reasonable or whether this case presents a rare and compelling situation where we're going to find that it doesn't meet with the standards of fair play and substantial justice and i can i ask kind of two questions that are on my mind one is are you going to say that appearance of the trade shows enough for personal jurisdiction that's kind of a fact question and the other one is kind of a why are we here question can't you just call sue in michigan or tennessee and as a little boy this this battle over a four week old please address both of those and i will address the second one first and we certainly could go to tennessee or michigan it's important  client however because it is a gaming company based in las vegas this is kind of the heart of the gaming world in the united states and it would like to be able to bring these actions in its home state of nevada and that's the primary reason we're here today as far as whether jurisdiction is enough attending a trade show is enough it really depends on what's going on at the trade show now what do you have any invoices or sales receipts receipts or customer requests that came out of this trade show we do not and the reason is we were not allowed jurisdictional discovery to shows the those are those are true what i want to ask do you have besides just we saw him at a trade show well let me kind of just same question my coffee here let me just kind of put this in perspective as the way the current sees it you know this really comes down to you know foreseeability was the company there can it reasonably expect to be hauled into court in nevada so let's look at what they did that both companies came to nevada they brought their officers to nevada to to the largest gaming show in the united states where plaintiffs were plaintiffs licensees are aware of where plaintiff was based they brought infringing products into nevada arrange to have infringing products with them at the show they set up and use the infringing products they promoted the infringing products they met with customers and potential customers in order to to sell promote these these infringing products to have customers in the customer suggest that there's some kind of a business relationship going on and the record doesn't show any of that well with the record the show is from a similar situated company called industries which is a competitor of the defendants what is in the affidavit of joseph cole he states that sixty percent of his customers are at this show that's how important the show is he's similarly situated company i think that's justification enough for for jurisdictional discovery to find out who they met with whether after the show they met they sold the devices to people they met with at the show essentially what activities we own during the show this isn't a case where they came to a show for example as you know selling a different product you know something unrelated to to the case this a this is a case where they brought the allegedly infringing products they were they were promoting the products at the show and even the the medical solutions case which is relied on heavily by by the defendants even in that case  d it states clearly that a demonstration of a product along with the solicitation of purchase orders could be considered enough selling activity to to actually find and often offer for sale under declaration of the spectrum and i don't recall exactly what it was but it's in the record eight to ninety eight a paragraph twenty one where they specifically admit that the gaming machines that they brought with them to the show belong to video gaming technologies which is the other defendant in this case so i think that goes right to specific jurisdiction here they had the specific gaming machines we're talking about in this case at the gaming show so so i mean were they turned on to the yes they were they were what he did these cell anybody they were priceless they were they were turned on we have a photograph of the machines at the show turned on we have th saw or who he brought on terror if eleven discusses how the officers and salespeople were brought into nevada paragraph eight these are kind of small points aren't they they they are small points but i think what you have to look at is the biggest picture would we benefit from additional evidence in the record absolutely and i think that's why perhaps jurisdictions show you are in appeal the other case the other case involving the other minds my sense that you're confident in your position the other case involved nova gaming which is different gaming machines and it was a much smaller number of gaming machines in fact i believe now than over gaming is out of business and so that was the reason it wasn't worth it for my client to appeal that particular case the cadillac track cadillac jack my current plan is currently negotiating with them and so we're hoping to avoid further litigation with them all right so as to what the what the defendants would like you to one a and i don't believe that this court should adopt that standard i mean what we're talking about is international to shew we're talking about minimum contacts we're talking about whether there's enough foresee ability that you can be brought into court and when you show up in a panties home state at a large gaming show why isn't this appropriately dealt with this is the district court did with just a reasonable minimum contacts skepticism doesn't really look like there's enough going on in nevada that's what the district court says why isn't that correct that's not what the district court  district court said that we probably do have enough for specific jurisdiction but the district court found that the exercise of jurisdiction under the third prong would be on reasonable because they're really not enough going on there's not there's minimal contact with nevada right and i don't think that should be the the standard for for such a rare and compelling case ruling that that's what's needed that the defendants would excuse me ruling in favor of the defendants would mean that fair play and substantial justice that third plant prong requires that defendants only be sued in their home state because it ignores the plaintiff's own state it ignores where the plaintiff filed it ignores where the plaintiff's witnesses are no you can get them any place they're really doing business really stirring up some impact but appearance at a trade show doesn't really rise to that level again i think just a greek just in appearance at a trade show but a lot more was going on they would bring they brought the infringing products there they were promoting and selling them or excuse me not selling them but at least meeting with customers negotiating after the show hey will you know get some sales orders going discussing possibly is all of that is there anything in the record that substantiates those last comments the only thing in the record again is the testimony of joseph cole i agree it's not there and that's why i think we probably need there were any sales made and how much were there these customer meetings that he has to guess about now but if he could substantiate them maybe give him purse well the record does contain that information your honor we have inquiries anybody seeking to buy that maybe you didn't consummate the sales at that moment but i'm still wondering why discovery isn't an appropriate way to deal with this well i think that with the rif you look at the record your honor if it does say that there are no sales or offer for sales and i counsel is quite right but isn't there some reason to believe that your client was there for some reason absolutely and medical solutions actually acknowledges that point that clearly that we were there for commercial purposes no other reason to be at a trade show the question is was is king at a trade show alone sufficient in a medical solutions expressly stated that the much more would be needed a d what was shown in the case and in the since this case the district court gave discovery and indeed