whether at trial i don't remember whether at trial when that when we didn't get the introduction it was evident before the jury think that's what we're asking about portion when nobody told them how to do that so hype i am confident that our to our our damages expert said that the the two paths are talk which are completely different technologies have to be valued differently i thought that i'll be i just don't have stand up again so you know we'll see if we can find it but i'm confident that these are our technologies and i will i want your responsibility to tell yeah i will find what i would like what i want to use as as as quickly as possible because i know i'm running out of time three forty eight patent claim construction we obviously have an invalid the argument that follows on this as well but i want to emphasize the claim construction this is a dramatic error claim construction error and it would really require on winding gears of this court's claim construction law fifty six electric carrying means it's one preferably a sack formed of material which is not conductive so it's preferably not conductive which is oyster that's two dollars and three dollars which may be compressed to a smaller volume maybe so that's optional so it's it's preferably not conductive it is unqualifiedly permeable which is exactly what's said in the because it should be clear from the specification that it's so important that it's almost a disclaimer not to have absolutely that is exactly our view it is exactly the view that prevailed and ultimate cling to it is exactly the view that prevails in  permeable would be redundant this is the clearest case you can have and you cannot you cannot affirm this case without undoing ultimate pointer ruckus and philips itself you have to do you have to do this process where you sit there with a dictionary and ignore the specification and the clarity here is overwhelming and it's as strong as in any case and it's so strong i also urge your honour's to please consider when you remain this case that you because it would be dangerous to the patient if argon gas leaked it would that the system would fail it wouldn't ignite the argon gas if moisture came in the whole system doesn't work and the testimony on that is clear as well as the manual at fi counsel just read you five statements about the electrode are a problem is the electorate a re isn't the term that's being construed the term in the claim is applicator head the term applicator head is used sixty three times in the specification not wants not once in those sixty three times is the applicator head said to have anything to do with the moisture removal of the permian billet here all the different features they want to read i so their entire argument is look at what's said about the electrode array we're going to find that equals definitional to have a level lexicography which we disagree with in and of itself but now we're going to say sixty three times and sometimes it says things about the applicator it it says it includes fletcher's for example which there is of course does so this is simply sleight of hand i mean putting aside whether it reaches the level of lexicography your disclaimer they're defining the wrong term so unless there are other questions in applicator at all move back to the issue of passing or stop on and add an address briefly that point but that counsel used some very strong doctrine of asking or a stop will prevents them so again we're we're not arguing that that's binding on the score but the district of connecticut did not find this a bizarro proposition that we're proffering to you today fact that the unique ason or position that they are and that that is somehow abrogated there's nothing in the statute that dictates that there's nothing in the case law that dictates that and as i've shown you district courts have already anticipated what the natural he said it multiple times and there's multiple places we have a method claim and a and s and s and a system climb and that from a licensing perspective in the hypothetical negotiation and he went through the factors it would be ten percent and you wouldn't decide no one would pay twenty percent he wasn't arguing that you should stop them but that if you want to practice want were the other they're both important they're both integral ones method what system they go for what their expert got up and said is rates too hot he didn't say our rationale was wrong he said our rates too high i would do lower than that and you know what jury partly agreed with that we asked for ten percent the jury gave eight percent so the jury followed i mean this is kind of precisely the way damages are supposed to work the jury followed that approach when they turned around and asked for specific instruction judge italian quite rightly said where is the countervailing expert testimony that would justify otherwise i'm key says that we're not talking about the applicator and when we when we point to all of the places where it talks about the need for permeability of the of the electrode ray and the applicator head over he doesn't say what he can't say what do you use you softly said the applicator you pointed to the yeah but what you know what i'm saying is that the electrode ray is often referred to as the components that is referred to in the claim as the applicator and that's my point what he can't point to and has never pointed to is any place in the specification where refers to the applicator head or the electrode ray as being permeable because this is a boisterous transport system that's the title your orders he's asking you to write an opinion that says the moister transport system  computer handheld device could be direct pointing device like a wand or it could be a mouse and it did and that and the court this court pair very clearly went through it say every time it refers it were st only to direct pointing same here every at this time to dr to our to our cameras experts and distinction between the two patterns and so i'll just leave it at that because i don't want to be i don't want to mislead the court and i'll leave the court with any impression and ultimately i want to emphasize i don't think the court has any reason to