rather than the argument so i am familiar with his credentials he graduated from the university of delaware with the best sports science and chemical engineering worked at the chemist for four years before going to george the past year i know that he has all that he possesses all the record requisite qualifications i know that in addition to his great pass and despite working for me he's landed on its feet he's going to work at a small law firm from coming to them burning here in d c so i with all of that move his admission he is a member of the bar in good standing of the highest court of delaware and  jersey and as i said i have knowledge of this credentials and then i'm satisfied that he presented all the necessary qualifications to be a member of the ford i will be sorry to lose him here but i look forward to appearing before us so i move an indirect competition there the sale of this chip if chip infringers what we're going to do with enjoying the sale of this chip but we're going to provide under factor three down to the hardships a period of time decision that it will be designed out at the end of five months or two years or how long the sunset service but if you get into the sons of tuireann a period of time when technologically impact would be to find it out and it's still there permanent but i count the distinction that you drew between preliminary and permanent with respect to the cultural nexus requirement to be a little unclear so why does it make a likelihood of success here there's been an adjudication because we did number two as a consequence of reason number one in the summer injunction context you are changing the status quo you're changing the status quo before and then i do have i think we want to turn briefly at least to the pollution issue sure the damages with the businesses this comes up with respect to the loss of downstream sales but it's part of the case in chief damage as did apple include represents and you tell me whether you agree with this that i think twenty three of the twenty six adjudicated products with respect to the patents are not being sold that you agree with respect to the twenty three no your honor and here's a reason why this is a place where we have to be very careful to consider was just a small unlike apple which introduces a wonderful year or so  the process that's going to be employed if you go after some of these remains let's call them phones as being suppose you get an injunction and it's a not color blue different cla but there's just one innovative delonte none of them say pulp nexus none of them say even a connection but most importantly none of them are firing at the la had six innovations as we had here and that collectively revolutionized the industry and also drove the consumer purchasing decision you would be out without an injunction and that's based on fine that it's not practicing or so it was let's let's take that and let's assume that the purpose of my question which is what we were in your view just the last stand we seem to have competing nine circuit cases and so do we just come out with it's a saturday that can be looked at that is whether the infringing party continues to practice that and we view that obviously under an abuse of discretion is that we were left under the case law i don't i don't think so your honor i think if they truly are not doing it anymore then they will be further you know further disputes will be no contempt proceedings but no one will be using our trade for a decision that said someone can stop and they haven't start where we just ended up in that that part of the table thank you ron may please the court and i am returning to see you again after the preliminary injunction ruling and i do want to say that alexis is the law that you've established and th injection should not be used here the can and the contempt proceedings here especially when we're talking about design patents and trade that which are a more of this should not be used as a substitute for bringing actual cases of new infringement against new products but if i could just  nexus if i could turn to last and cause an exercise i want to respectfully disagree with my friends too late that there is any ambiguity about whether causal nexus is a requirement for a patent infringement injunction in the permanent injunction context as well as preliminary injunction context and then after the judge prints question what is the standard it's already been set forth by this court it was set forth by this court has handled this court in the preliminary injunction pad basis and was expressed in that regard apple two said that the infringing feature or cingular must drive the consumer demand for the accused products which he was basically applying what i would submit is already circuit law on that matter but let me be clear we don't argue here that you're for close in future cases from finding that some aggregate combination of patented features drove consumer demand that suffer because it's just that here apple utterly failed to prove either that any patented feature singly or any set of pens and features taken in the aggregate wasn't even a driver of consumer demand and here i really need to focus a court that what is the record in this case that could satisfy a public suspense if it boils down really just to two things one is terribly weak it almost vanishingly insignificant evidence about from consumer nine six two you'll see an example of the so called design matters evidence design at a thirty three ninety six to see an example of the apple survey evidence in which they say design thank you would see anything about rectangular round corners flat screen in front of smartphones which involve the six seven seven pence planes or you will see anything about whether it's a front face with a vessel on the side because of all the zero eight seven pat claims or anything about whether the first page of a graphical user interface of it you will see anything about any of the patented features on page thirty three ninety six two you'll just see the term design design matters is far too brought to show any