district court misapplied the law of relating to these two doctrines and then fail to get all reasonable inferences in favor of high point in short there were contracts between sprint and a predecessors of the patent holder governing sprint's license right sprint cannot attain by stop fail to obtain its written contracts to conclude in the face of the contracts that sprint had established to stop as a matter of law it was plain air the elements of the stoppel are clear a misrepresentation reliance of these for the test to develop and it seems to me there's evidence in the record that the parties are committed to develop the i o s we don't know anything about i o s really iran or except for a fuse or a lot of statements on the record after committing standard was all about we don't know what this inner operability standard that they're talking about to rely on this case was there was no witness who testified on what it meant but you know what type of equipment was you know i do not your honor it had no relation to the pads and soon you say it's all switching parts of the back all some of which are implicated by these patents some of which part of the record is that this particular project was not implemented in the sprint network if it had been made what do you mean by this particular motorola p s e it's called and then it will go into the main network also completed entirely within motorola equipment they have a private terry they have a proprietary technology for handling that in chicago you do the same thing you're going to go entirely t suppliers all the theatres and if that's so you are not french are going to be working with and accepting visits from multiple different suppliers to build out different chunks of this network and in fact that is ultimately what happened and all the different suppliers including lucent knew that is not true to say it is fair to say the lucid knew they were going to be other suppliers to sprint particularly at the time of the at the contract ran into nortel and it worked ross license with nortel as a result of you having multiple companies supplied equipment for this network well if what your honor is suggesting that only put it this way obviously sprint was aware that it was  meetings there's no evidence it was implemented let alone implemented in a way which touches these patents but one quick but there is still a larger point yes maybe the some very specific specifications about trying to get a motorola bill station to work with the nortel station controller never happened but what did happen and what everybody knew about and what everybody was meeting about and working together about and purging each other to help develop was the overall nationwide network that was going to be made of c d m a infrastructure technology built by various different suppliers that all in some was a strong clue for sprint that because there was all of this cooperation and efforts that everybody was working together on and benefiting from mutually that sprint had some reason to believe these to go in the district court that everybody was going to be working together to help build this network not to create obstructions the network because nobody said anything to the other so there's two there's two parts to this there's this separate interrupt ability project which he addressed your it now addressing the broader issue which i think really did  have an effect on the district work the idea that lucent didn't know as other companies might do business with sprint the question though is does that compel as a matter of law that lucent is giving up its patent rights and the answer that question is found in the contracts we cannot get around the contracts here these were negotiated provisions over intellectual property rights spread originally proposed that they would get full patent rights they didn't get that they have a contract which defines what patent licenses they have it is impossible to apply stop  any case they can cite and which is corsi and it was done on summary judgment and it was wrong it was a wrong decision in this court affirms that you will be massively expanding you saying apples are impossible to zooming the rights are what you say they are in those provisions that it's impossible for a party to abandon rights through a course of conduct and dealings of the kind that first of all no it's not impossible but the conduct here occurred before the contracts were signed and there was an integration clause and in this contract twenty seven point twenty it says no modifications alterations or waivers of any provisions here it contains will be binding on the parties and less evidence than writing signed by duly authorized representative says a thousand pa contract between sophisticated part of sprint got limited patent rights now why would that make sense sitting here today what's all this is unreasonable what happened to sprint decided not to buy any more lucent equipment in the year two thousand they started buying all the equipment for infringement it didn't happen there is no evidence in the record that happen there is no infringement claim with respect to the combination of lucent equipment with anybody else to quit the back calling kiss between the cell tower and the b s e those are always the same companies equipment it is never it is had a sham it was perpetrated in a district court that there's been some combination of the equipment it didn't happen the record evidence is there at site in our brains how does the supply contract patent license apply  provision to the extent it applies is only in reference to when you combine recent technology with nonexistent technology to create when you know some invention and you're telling me that of the allegations of infringement are really self contained within individual suppliers of technology goes to two critical points on a stop or what the representation was and reliance the contract says and the has its own one city's motorola city one city's a lucent city and they don't work together with respect to the patents if there was a piece of lucent equipment that was connected in that infringing way to a piece of motorola equipment maybe we did maybe we'd given out from