supreme court's recent decision in bristol myers squibb is helpful because its facts and its analysis are so analogous to the situation here in that case the court considered whether california courts had personal jurisdiction over bristol california and it didn't matter that bristol myers had other general plavix related activities in california the court also rejected a number of the art mr plaintiffs here made the court explain it doesn't matter that other plaintiffs may have been prescribed to receive habits in california and allege similar injuries to the out of state plaintiffs that similarity did not give the state jurisdiction over nonresidents claims and the court also between the defendants contacts with the state and the specific claims that issue and found it lacking where the out of state money goes were injured elsewhere since bristol myers was cited many boards jurisdiction here and yes i think your honor has just accurately described the lady i didn't realize but there is in fact no link that sufficient for specific jurisdiction between the plaintiff's specific claims and the clinical as long as any part already step related to it to practice vises approval of hurdle in a way that's a close enough connection between any claim about a device and the defendant's contacts with the state to create specific personal also claimed that their injuries were the direct result of the defendant's failure to disclose the effect of the drug on pregnant women during the clinical trials and that the injuries that followed here there is no claim that the injuries were at all based on any aspect of the conduct of the clinical trial and respectfully if the that kind of remote but for cause a shim is sufficient for personal jurisdiction in fact plaintiffs in his role to cases in the southern district of illinois made this exact argument citing m m to turn it and he did not attenuated a connection between the plaintiff specific claims and the defense conduct general marketing activities which variegation virtually every state where he sure was sole are not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff does matter related to the clinical trial this is again the type of general activity that the court in bristol myers with the general issue of related activities if it is not sufficiently linked to claims the city claims to support personal to close i'd like to return to the point that allowing personal jurisdiction here is inconsistent with recent supreme court teachings we believe the supreme court is unlikely that emphasize again the importance of a tight connection between defendants for contacts and the plaintiffs specific claims in the recently granted cases involving ford motor company we provide the court of the notice when the supreme court granted reviewing those cases and we believe that again the will return to the question of the nature of the labor fire between the defendants contact with the state and the plaintiffs claim for specific jurisdiction we believe that bristol myers resolves this case in the court and so but we think if the court w arise from the contact that context of the conduct of the defendants in other states and other lawsuits it's similar contact the conduct was happening in other states can you respond to that and is is there some distinction between the kinds of conduct that the further we move toward what the company did in general in general is related to this this product and the further we were from these actual specific claims are we not analyzing what the supreme court referenced in bristol suffer a rise out of that lack of training that they were supposed to receive and then the lack of training took place somewhere other than illinois i was talking to doctors conduct that you say they did not have proper training their marketing step strategy was quote predated in missouri and then rolled out nationwide similarly with respect to physician training in missouri the plaintiffs counsel argued that better partnered with missouri based companies to create  missouri so they did citations that we've given you will demonstrate that these allegations about years conduct in the illinois are very similar to the allegations they've made about years general conduct related to the sharing and a number of other states and in those instances where that district courts again in the southern district illinois missouri have considered those arguments they have found that those kinds of are allegations are just too attenuated from the plane specific claims to constitute the basis for specific personal jurisdiction and in saying that they rely heavily on the analysis in bristol myers squibb which looked and emphasized they have to look at a play of specific claims so it's these pla or of an injury that occurred to the not only plaintiffs no not in the sense that specific connection is required they simply form the basis for the f b i is approval of the sure which is on challenge and it is and the plane was sold illinois through a broker in illinois warrantied in illinois and so the board concluded that in that sense injuries which occurred from the deficiency in the plane been the reason the supreme court did change the law in the amasses because what it was doing was giving guidance to lower courts explaining that they had not properly interpreted the stringency with which the arising out of has must be applied conduct with a specific form stated in order to obtain personal jurisdiction if there are no further questions again i ask that you reverse the judgment of thank you