causal nexus between any of the design and an effect on the consumer demand and you'll see the very same thing if you look at what  examples of consumer evidence on the utility that i can tell you where this is on page thirty two seven six nine and a very similar example they put in a lot of these the best examples for ages seven six nine and eight fifty two zero three seven and that's were to ease of use of the term ease of use easy to use is listed in a set of factors that consumers and they like know that has ease of use is far too broad which encompasses narrow utility patent that says is that particular is that customers would pay x amount to significant amounts more for particular features when that is a pretty good proxy for a turns out that this infringing feature leads to a doubling of the price as it otherwise would have been in the absence of that information feature that why isn't that the least a factor to consider in terms of conflicts because it doesn't show anything about a comparison between a product with the infringing feature and the next nonis fringing alternative the fact that the price doubles tells you only how much that feature is valued within the purchase of the product but it doesn't show you the qif factor that your test asks about which is why pick the product with the infringing feature over the non infringing alternative there is the way one has your saying unless it's right at the end to be in for the entire product there's never going to be a right to an injunction an know what i'm saying so you're on the receiving as i said before it may be that some selection of features tries the product is if apple put it shall if you take three three of these has together and they add up to the dashboard or three of these infringing features itself proves that there's no categorical rule against finding that a in an infringing feature is a driver of consumer demand but the ease of use and design matters evidence doesn't come close to showing and the house or study can just show the comparative choice between the infringing the product with the infringing feature and an alternative product without the infringing feature if i might be willing to to add a price premium to some th right because many people will pay five thousand dollars and if they can get it for only four thousand dollars more the brand that seems to me is the essence of what driver of demand really is that's what i'm having you've previously suggested in the prior cases that you have to show that the product is the driver consumer demand for these products of the impending feature as compared with an alternative product not whether it's a an element of consumer demand within the  talk about the relationship between the parties licensing parties in that and how that compares to apple samsung she also makes reference to the fact that her only i think from the reference to the apple samsung relationship is before placing so much weight on the licensing issue first we think not we think that the inquiry under adequacy of my compensation does not require a question about whether monetary compensation is sufficient as between the parties what you have done as recently as the activity of cases found that licensing including licensing to non competitors is provocative the ability of money to satisfy the remedy nine one six you see the beginning of the crucial page in a long powerpoint presentation that's all in the record here is a and i told her fifteen twenty can offer by apple to license these products to send in itself so we're other shows the adequacy of monetary compensation and let's recall here that the point about the injunction is the injunction is really going to and i want to talk about the balance of hardships in the public interest of like that for a moment features of the continuing products that were sent to a friend so there is no more there is no apple samsung is not practicing or embodying any of the features that are protected by apple's so it was really is asking you to methodical application of forty big factors to this case and here's what's not at stake in this case i think just suggestion that injunctions are going to be that we're going to have the death of injunctions in complex products cases that's greatly exaggerated and here's why first this case is just about lost sales and lost market share loss downstream sales and i really need to correct something that mr li my good friend mr lee said earlier he said twice that jennifer found that in infringement and lost sales or lost market share or lost downstream sales so first nothing in this case affect other times of harm you may still issue an injunction to require issuance of injections in cases where the harm is something other than lost sales sentence a case back to enter into action in a case for the patent is virtually coextensive with the prospect something that might come up often for example in the form about where that might come up in the context as we argued of a very simple device like an orthopedic nails or a snowplow latch lever or a windshield wiper blade even if there were two hands on it the chances that the more that happens is coextensive with the product the less likely there is to be any causal nexus limitation on an invention because practice selling the product will be affected by infringing the patent this is not that case but even in a case where there's thousands of features embodied in an accused product disagree with mr lee when he said that there is additional evidence here justifying and action based on something so called being there was no jury finding of topping we strenuously disagree with the point that lost market share the whole point of problem nexus is to distinguish between apple losing market share based on faster than friends and has a legitimate competition say we think you are ok so now in an effort to try to keep it even if you was a page from the presentation that apple made in an effort to prevent the foot again from ever occurring and if you look at that page you will see that there is no specific reference to these design to the traitorous to