intestinal level that these defendants knew full well i had every reason to reasonably anticipate that they would be hailed into court in illinois for this conduct i realize i have started with this reasons but when i'm thinking about fairness fair play substantial justice it doesn't want sort of an intestinal level and i think the defendants know it they know it from their substantial history and context the state of illinois they go back to ninety six and they show it in their various groups what i consider sort of offensive and off the mark and conflicting responses regarding their most recent contacts focusing on two thousand form two thousand five so if i can go back to the moment to sort of the traditional maleficent and the historical context here  of p entered into with our clients no less than nine contracts the earliest in one thousand nine hundred six the last one in two thousand and one all in the state of illinois all in which they agreed that the choice of law in the for all the cases would be heard if there were disputes in the state of all seven of those contracts which they agreed that the appropriate federal court would be the forum for hearing or matters two they the plaintiff with whom they've had this relationship over the years would be somehow unfair seems most every can can when we get to some of the fix in this case since we don't decide cases based on more people would be showing these products it's one of those areas where it would seem that the court's denial of the request to discovery was still place because this is an area i think it is worth exploring and we ought to doing there's no address there's not what you would typically see in a letter in a sort of in the middle with so you get the impression this is a longer letter we don't have that there was no discovery we don't know other than what we see here but federal circuit has come out with what is an offer to sell at the trade show i think probably isn't one and it may have been generating interest but it wasn't an offer to us to sell and the letter that came in three months after you initiated suit probably would meet the federal circuit standards and so if it seems to me this case rises and falls on everly farms in other words whether or not this was a continuing tour and that was close enough to the time of filing s that it should have been part of the record and i don't know if you see it that way i don't necessarily see it is the strongest point here but i think but i appreciate that and i'm sensitive to the to the really the response to the a of the person who does or it's a paralegal that they're sort of her somebody sending something in the jurisdiction we know from past history they were they were contacting people in illinois from the letters and missions they made which are murky six letters seven letters five or six letters one letter two letter they say all of the records very conflicting with what it meant to having sent i think that needs to be explored besides that i think in this case this was a show in ohio in which and it does include the price quote and the descriptions which are contained on page seventy four my concern is if that's the only offer to sell and i believe in the in the record as you know so i think the court should have allowed us to supplement the record because i think under beverly does relate back to what was happening at the time we filed the suit and people because we know in january there's a trade show we know from historical letters a year before the letters they wrote there's going to be the shows in ohio again in july and we know from the record page eight o six after we filed the infringement and all related sales activities in the usa so getting back to this point about the can to new was infringement we knew and despite this going on the trade show in january that i do agree that could not be an offer to sell just an invitation to a trade show that now didn't sell well without knowing what yes that in and of itself but i think it begs the question what took place at those trade shows who were divided there came there were these businesses from illinois over these recently business from only did they follow up with letters like they did here it invites the question if they wrote to mr riley who presents himself as a representative plaintiff who they've known for twenty years the place there's no luring in the sense of i present myself as somebody else trying to buy your product no i'm the plaintiff i'm here i'm looking your contacts please tell me about this showing so forth and then they follow up and send it to mr riley literally six weeks or so two weeks later it begs who else do they send such invitations to who will also tended to show that may have been illinois customers that they may have sent similar price letters quotations and if you will offers to sell so it seems that here and also in your send it back as an offering for my misunderstanding something well perhaps perhaps i'm missing something that's a trial court that's part of our response we ask for discovery and that was the not so want to be first and then in the great we as i see it for the first time there suddenly this whole other issue which in my view is a different issue about whether a lot of people we mandate in other words whether i guess the court here in denying your request for discovery i assume the snob saying you can put in new discovery requests this would be a denial of previous discovery requests correct is that allowed i mean the other side has the reply there read brief responding to your request for  was and i say that with the fear that it's like what you might do that we're throwing everything against want hope something sticks but the reality is we believe that there is substantial systematic continuous context for  there is the stream of commerce and office itself that could be explored certainly demonstrated more clearly her specific jurisdiction but if the if the defendant is crass i believe for kate to want to get us jurisdiction  they should be reversed for that reason thank you thank you we'll reserve the balance of your time mr adams motion however in the event this court deems that the existing record is not sufficient for the purpose of crime into question to be allowed to conduct scuffle so i would say that in any trial and in any case i would like to ask the judge to express an opinion in advance for i conduct discovery so that we could narrow view issues but i believe that the appropriate method for addressing the issues to file a motion that was why wasn't upon the facia case put forward enough to trigger discovery i understand that the procedural issue with this properly raised and that the main prefer not to normally in the trial court get put together enough to think that there may be a continuous tort whether it's trade shows or this this offer a letter at the why isn't that enough at least to get you some discovery as to whether or not you making offers for sale but i think that it is your honor my point was that no request was made maybe it's i'm splitting a fine here here but they did not file a motion requesting discovery they said we're prepared to submit this case in the existing evidence we only want discovery if you're going to rule against it that's common right alternative theories you probably have done it people do that if i can't win the whole the whole hog at least like the discovery based on what i've got i well you're about all the other facts that might exist universe i do i'd like all of you consider the circumstances under which this case arises that is that my client for complex will packaging not hollaback clerks flexible packaging had been a defendant in a contempt proceeding during which three and a half years it was conducted twenty eight depositions were taken fifty six thousand pages of documents reporters and the record letter in the supplemental record the letters that are in the record about the context or apply to all who put in the record by us not by the point so