the supply agreements so every single place that lucent put have said something they did they negotiated with this with this big company so soon this came back to what you just said we license provision their license first some subset of that and if they go outside its license they're at risk for infringement if for instance they stop by equipment from lucent or anything happens the main point here is a sin to stop a case and they have contracts which govern their relationship the reliance has to be proved who relied on what nothing said here it's all written by the where's there's no they're not there's not real evidence in this case there's not and the idea that sprint relied on  a provision outside of contract or that it can go beyond its contract is just it's just not right morning your honor has made it please the court never fulfilled the locals for sprint when sprint had the idea to have the first cellular network in america it did not want to do it alone and it didn't want to do it with a single supplier it reached against visa the sprint car position as the district court found correctly we believe this is simply this putting that in the contract is the same as sending a letter saying i have patents you infringe and then don't not doing anything for ten years if in fact the licenses we think if the license means what mr black says they are then in effect lucent was saying in effect i reserve my right for ever to sue you for infringing products even when i work together with all these alleged infringers who i know are taking billions of dollars out of my pocket my guess is you know those provisions written into supply contracts that were written and entered into contemporaneously with all of these  discussions going on about interoperability standards so i guess what i'm wondering could not be sufficient notice to sprint that's right aster recognize that these statements that they are retailing contracts  h them on notice whether put them on notice that i put that lucent had patents and then it sat down with lucent for years and years and years and again this is not silence this is not lucent you know there was nothing in the way of misleading conduct or what have you there's pages and pages and pages of cites in the brief as your honour's have pointed out in which wasn't committed in writing to working with the alleged infringers it in the sprint network while sprint spent billions of dollars equipment that is claimed years later to be infringing and that respectfully that trumps as a matter of equity and equitable stoppel in the sports case law that trumps whatever that that language means you know loosen joined or brief there is no testimony from anybody at least from anybody from lucent or from a vial that said you know what yeah we put that in there and we did it for a reason and here's why we did sue so lucent whose conduct is mostly the issue here is  signed on to our brief and agrees with our understanding of the facts and that and the implications that you draw from those which are undisputed i mean it and of fire to retain that interest in this case when they sold the patents to two high point so if i had every interest of joining highpoint and putting up a witness to say well gee whiz you know we didn't know that they were infringing or we didn't infringe for some reason that might excuse the delay but if i didn't do that  the bidding process for samsung in court of for a puerto rico went out in ninety nine and lucent still on the patents and ninety nine the the bid was awarded to samsung in two thousand just is they have no testimony even a viable was aligned interest with them they testified that they never considered suing a customer not people don't customers that even when they got around to considering the testimony has to come from you write it this is your two witnesses right who seem to say sprint could have done x could have done while sprint could have done it but to be reliance doesn't have to be what it would have done something i don't think so your honor i  think in the aspects case that if this court made it clear that you don't have to identify with specificity exactly what you would have done only that you had options which if you had been given the notice that we certainly loosened would have should have done here if they had any intention of in force in the past which they did happen and that is number one prison open a technology to see d n a call g s m it's use all over the world are our head of ip in sprint testified that that was an option they considered and it wouldn't said you can't work with those guys because they're going to infringe and you're going to be sorry and they're going to be sorry we could've said ok license them or we could have said lucent will buy it all from you and we wouldn't be seen here today but lucent didn't do that and they didn't do it not because they were like karen's economic prejudice yes it was helpful if you know right now that the prejudice you have to start maybe having to pay realty damages on a license that you never got from the beginning but if you're saying what you would have done it's just you would have gotten license ten or fifteen years ago it kind of sounds like the same position it your honor respectfully and i'll tell you why what your what this court's cases say is that incurring damages for patent infringement maybe maybe a type of economic prejudice in a case like this where you change your position in reliance on the conduct if you would have been in a different position had the had the patent owner spoke up at the appropriate time and here in ninety five ninety six and ninety seven when all these discussions and the actual printed by nortel was going on we could have done something and that and so to the extent it would have to pay damages in this case that is that is incurring damages because we made a change in economic position and that's exactly what what the sports cases that mean offerman says that the only case said they would lie on that state contract in case the court found as a factual matter there was no evidence that there was anything else they would have done or could have done and so therefore the only damage economic prejudice