they found more evidence why wouldn't we perhaps reach the same result here because the the evidence we've already got is that there was no sale offer for sale i can't see how any additional discovery would would would result in a different different matter and in medical solutions jurisdictional discovery in result of between articulating the standard as to whether or not the torturous act causes injury in d c under the d c long term statute versus whether or not it arises out of or is related to the underlying cause of action which is as we're  follow the second prong of the says if not let me ask you the same question i asked him on the other side what why are you so afraid of nevada as a forum why not just resolve this issue on the merits instead of saying up and down on appeal on these procedural matters your honor we tried to do exactly that we found a third to a judgment action in michigan to resolve the matter which it were smaller company we would like ok it was transferred back to know that correct so now you may end up in some other form but why not just get reach the merits what what fear do you have of nevada as a forum we have no fear of live as a forum we have no fear of reaching the merits as we said we felt thirty three judgement action point because our confidence in our case however our client is entitle as a citizen the united states to a victim assistance corporation maybe but still nevertheless is entitle do i also like to look to address the issue of the issue preclusion your honor we think that judge pro had before him exactly identically situated case of the matter was fully developed before him a those not at all i mean it was not it was not a point that you know judge pro was concerned about judge pro was concerned about whether or not under a medical solutions case that the plaintiff's head establish sufficiently that there was a presence  has an obligation to come before the court with some indication what your state jurisdiction discovery is going to fall on and i think those questions they were in about the same place as the site this case there was a trade show and when the there have been trade show appearances but there have been internet contacts with forums there have been seventeen to i think there were seventeen or eighteen accounts actually in the forum the sales representative was busy the forum on a pretty regular basis is a part of her  ongoing sales efforts and so there are there was some tiriel that have been brought to court to say oh they represent fully developed we need to do more but we'll allow the point to go and sort of flush those facts out in this particular case there's there's  and so while the the annual gaming show g two e in particular is helping las vegas every year and there are many many companies that come to that particular event there's no evidence it's ever been developed out of the g t's attendance at that show that indicates it has any form related activity where the gaming company i think the thing i would want to do most of all would be to have some incursion into the large scheming market in the world las vegas and so i would go to a trade show there in the hope of doing that why isn't mr moore gazey right that that's what's going on here and why don't we give him discovery and let him find out if that's what's going on here well i think the question of what mr brazier may be looking into is already been answered by the declarations of mr civic give mr stevenson and that is there are no sales activities there are no longer have no interest in having anything to do with the vet biggest gaming capital in the world and you're a gaming industry and i think well there's that there's a disconnect there either you don't want to do any business or you want to have a good legal position i would think the business is more important w i don't want to speculate as to what the business strategies are the takes are really not privy to that information but i will state this i've had some conversations with my client on this issue at least a superficial level my understanding of the gaming industry is that market penetration to the large casinos in the data is a very very complicated and difficult undertaking it's dominated by the major players in the industry bally's ninety and companies of that ilk which do have a fairly substantial riverboat any silly things like that are located in other forms and the reason you go to las vegas is to avail yourself of that market to maybe someday become one of those big players right i would go so far say 're there and what it is that you're trying to accomplish there as to perhaps you want to develop sales or you're attempting to make contact with persons or businesses in las vegas or not these are driving questions are they not i don't know that they're entirely relevant to the claim of patent infringement that his been made his case i mean it may be a relevant to some other particular issue or point it's not brought as a part of this action but do you look at the allegation  interference or contract relationship those have no bearing on this case at all and so whatever discoveries he may be sinking in regard to the patent plans has already been answered by the decorations of mr sevigny and the decoration of of mr stevens there is no other information that he's going to find frankly i think your honor you did raise the issue in your questioning of mr ese and that is didn't he have an opportunity to do some pre filing analysis of his claim before he filed and the answer is absolutely if his client was asked a trade show and saw what he believed was an infringing activity he had plenty of opportunities to gather additional information and either chose not to do so or what he gathered doesn't support  claim i would argue that it's more likely the latter because there is no evidence that he has been able to present to this court were to the district court on the record that demonstrates that there was any type of activity ongoing in of adam that would const four minutes left here's first i'd like to to just briefly address the argument that well we're not currently selling anything in nevada right now i think if you look at the cent this case that's instructive on that in that particular case the company was not selling into the united states they had up signs that said you know not available not not regulated by the f d a and that was immaterial in that and what the court noted in in that case was that well there's people from the united states there just like there's people in companies from nevada at this have at a trade show finally i would like to go back to the very first question i think you asked or maybe it was the second and that is is being at a trade show enough and and i really think it should be under these facts and let's take a look at what the next case down the line might be in the next case down the line might be someone going in for a temporary restraining injunction but but isn't the key here that you could easily have got more than just a trade show as your evidence you if you could have come up with one or two customers or one or two any things that suggest commercial activity this would be a different case wouldn't i agree it would be a much easier case for my client but what i'm thinking about is is the next case w injunction and the opposition comes in there's no jurisdiction because the federal circuit says you cannot have jurisdiction just by appearing at a trade show and i think that really creates some problems the the infringing machines are there but they're not made there and you're right they probably do have to have more not just that they're showing hey look at these great machines that we have but that they are meeting with customers that they are trying to promote these machines that they are trying to sell them and i think you do need that is as well but i think that we have that in this case and if the record is not fully developed i think we can get that in jurisdictional discovery thank you thank you mr borges he concludes our morning