agree about the parties at least agree about the standard of review it's turned over we are here before the court review of an arbitration proving consequently the standard that we must meet as appellants is that we must demonstrate there was a manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators that was confirmed by the district court the general rule also accepted by the other side is that all issues presented in the arbitration must be resolved in the arbitration we maintain that did not occur it was to come company maintains it did the issues we believe were not addressed by the arbitrators are the question of ownership of the foreign trademarks that are held by subsidiaries of the swiss t company at the time that the arbitration was proceeding as well as the question of whether the trademarks that issues included the confirming to rd ward no actually are just as in all cases when we have no understand you have an immediate orders we are not able to appeal those until the final award is issued it is confirmed so consequently our appeal is asked to all right and i understand that i understand that but this particular argument is aimed at the court's eventual confirmation of the rd award the five the final award if you will be the final war injunction it awarded costs and the like right and if we can focus on the st award just for a minute because it seems like you're asking this court to reverse the this very st award that the district court correct issued vacating enry mandaean the st arbitration award for ect but i have to say this seems like a very drastic remedy at this point when you consider where the litigation has has gone to bring it here today would it even be possible to undo what has happened and go back to that point absolutely what would that look like what would we decide because there's been other words issued since then made and the district court was asked to confirm it something happened there was an assignment by the trust of it's interesting to see or license correct and you went to the district court and said none to issue an injunction when i have somebody in front of me saying they now have a license go back in arbitrate whether they have a license that's essentially what happened so what you're saying to us is we should as the court should have stopped there should have entered the injunction we would have had then three years and and now we should send these guys back on the other side to commence a new arbitration to determine precisely what the arbitrators determined when the district court sent it back and that's it may be what the law requires but again requires that it's kind of simply well i don't agree the die is cast by the demand for the arbitration all the issues that i set forth the need to be decided the circumstances that are before the arbitrate is that the time as they are before any district court are the facts that exist or at the time that those facts may have changed if we are only dealing with damages i find your argument compelling but you went to the district court and said i want you to issue a judicial order in force of a by contempt based on the arbitrators award that e w t c has no right to use this license and he came in and said we have before you do that judge i've got a license in my hand from the half owner of the of the mark and you know if you do that we're going to be in immediate contempt and the judge quite reasonably i don't know whether civil procedure all provide that a dispute must be reduced to a judgment and then if you have subsequent circumstances that warrant amendment revision modification make it sure of that judgment you can do so  we have a problem with respect to the st award the st one does not address international rights but if but you you know have that ability see if you'd stayed it is not effectively what he did didn't you say i'm not going to enter this order until exclusive road wide license to our exclusion right that it's not possible for a couple that had a problem with the st order yes because you wanted to be able to challenge the international yes still demand for arbitration sa t company is using the rights granted under the license internationally they've registered trademarks and they have terminated license but they continuing to use the rights and they're claiming ownership of it they're wrong the rights belong to us they intellectually intellectual property belongs to us they terminated license they must cease use as far as that goes without an issue raised before the district court with respect to the st award put the stamp of judicial approval on it how could you possibly appeal it at that point if you can appeal award an award when you saw it nonracial you're absolutely correct without a doubt we did see confirmation because the arbitrators told us that that time and we had urged them to decide the european rights the international rights they said it is not before us and we refused so here so so to put it differently whatever the arbitrators told you you had no difficulty whatsoever with  with the ability to have the injunction prohibiting further use that we would come to terms and resolve the remaining issues if you did it saying i love the st award i'll either have to commence i'll either have to commence further litigation or do something to correct a result by the result but i'm happy with this st award correct so so i'm not i'm not going back to your notion that you were somehow deprived of your ability to appeal an award that you are perfectly happy with tell me i don't understand that argument well we were not entirely happy with it but we were satisfied that in a confirmation of that award would have allowed us to advance to