in that case is that they might have to pay damages for an infraction that's not the case we could've just wanted all from lucent and that would have been that and our people testified that the fellow that partner will and the evidence of reliance he says is no evidence we have we have sworn testimony by the two people who were there and did this did these deals and who made the judgments at the time and they had no testimony from anybody the testimony in private unprejudiced as to what else we could have done to avoid where we are now if we had been alerted by loosening at the time came from the people who were there and did it they have no testing and i mentioned via your honor i know it's later in time but i mention it i said this but i think it's telling if it's high point winds of violence they didn't say anything that helps highpoint this case they only said things that help sprint they said sprint valued customer sprint is a ongoing customer and that they never consider suing carriers and wireless carriers like sprint they only considered suing on licensed equipment people like motorola  my point that that they nobody who own the pencil in the olden time intended to enforce them told us that they enforce them that all of the things that we talk about in the record pages and pages of documents and post swearing a blood oath of office from loose we understand sprint that you're going to work with everybody internal nuisance documents showing the nortel appointment and allusion equipment in the network together internal it the interoperability agreement it says the provision of hardware or software to one party by the other is not conveyed to the receiving party any on the intellectual property rights and such hardware or software other than twenty one to one zero eight zero so that the documents show lucian's internal documents at the time in ninety six and ninety seven and ninety eight show everybody's products working together they never said boo and if they were going to in enforce their patents whatever that contracts it's just like saying just like sending a letter just like saying i have patents you may infringe these patents and then doing nothing for ten and then you say well you know let's suppose the letter says and i reserve my right to get to go after you whenever i feel like it we wouldn't be having this guy i respectfully i don't think we'd be having a conversation in which you know the adversary can stand up and say yeah i know i was ten years ago but the letter him that is the misleading kind and that's absolutely the case here in spades as the special master founded as there is that there is a theme running through the argument in the district court and interest just made here is that it would be completely unreasonable for sprint to have agreed to this that they must have been duped into doing something as well they would never leave themselves open to time passed and lou should from the brew beginning once they saw that sprint was going out and the and and complaining equipment from other suppliers why didn't you should at that point cinema let or one raise an issue well it was well known to everybody i'm sure that eighteen thousand had a large patent portfolio in the space the specific infringement there's no evidence it was investigated or that anybody knew about it and in fact early in the implementation of this is this lucid entered into writing two hundred one across license with nortel no one else used packet based technology until years later and the real infringement in this case began two thousand and four when motorola switched from circuit to packet which was long after the fact with them about the sampson products samsung was samsung was a very small going taishan and in puerto rico was less than one percent what year was that those two thousand and one two thousand and one was when it was and which was after the transfer of that and there was clearly using non licensed now the the equipment was not a license but nobody knew what was in it i mean how to if you don't this isn't stuff you can buy off the shelf but even if they may pursue money damages from sprint or third party for any infringement of suppliers intellectual property so lucent today but as a if you were looking for something more than that we're not looking for a sting that i have a right we're looking for the certain that right well i don't believe that there's any requirement that a party search their patent portfolios and identify claims it's really very difficult to do but the question here the stoppel so there had to be a misrepresentation if the misrepresentation is supposed to be that lucent would never sue sprint in the future based on the installation of third party equipment well that representation wasn't made because  unfortunate that provision and all these years go by and there's just simply nothing there will only chargeable with the conduct of lucent during the time period they held the patent which was until two thousand after that we can't be charge of the stop there was no contact in the end we were looking at the that anybody was going to come after them after these four patents all that knew was that all of these different suppliers were working with money to build out this very very gargantuan expensive network evidence in this record of a competent witness on reliance and never had anybody come forward and say what they would have done differently how they would have and how they would have thought they would have bought all the equipment from lucent it would have presumably paid a lot of money for that the only witnesses they proposed on that between eighteen thousand sprint for how things work in the real world the fact of the matter is lucent today has a claim for our efforts to sue for that infringement against sprint for use of nortel motorola equipment whatever from two thousand and ten on it's really here right here in the mischief in the marketplace parties do business with each other all the time i b m cisco all these gigantic companies they do business with everybody and if the charge is that if you do this to somebody and we don't bring a claim and then you do business with our competitor and we see t