preliminary injunction and the district court's order to ninety days motion to dismiss for lack of professional jurisdiction ms hill inside your brief says the preliminary injunction wasn't specific enough i must confess i we will obviously have to pursue this with your adversary but if there's no problem in area injunction in this case there is of course nothing from which you can appeal and there is nothing that tells your client to do anything that's why you can't appeal because there i'm not sure whether there is one or not but there is one all right right now you just said i can't find any you say there isn't any certainly coaches not pointed to one the district court may have planned one of those is whether there's personal jurisdiction over the party to be restrained others are a probability of success on the merits irreparable harm adequate remedy at law and personal jurisdiction should be just as review the offered facts yellowing and that its website was passive coach didn't offer any facts in opposition to that yet the court found that the website was used by data to target customers in illinois i think you have to address the waiver question before you get into the marathon i'm happy to the district court found waiver despite the tos taking the position throughout this case that intended to challenge personal jurisdiction it communicated that intention to coach throughout the case it first showed up indeed as answer in november in two thousand and thirteen as the first affirmative defense but the problem is that there were fifteen months of litigation that ensued including merits discovery and motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds wasn't brought until after the close of discovery in response to the motion for the injunction  discovery had closed so why isn't that too late but they did need a discovery that it didn't get until june of two thousand and fourteen to show that the none of the causes of action arose out of its illinois contacts  to in any doubt about what its own illinois contacts were it knew what its business is right from the outset you could say the day the suit was filed we don't sell in illinois which is what you later said you didn't need discovery come to know where you conduct your own business what we did sell some goods in illinois we didn't know is what models of our goods coach claim to be infringing and code couldn't tell us what models they claim to be infringing until they had our catalog with photographs that matched in the model numbers and then in response to discovery what model numbers do you claim to be infringing they list of the model numbers we could compare them with the invoices to illinois customers and show that none of the models sold on my customers were models which coach claimed to be infringing and we got that discovery in june of two thousand and fourteen throughout the depositions dida required that the depositions of a says igneous be taken to new york not an illinois coach knew that data intended to challenge personal jurisdiction f deposition of data sales designee on october thirtieth two thousand and fourteen coach asked thirteen pages worth of questions about the this illinois contacts under the circumstances data not waive its intention to challenge personal jurisdiction the coach knew that it had not waived it well the problem is that the burden is on the proponent of jurisdiction to establish the facts necessary to support it and so you could have easily moved very early on in the litigation based on your jurisdictional defense and put coach to its burden and then the issue would have been fleshed out very early in the litigation and not after everybody had expended almost a year and a half of time and effort litigating a case in the northern district of illinois where nobody lost anything because of discovery is still  relevant if the case were to be brought in new york the discovery would still be relevant that the district court doesn't have any significant investment in the case it set some deadlines there were three agreed motions to extend the sky every deadlines and in status hearing to set deadlines that's an significant investment i believe by the district court and data could not have made that motion earlier data could not have made the argument could easily have made the motion and  presumably for a limited period of time and the issue would have gotten as i said fleshed out very early in the litigation before all of the time and effort was invested in the fact that it can be replicated in another jurisdiction doesn't really excuse what happened here when i say i still think it's important to the motion on the part of data to know from coach what models they claim to be infringing in order with respect to the preliminary injunction if there is one as a matter of law the to contends that when coach elects statutory damages it has a legal remedy and there's no right to a preliminary injunction the security for the judgment even if it had an elected statutory damages the recovery of profits the supreme court says is a legal remedy so the rule of group in mexico would say there's no right to a preliminary injunction the security for the judgment good morning and may at least the court your honor so i hope to discuss this morning first the district court's finding that first thing you need to discuss is where's the preliminary injunction you know that there's an answer to that it is either particular place in the record or there isn't one yes on the opinion the opinion that was issued by the district judge serves we know it does not federal  procedure sixty five d says that an injunction must be specific in terms and cannot incorporate any other document and we have said repeatedly that that means that it must be a separate document it cannot be an opinion if what your view is is that the opinion is the injunction that's simply wrong there is no injunction and then we have two possibilities either there's no appellate jurisdiction because there is just no judicial order at all or the district judge just isn't done with its job did either side go back to judge her yet again and say judge you need to comply with rule sixty five d seems to me you've got at this stage really only one choice me either already is do that and the judge complies with rule sixty five day or we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and this is over because there is no injunction while you are taking the former the former option there if the court finds in fact that the as you just ruled that there is an order and then the party should go back and request a judge jury and she issued that order while we're already here your honor it we should so it's very hard to know what we're here about right i don't know what's in this non existent injunction one of the details arguments is that it can't be enjoined because it isn't selling any allegedly infringing goods and as we were three years yet right that's normally a pretty good argument unless the district court were to make findings along the lines of well there's a risk of this happening again i don't see any finding by the district court that there is a risk that data will once again be manufacturing goods bearing a reasonable approximation of coaches trademarks in the absence of that it is difficult to know what's going on perhaps on the other hand what the district judge meant was some kind of asset freeze but that depends critically on the precise terms of the phrase which we can't find anywhere don't exist so there has to be not only a choice by the district judge about what this injunction contains but then we really need the parties to focus in their briefs about what's good or bad about the precise things the judge is done and the briefs we have on file don't do that because there isn't anything to focus on the issue came down to i don't know what the issue is until i know what's in the district judge's order and there isn't anything in a district orders or absolute absolute fact right d dot thinks that it's been enjoined not to make any that was that was we've got a out of thin air that one that was never brought up or never raised in coaches motion well it's discussed in the judge's decision yes it was discussing the judge's decision listen where did he get that idea if it wasn't jurisdiction argument was raised the court the court addressed it right but as we've been discussing there was no effort on your part to clarify the matter after the judge's decision issued or to signet a document that would constitute the injunction for the judge to sign that might have refocused everybody on what you were actually looking for in terms of relief yes and we certainly had an obligation to do that under some circles and coached not  later did it did not leak did it not affirmatively press their issue of their objection to the person jurisdiction and so you had thirty six documentaries which included eight hearings of those thirty six and although counsel just identified well they needed instead they didn't receive the information until june of two thousand and fifteen to receive the two thousand fourteen whatever information they deem they needed to challenge their section it still took them another six unless the court has any other questions we were arrested thank you counsel thank you for anything further all right we will give the parties one week to file in the district court a motion she asking it to comply with rule sixty five d if no such motion is filed within a week the appeal will be dismissed s y for lack of jurisdiction if such a motion is filed you should file that motion with all the simultaneously and promptly filed with us any response the district court makes to that motion if that response requires supplemental briefs from either side you should inform us of your opinion and we will tell you how much time and length we will allow for supplemental brief the appeal will be taken under advisement when we learn the results of this motion or second case of the morning is against chicago