a resolution of the remaining issues without starting a new arbitration the arbitrators in a big final award and now you can come to us and argue why the final award is no good but i'm having trouble figuring out why we should go back to ground zero and tell anybody to start over again here's what the the district court did the district court said ok there are changed circumstances arbitrators go back and review it we think he was wrong in doing so he did not have the authority and of the f a a or the s p on the federal rules civil procedure to do that is very limited authority he must confirm or he must vacat being asked to issue an injunction even if it's pursuant to the arbitrator's award does it have under under equity or anything else the ability to look at changed circumstances before it subjects a party to contempt of court i don't believe n to say we have this license no it wouldn't be an arbitration a better point it would be a modification of a judgment when i don't think so i don't think so because it would be on subsequent facts if they could modify the judgment then surely the judge could say i'm not going to enter this yet to like take up this stuff they go back and fight because you fought them on this you go back and fight about the extent of the license that was issued and whether it was world wide or stuff and never did arbitrate over the course of the next three years it was at a final word resulted and that's the one that we're here talking about so why should we just wrap this all up in one ball of wax and review that final award because rules are not to be ignor because the f a a and the legion of cases that talk about the scope of review in the limitations on a district judge with respect to arbitration is cannot be simply set aside you could have affirmed that what would happen differently i'm a modification vacate sure that he may have he should not have because he has jurisdiction on it the the license that they obtained from the trustees is not subject to an arbitration bet that your we can satisfy you if this is what you want we should say to the district court well you should moderate you should have added the original ward you should have immediately state and taken up without sending it to the coerce for the income received from the license instead what the trustees try to do is say we're going to charge you this percentage for the use of our rights but they're not using just the right what is the status of the  license with the with the trustees when you say the new license which one are you referring to it was one called b i l a the interim license which subsequently got converted into a final license and was the ira that was and was in front of the judge and had the circumstances otherwise changed no my client has never received one dime since two thousand and eleven for any uses of these trademarks in the united states or anywhere in the world because they parade around claiming that they have an exclusive license my client is deprived of the rights to use any of those trademarks or intellectual property because anybody we talk to says we're not going to get into this dogfight they claim they have an original exclusive worldwide perpetual license and they haven't paid us a dime from tens and hundreds of millions dollars of use the international sales exceed one hundred and twenty million dollars a year my client is eighty four years old bedridden and has spent most of the last four months in the hospital she's brother was pretty quick reach the same result in the case if your client was twenty one years old as running try a lasso that doesn't help us i understand that but but if justice needs to be done my client deserves a right to properly challenge this license to demonstrate that it is not reality and cannot be granted to our exclusion and that to address these claims to form trademarks in the st awarding and the panel decided on a request for correction that those claims had not been submitted to arbitration and that as  sony indicated that decision is entitled to deference and can only be centrally reversed if it was completely irrational or if it manifest now since in that part me had to have those claims n submitted and continued arbitration after the st award they've been submitted in the form of a request for correction in two thousand seven hundred and eight years after the arbitration of the art the arbitrators have still not address appellant in this case could today raise those claims i think the public could raise those claims in a litigation in europe because the european trademarks or the foreign trademarks are owned by foreign compan mexico court decision did they say that the new license was valid they did that doesn't relate directly to the foreign trademarks but they did do that and i'm glad you brought that up because just in terms of the chronology in the court's questioning the district i'm sorry the new mexico court actually ruled on those issues before the district court confirmed the st award well the district court didn't confirm the st order it did it confirmed it confirmed the the infringement portion yeah i mean it's a sort of strange confirmation needed anyway that said i'm not going to i grieve there's infringement but i'm not going to confirm this award yet because new facts have come up right that deal with the injunctive part of my point is that the district court indicated and referred to that opinion saying the arbitrator's don't need to decide who owns the trademarks or whether that license is valid because in litigation between the two co owners in new mexico that's already been determined what i guess folks in on this st the war is i'm trying to see how we can get past