member necessary mr bagatelles judge tight i understand your argument about overruling redwing but i'd like to start out by asking you if you think redwing is from this case on the reasonable and strong and if i read your brief correctly your distinction appears to be that here there was a threat suit where is that threat of suit did not i correct in understanding your position in part i think there are a couple of distinctions st of all we know for sure that the contacts here were more extensive than in red w knew there were twenty two over three and a half months and we know that we have express trespassing here it's not clear to me exactly what the facts were and redwing shoes of course described them in several different ways  were going to take them to court we think the facts here are actually more similar or at least they're somewhere to jackanory because they were brought in for internal a geisha and against multiple targets and repeated specific threats to sue lot in the red wing should the number of communications or the threat to sue make a difference well st of all i mean it's true that the right wing held that there were minimum contacts there but if you look at burger king burger king calls for a balancing of the minimum contacts i don't understand what you're saying we're not talking about minimum contact which i understand was conceded here but about the the reasonable and strong should those facts in other words the multiple contact the threat of soup make a difference yes and i think my my point is not that there's a dispute over a minimum contact but that the minimum contact under burger king are weighed against the reasonableness factors and so you look at all of that together and determine whether it would be reasonable and fair to subject the declaratory judgment defendant in this case to suit and we think in this case it is and this is not a simple case quite right when she was more complicated there is there are multiple defendants as i said i think this is really more similar to to jack  far flung forum or to immediately we're not suggesting that if all you do is tell somebody that you own patent rights and you're offering this pack nice you're not going to have either subject matter or personal because they're entitled to it and did here move to transfer under section one hundred and forty for the problem was that they moved to transfer to the eastern district of texas with which they had no real connection they're arguing essentially that they can only be sued in the eastern  of texas which is untenable there they operate out of the sea and they have no constitutional right to be sued in their own favorite form they are but nobody ever goes there the it's a one man company he's never been there the office is locked in unused all his activities towards the defendants and the plaintiffs in this case were by telephone from washington d c and by letter from washington d c so this is a company that basically chooses to litigate away they don't want to litigate d c in fact when after this case was dismissed we've all the declaratory judgment action in the district of the district of columbia and they said there's no personal jurisdiction in d c which is just incredible to me but more important for present purposes we know that  they threaten to sue in both iowa and texas and there's not much difference between texas and of or iowa and the northern district of california at most it's an issue of degree which could be dealt with by a motion to transfer which again s they originally they were dealing with the subsidies and they threatened to sue in the northern district of iowa they passed a draft complaint then in discussions with tribbles council they connection at the end of the day the district court erred by dismissing the case basically under a single consideration the supposed privilege to threaten an infringement suit without subjecting yourself to jurisdiction where your target resides and we just think that's contrary to burger king at once you have minimum contacts that are established you weigh those factors against them contacts you don't look at one particular mechanical tester talismanic consideration but the other side is argue that well you can look at for example whether you have a contract and if you don't have a contract is not enough to establish minimum contacts that may be but we're not dealing with the minimum contacts on this as just pointed out we're dealing with reasonable this and reasonless you can't just look at one factor you have to look at all of them the only factor where they have a significant argument is burden and that argument is weak and was taken care of by the motion to transfer so we would ask the court to reverse and remand for further proceedings in the northern district  compromise the play without risking being held into a far flung jurisdiction and so based on that policy actually read we should do specifically that that policies where we invoke stuff for fairness factor it goes potential potential defendants in patent lawsuits you know just trying to extract extract some sort of payment for licenses and they tend to thousands of people but that's not a good face situation either contacts with the forum where attempts to give proper notice of its patent rights and they do see a compromise of those rights simply put there's nothing else there's nothing else here under under  so i'd also like to point out that when you read when should you noted that it's policy squarely in folks before factor it also relies on a circuit law for the proposition that quote courts have hesitated to use unsuccessful settlement discussions as contacts for jurisdictional purposes why is the burden on the defendant here greater to litigate you northern district california rather than in iowa or texas well it's it's well st of all for i guess there's a sort of the general argument which which i've already mentioned that it's a burden to be taken further away but it's also that you know the difference and the convenience factor is there while incredibly important too to the venue decision which is no longer part of this appeal those factors those factors i believe are relevant to this but compared with the general finding of under the burden that this court from doing so i think it pales in comparison to that i don't think we really answered my question why filed suit in that will of continuing negotiations but i admit that we did make a perfunctory argument d c lacked personal jurisdiction but that was just based on its corporate home being in texas with respect to general jurisdiction thank you your trash newman i'll just make a few quick points about all the st point is that a mr sandal's repeatedly discussed flexibility but the reality is the district court didn't exercise any flexibility it simply addressed one factor not all factors and the reality is this court has referred to the redwings too as an inflexible patent specific rule basically it's turning on one factor and everything specifically discussed jackanory and i think we've explained why this case is very similar jackanory jackanory was not a bad faith the court did not find that there was any lying owing on the only thing it said was that only bet your bank is being sued not jackanory which was true as also true that jack henry didn't have much of a burden argument but that's also true here they don't have a significant burden argument because they themselves want to litigate away from  adjudicate northern california and they just didn't do it and the reality is they do say that they can only be sudanese reduced in texas they moved to dismiss in d c for lack of personal jurisdiction their position is they can only be sued when they want to be sued there's no constitutional right to be sued only in your favorite form so we ask the court to reverse thank you oh oh oh