to to suggest we were not being candid with the facts i think is also very very dangerous we were not try church so if there was evidence that arose out of those trade shows about contact with people in illinois these these these people are all in the same business which is to supply fuel packaging to greenhouses and  yeah that was mr deplores letter of only saying that there was there was going to be a trade show in chicago we don't have any evidence in the record that that that this product to forgive the plaintiff and put the defendants at a substantial additional burden of going back to trial on the point i had an opportunity to request that scuppered and get it before the court and it's not a record but i'll bet the plan was at th least four or five cases that go through that issue in quite a bit of detail and under the three d systems case we know that we know that when there's a specifications and a price quotation combined with samples that in their case it amounted to an offer for sale there's some discussion in subsequent opinions as to whether or not to really not necessarily subsequent opinions of this court but of other ports district in massachusetts as a lengthy opinion about whether three d system if we look at the subsequent federal circuit's of opinions like roe tech and the m e m c case some of which granted go to the on sale or as opposed to infringement but but as the later cases seem to merge that analysis and they seem to reject the system statement that you don't consider the the authority for the on sale or but all those cases so you've to look at traditional principles of contract all to determine whether an offer of sales made meaning that there must be a manifestation of an intention to be i'm trying to remember a believe it's the mold float in from the district of massachusetts that says in effect that there has to be something that can be accepted by the words i accept we have in that second subsequent letter is is in fact it's on the bottom of the first page it said i'll be happy to send you a price quotation but what's included in that letter is a price list there's not a quote for sale they're not the terms that the court the district court of massachusetts held that you wou would you would have to subsequently negotiate if you had a price list in the mall floor in case there was a priceless point in the letter and the court in that case granted it's not the federal circuit but the court in that case found that that was not sufficient to constitute an offer for sale under those circumstances i'm not aware any federal circuit case in which pricing was included except the three d systems case and the opinion in the three d systems case does not provide sufficient detail for any of us or at least for me to determine what the court meant when i set a price quotation of three systems case involved a space substantial piece of machinery and in every situation in which i've been involved in a evidence that these products were ever sold until it was i think that the stream of commerce cases are taken out and that it comes down to the whether there is evidence in the record of the offer of sale being made illinois and i don't believe that the second letter of mail so that and i don't believe more importantly that the district court the views to its discretion refusing to consider that evidence there are two standards of review before this court in nova for personal jurisdiction but it's abus discretion under the west facto opinion as to whether or not the court should consider the so little evidence there are many reasons why i didn't want to consider it the district court didn't believe it went to the conduct at the time of the filing of the complaint in the beverly hills builder supply store and the supplemental evidence was three days later he had to call the clerks at various to and there were fifty two fans on sale and with believe the quotation in the case that i believe is relevant the court said that the evidence tended to show that contemporaneously with the filing of the complaint defendants were engaged in continuous shipment of substantial numbers of the used family of virginia this second letter that is sent by mr to or after the complaint is filed as number of his capacity as an agent which clearly is are clearly going contrary to the authority of this principle and that's undisputed in this case so that doesn't supply evidence to support jurisdiction against clerks flexible packaging and it doesn't support any any indication something that predated it here would be the chicago trade show the point of the federal circuit was that this is a continuous tort and so was it checked it was arbitrary not to include it so you make the distinction that this was only one offer as opposed to a fifty two fans and then well in addition to that in the law for we know that the offering this case is subsequent to the filing of the complaint that we don't know from beverly hills fan is when those fifty two fans made it to the store the peers to impose an obligation on the defendant to consent to jurisdiction another court which seems to be a rather more standard and you get and then you have a continuum of that to the standard of the fourth circuit which preserve the traditional burden of proof on the plaintiff to show personal jurisdiction regardless of the three elements of the four k to one of the elements has to be that the defendant is not subject to your stiction in a in a judicial district within the united states and the plaintiff contends that the defendants are subject to jurisdictional illinois which obviously just don't agree with what the plaintiff had offered into evidence the affidavit of don't we or the president of the point of who said he witnessed offered for sale made in ohio to head to head the plaintiff below raise for k two national context as a possibility for jurisdiction i believe that the record would have been more complete as to what occurred at the trade show but right now on this record we have don't waiter's own statement that offer for sale were made in ohio and as i read this court's precedent if that is indeed true jurisdiction would exist in ohio i want to be very clear in this record these defendants are not consenting to jurisdiction anywhere and i have no authority to do that this circuit has has not been announced any sort of requirement that a defendant be placed in a ho as to whether or not these defendants are subject to continuous and systematic contracts it's undisputed in the record all of course flexible packaging contract terminated in june of two thousand and two a defendant should be able to extract thank you well on the four k two point do you dispute that there would be curious fiction in ohio and does that defeat out based upon the end of the declaration mr leader doesn't that defeat the four k two proposition perhaps or kind of response if you need price information or you need to place an order it does seem to suggest these people are working together in some kind of a relationship that that is mutually beneficial and our contention is that it works to the detriment of our client's rights but in this letter except for the reference to al parr going to a trade show in the future in chicago there is another nothing else on this letter that say were invited to three trade shows one of which is january the ninety through the twenty first in chicago and it says that help our people be doing the demonstrations in time our system which is what mr winter believes he saw at the ohio show in two thousand for the summer of two thousand what about the counterpoint that said if it had happened you would have known about us and you didn't put it into the record well i don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that any representative barr's was at this particular trade show i see so maybe we both should know that but flipside seems to be that they ought to know where they were they are not there they're inviting people to be there  casey submitted that concludes