that and i'm not sure that we can i what's your best case to support your argument that the district court was within its authority under the f a a to vacate the st award simply because the arbitrators declined to consider new evidence submitted after the section ten talks about the various ways that somebody can attack or or appeal arbitration or one of them is that it was not definite but i was going to say is it's an interesting turn of phrase ambiguous but what the thrust of the decisions is is that if it fails to address a contingency then we don't know what the arbitrator's intend and so and  's a wart where there is a contingency that arises that's not addressed and there there are several other cases that talk about this what what what it amounts to is that where the facts change and in this case they did it such that the foundation of this prospect of future amity is undermined it no longer applies the court that's asked to confirm that perspective award will be happy to but apparently one of the parties doesn't want us to treat it and so our award doesn't deal with this and so we know what the arbitrators intended they intended not to deal with it well the difference is so why was that so manifestly wrong are completely irrational that's not my argument my argument is that it was ambiguous and that it was not final i don't think that's a say maybe we don't agree that it was ambiguous mellor the result is we have to look at the standard that's been made very clear to us by the supreme court and other courts that you know we can only disturb that award or for us on review if that wasn't the case and there are actually two standards is the courts of the statute one is did the panel exceed its powers and that's where you get into this irrational and right you're not contending and that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about the nd prong which is that the award wasn't final and definite and that's where you get into cases like brownsville hospital where the ward said you use the the employee will be reinstated if you see a counselor and a particular counselor and then that counselor refused to continue seeing the employee employment saw another counselor but the employer said ward says you got to see this guy and therefore we don't have to hire you day arbitrators were asked to address the issue of the license of the aioli license and said we don't care to wear only ruling we're only we're only ruling on the facts that existed at the time that we had in our war we're not we're not worried about subsequent facts so how do we shoe horn that into the eye to the into the exception you're talking i read what they did is a little bit differently than than that i think what they did is they thought for whatever reason that they didn't have the ability to reconsider or to consider even though they hadn't entered an award yet and the arbitration rules make it clear that they could have reopened the hearing but they didn't and i think they were just mistaken honestly and when they made the nd award when they were given the opportunity and sort of believed they had the ability to be considered they did they invalidated the damages and the  think that they they were ordered to do so they were ordered to consider they were in order to do anything because that was the problem with the nd award the court said gee you may have thought i told you to do something or i told us to consider it then the  arises that the rd award dealt soley with the assignments yes trademark but but they didn't think it right i mean there was that that there was that distinction but i think in terms of just what the arbitrator's did on the nd award was illustrates what they what they believed the right result was but that they just didn't think at the time it was it was originally brought to their attention that they could change their change their minds and  decide what's in the narrow way to decide this case i think is that unlike a lot of the cases where we're all we're doing is dealing with an award they made that decision or they were faced with that before the award was even enter and so i think that they just simply mistook their authority time to time to figure out the sequence of events here i know the new mexico judgment if you will occurred before the that we get past all the procedural issues and would affect reviewing a final award at the end of this your friend says wait a minute there's problems that award because it affects you guys are acting as the exclusive licensee and you only own half half a license right what do we do with that argument as the license itself states it's an exclusive license of only the trust's interest in the trademarks it doesn't restrict understand and we've always understood that and there's certainly nothing in the record to support the statements that you heard that they've gone out and tried to talk to other people well i don't know whether they have or haven't but my understanding of the ward was that you only had a fifty percent you can only could license your fifty percent entraps a living but that she could license her fifty perhaps a list if there's some doubt about that anybody's minds and the parties don't disagree about that that it seems to me if somebody were to say it so that she has a piece to figure out just that i don't think that really goes to the merits of what we're talking about today it was really just more to explain why they didn't do it then i think what we're talking about today is was the district court correct in they kidding that a war partially vacating that award and the district court i believe was correct because the award was ambiguous you know it's interesting because is the whole idea