judge can change plain destruction for example but here it seems you are after the market order this judge issued a very strongly worded order in december saying that this was basically for construction for better or worse and that the party should rely example in this court's pots case which was essentially identical facts to important facts i'm still trying to figure out what was left for the court to do at the pre judgment interest understand that that was waiting for that it was an issue just like in the pots case that was fully right to be added to the ultimate judgment and did it in a stream itself we did fifty five days later it's behind it troubles me a little bit as i look at this is that the main issue here is to prejudgment interest and that was wading through terraces to provide information to extreme right so you kind of had a little control over whether this was going to be final you're right to disagree that the main issue was creature of interest there were three trust your aegis which are arguments is that the even accepting a claim construction you're still on an issue with that that's right and i don't recall that he provided a lot of records cites chew on so i was just me if you can point me now to the evidence that shows that the accused products meet the definition well if you look at a four seven four three to four seven four seven for example that starts with a phrase expert report that collects all the evidence which also is incorporated seven pounds for the twenty one pounds again indeed the third year i was going to point out is that the core to strew tighter is to conjunction with their protocol processing information without giving a definition for that either point out something particular about the judge's order as to how she hear it they are going to destruction in her story total order and it's a seventy six the court acknowledge that although the play is not explicitly stated a protocol suite triggers the decision whether device acts as a becomes apparent still a seventy six if the judge didn't understand what was actually going on in plain five there at the bottom of the page she writes because the device is acting as a bridge willy and note the word only there on a set of six and when the device recognize packets that conform to a certain protocol suite she concludes it follows that it is the recognition of the protocol suite that triggers the decision to act as a bridge the claim does not suggest any other triggering event op we believe that's completely wrong a brief containing information is probably some structure or collection of information i think that you could say the brief contains words but the word of any particular word i'm having trouble finding i mean the specification repeated leave me first to the digest as being read and written and hope to read and read and write a script well it speaks to creating the motions that extreme work by her first judgment was an issue raised the issue of supplemental damages and the date of the pretty prejudgment interest and what she said in her order supplemental sales data which states the problem i would see here is that a you'd be opening a door to women indefinitely postpone a final judgment you couldn't tell you a little information which