only needs to prove a prima fascia case of personal jurisdiction we says submit that the facts supporting exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case far surpassed that standard for media as a home website owners it is clear that although they are  finished company headquartered in finland they are not the small finnish company that they assert themselves to be during this litigation rather just a mode where there's more we believe it doesn't make a difference your honor they indicate they suggest that it does and their briefing they talk about the fact that they are a small finnish company it would relate to the third prong potentially if we got to that point we don't think we need we don't think that if they meet the standard for that but they favor right so this is if in fact the court had come out the other way it would not have been the final word on jurisdiction because the court chose to do it where it's only obligation w hypothetically if there's a seal somewhere in the u s by even if that's related to e t i products does that create jurisdiction in texas because of the agreement that they have because of the franchise agreement that you are in this case it does because that sale that they're making according to e t i their only customer in the united states is very exclusive franchise o the state of texas and that of course though that the sales that they me or the activities which relate to the suited issue to work with their customers and offer to their customers for sale those are part of the infringement of the underlying the actions of what you can eat in a and e and  units from there they can download the reports they can acquire the information for they for the assessments and then those can be then given out to the lawyers for once the personality tests have been taken and ar a review of the surveys or personality test done your computer or someone else independently my understanding with them is that it is done via computer your honor well maybe it personality tests that are if you have an employer you're trying to figure out where they fit in the company or if you want to figure out if you want to hire an employee the skill sets that they might need those personality not can you do math or can you read but more the underlying personality assessments are you do you know how to work well with others kind of thing those are the system and then the invention relates to the transporting of that information information for one period of time so employees only get they can only get the information that they are permitted to the employers only have certain access to the information that testing the individual that does the testing may only have access to  doesn't take place in texas honor the answer that i have for that day is simply that we have gone through we have gone down that route in the district court in the e t n a case and the court the district court in its summary judgment rulings the factual background of this case is that when we filed a case against the d n a it was through discovery nine months into a discovery of that case that we found out that they had actually worked with  to do their business which is what is asserted to in french and therefore we attempted to enter a plea to bring in e t i at that point in time in the court indicated that it was too late  based on the original claims or the amended columns are these two cases related in that in the absence of allowing the amanda claims to to go forward against either a defendant that that we we have to assume are looking at the original claims we're looking at the original claims for purposes of this jurisdictional issue if the court concludes that the amended cl if the court denies our request with respect to the e d n a case we still believe the issue of jurisdiction comes up again because we believe that there is an frenchman of the amended claims and we are going to be back here or back at the court again and addressing the issue with respect to whole and not with respect to any specific claims so if they believe that is the infringement contentions that need to be amended your honor and they just report didn't provide the opportunity for that in the  reasons fully support in the record to affirm the district court's judgment first jurisdiction is lacking because the patents original claims were cancelled and reexamination but your friend just told you on the point that the complaint we're looking at argument that the original eleven claims which is what the claims constitute in the patent and suits have been cancelled by the p t o and that determination was affirmed by this court the in additional complaint and digital complaint was alleging the patents and with that a city which claimed of the new patent which reissue claims have actually been are actually ac table i'm just confused because clearly there's an overlap between these two case yes and so you're saying that the reason there is no specific jurisdiction is because we have to look at the original on the planes and the planes are back on therefore there is nothing let's leave aside the question of what the claim is short let's assume the appropriate claim is before us in a rises out of a relates to the defendant's activities within the for that's for it in the exclusive licensee and this was not really developed in the briefing because t t i did not make an issue of it exclusive licensee a line of cases indicate that the crux of the matter is the duty to defend seven of the which is on day seventy five says the franchisee carries alone the responsibilities of its activities running further in the franchise agreement that paragraph eleven the  in texas and have that person to meet benjy activity why doesn't that create a specific jurisdiction if you're asking them to engage in french activities or so the question is if we would submit that the allegations are not sufficient based on the complaints based on mr ceases declaration and the declaration of mr  documentation and and that that the claimant is the limit so that you don't have to have a joint infringement if the claim is limited in that way isn't that exactly what the guy is selling to be d n a and i understand your owner's points i just would indicate that there would not be enough allegations and it was there would not be enough commonality between the two  other side the second case or i just want to and i apologize for conflating these two but it just completed in my mind and i can't get around that if we were to affirm the second case in other words where the district court said that the other complaint is she dismissed as moved in light of the examination results is it your view that the same thing necessarily would happen in this case yes and therefore even leaving the jurisdiction question aside it would just be moot yes yes that's my position and that is essential in the cancellation of the claims causing pending suits to fails then the rule yes they couldn't have because there would be there are new claims that would have to be examined new complaint that they would not be precluded from doing so given just simply based on the district court situation here i mean it would be we'd be here again probably two years from now arguing about personal jurisdiction but they would be precluded the argument would be new and and it would be based on the claims and based on the complaint perhaps being more perhaps this system or method in fact and why why is it that you were resisting filing me new point in conducting appropriate discovery to establish pacific jurisdiction why are decision with respect to substantial identicalness a claim so they concluded that they were not substantially the same they were in error and therefore because everything was in compassed everything in the new claims was incompetent in the old claims that there was no ability to go back and refile a case against something to put their case i'm under stand your concern about that case but concern seems misplaced here we're talking potentially about of dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction or on grounds of movements and either one of those leads to it was a merits decision and not on that on just the issue of the amended claims being substantially indistinguishable and set aside for moot as then i see that there is a distinction the other issue that we have there you are within the other reason against the idea of just going back and filing a new complaint is that this was at the e d n a cases case that's been going on for was going on for years it was literally set to go to trial a week it was a week from trial when my partner has the other right and so but if that case gets just messed and this case correspondingly gets dismissed we are in the position of going back and having to prove up jurisdiction go through the whole discovery process again one of the reasons we have the only reason to have any evidence with respect to what their actions are in this case is based off of this agreement that was disclosed in the other girl you already have that so it's i mean the reason there was a delay in this case is because there was a reexamine the claims the palm which the complaint was originally based no longer exist that's kind of a peculiar and a set of circumstances that isn't going to recur the fact that that requires therefore the filing of a new complaint may be unfortunate but where does that get you i mean it's taken a long time yes but really it's because large part because the the claims of the public as i said of the claims have been dissed no longer parcel bring everything in the discovery that had occurred as well as the market decision that came down the summary judgment orders so that we would be working from from where we were as opposed to working from the beginning again so it