of an arbitrator issuing and permanent junction is is a little bit of a sticky wicket obviously but where there's an injunction that's going to be entered in the decision maker learns before entering it that the fundamental foundation you know of the infringement that is that the injunction is a remedy for and for going forward doesn't doesn't yet going forward yeah cause you know it's not the back license before absolute that's that's the point in time when maybe you're on a week we get into the then then maybe exceeding your powers at that point when you when you when you basically choose to ignore the clear law that i mean i'm just having a hard time with  contingency you know that was the basis for the award to mr sony says it's his to procedural argument mr sony says what you should have done was that the award get confirmed as the district court to stay it and then ask the district court to modify it in light of the license and in new mexico judgment i mean i don't think there's any authority for the district court to open modify an arbitrator's injunction and i think that it's oh so what that's my it ward if the st award was reinstated or would they have to start at the barry beginning you know new arbitration proceedings i mean that's that's the rub your honor and the  if the court rules against us then we have to start a new arbitration and ask the nd panel maybe we can ask for the same people i don't know to undo what the st panel did and that's why i and seventy six f nd forty two those are all cases where the district court said circumstances have changed these remedies don't really make sense arbitrator's didn't really give us any guidance on what to do in light of the changed circumstances we're going to give it back to the arbitrary to say let us how much was the exact same posture as this case the changed circumstances i just went after the right the only difference was that it was after the award versus in this case there was at least a license before the award but now it hadn't been litigated or hadn't been decided by that new mexico court yet that it was a valid license you know the arbitrator didn't want to get into all that but by the time it came is correct the arbitrators could reopen the hearings were closed in january of two thousand and eleven the awards came out much later counsel is right they could have reopened the arbitration but only as to matters that were included in the original claims in the original disaster your argument trying to figure out what we do here so you're saying the district court should we there was not there was not that was not that litigation had to do with the settlement of an estate and in particular when the trustees transferred nearly four million dollars out of th arbitrators source of power is the original license well enough and nothing to do with a new license that met that may or may not be the case in other words what you're saying is he should have stated and then somebody i think the arbitrator is you think the court should the original arbitration agreement was not subject of the original license it was an entirely different license that did not have an arbitration provisions on which we were not a party how does it get result go back to the district court confirm the happens and who doesn't and the answer is it's the district court that must do it at that point that's you both decide to go back to arbitration the less you both decide to go back to arbitrate unless we both stipulate but even then i don't believe i mean we could fashion any kind of an arbitration agreement today if we wanted to but there isn't one to which we are a party that would invoke a determination of the validity of that license and its impact on their rights did you object to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to continue i know you objected to the district courts remains of the arbitrators business or any place in this record where you went to the arbitrators and said wait a minute you don't have the power to determine the validity of the license we did when they st asked before the arbitrators for the arbitrators consider the new license we said you don't have jurisdiction to do that they agreed with us now they were to think rethink it i thought they said we're not going to reopen it without the consent of both parties is there something you can point to me in the record with the arbitrator said we don't have jurisdiction to consider that i think i can we we have an audio  don't i don't see anything in there ward the st award that says i relax your stiction to consider this what they said was at the time we're not going to take it up unless the parties agree if they had jurisdiction they to decide all issues you do not have discretion to say i don't feel like it was a was it the subject matter of the agreement the subject matter agreement was a license for between the owners of the that's not subject to this arbitration agreement that's a different agreement that they have and different sets of rights that they are claiming that only manifested after the hearing was concluded after the award was issued and then they ran out a negotiated license order they were compelled to take it up and make the decision and they did over our objections and we went back to judge and then this and we owe him object i might have misunderstood your argument i thought you were suggesting that the arbiters in the st instance had to consider the aisle way if it had been part of the party's agreement as to what was to be arbitrated but the ira didn't exist at that time did not exist right it did not exist to the entire arbitration was concluded that's why you can't real pennant ok thank you is now submitted