where the judge said i'm going to overrule your objection i think this textbook is admissible and validity purposes she did not say that expressly what she said was i'm going to allow you to make the argument that first of all the instructions to the jury on the subject of the anticipated references were quite clear and there were in fact two of them the first one appears  coffee and park references so the court's instructions were quite clear they were instructions that were requested by and to yes an m p s of course made no objection to so there was no dispute about p s one of the three co inventors listed on the m p s cap and said just testified about what in the chair of his invention was what was so unique about well what he did what he had done it was that was a good thing and it was in response to that testimony that the erickson textbook and the diagram in the erickson textbook was shown to mr moore and various features of the that these colorful references to ambush are really out of mind here for a variety of reasons first of all the erickson textbook and both additions  not just the second edition but the first edition as well both editions of the erickson textbook were listed on the exhibit lists of both parks so n p s because they both editions and over to micro listed both erickson described in his book years before this lawsuit ever started has everything but the burst mode and henry has eaten the burst mode but more of that when you're thinking about secondary is another reference when he told you about dr erickson this book dr eriksson's book shows the same invention before they invented it and you have an absolute right to consider that for purposes of whether there was an independent develop one looks at page thirty ninety one will see that the erickson textbook is mentioned but it's mentioned immediately before the prior art references of cosby and the reason the justification the logic the foundation for referring in the closing argument to the erickson textbooks was in order to show that the c was indeed prior art because it was prior to the invention in question and i don't understand how that makes any sense because the cause of the articles they is self evident you don't need a textbook discussion of a prior article to establish the date of the prior article i apologize your honor i didn't make my point clear let me try to do so the point is not the date of the cosby are but rather that description of the record now and you've gone through a lot of this in our brief and i'll try to eat as much as possible to the bridge but there was substantial evidence that supported the jury's verdict of misappropriation and use and unjust enrichment for m p s that we just saw arise and very briefly what m p s the principal flaw in their argument on this war is that they continue to mistake the issue and they want to assume that factual findings have been made in their favor when in fact the jury has made factual findings and yes them and all reasonable inferences from the evidence of the record need to go on in favor of those fine you know here's the here's what happened we know that in the fall two thousand and if yes because having serious problems is evidence in the record the e mail traffic is reproduced in the doing and it's the customers  data from produced by our downer demonstration board in the early october of two thousand they actually got our demonstration war in later in october two thousand they needed it they looked at it they admitted th even then to a correct solution to the problem that they had there you think recovery would be warranted but we know that the jury certainly was entitle to draw the inference based on the evidence in the record that that's controllers and we knew that they after they did they are just missing their own transform their customers decide to stick with their product thank you thank you