will begin with serbia versus st alert to consider the parties extrinsic evidence and i wondered about that because it seems like consider your testimony about the settlement negotiations to consider the similarities between the two models and what didn't consider th court the court got one sided and it did consider my testimony was unopposed testimony and it clearly established that at the time of the settlement agreement there were basically two types of smoke detectors on  and openable and the gist of the settlement agreement was that the st alert wanted to be able to sell there with him batteries and smoke detectors the group already on the market namely the clamshell did not work you ended up with a smoke detector with a life of a few weeks and not the length of time it was expected not even a year or regionally what i did is i was able to under contract with the vermont teddy bear saying that the contract means what it says and in vermont teddy bear there is no ambiguity in the vermont teddy bear contract over here the court said that the that there is openable was able to be opened sixteen seconds and i never saw that smoke detector before so the point is if you know how to open something you could open it is shown how to do it you could open it but they they admitted this is not open with this court finding the definition and the meaning of openable to be ambiguous but this court gave some guidance in its opinion and it said that any definition of the term and openable must center on the patents purpose of deterring access to and removal of the batteries by consumers so if you have a smoke alarm and you take the batteries out and you forget to put the batteries back in a put the smoke alarm back on the ceiling or was the case may be that creates the safety issue now with this safety issue in mind there are significant differences between the older model that st allowed pay royalties and that's called the as a ten year and its replacement that st dollar didn't pay royalties on board that were affixed to the inside of the housing you couldn't remove it from the smoke alarm however there's a vast difference with the battery when you say you couldn't remove it from the smoke a batteries they were all soldered you could remove or you could take a sledgehammer unbreakable you couldn't remove it the c s a three hundred and forty which is the subject of this dispute is entirely different you could open the housing by pressing down tabs and then what you see is a battery compartment that pops out and you can open the patrie compartment now the older model didn't even have a battery parm the batteries as i said were soldered to a circuit board affixed to the housing the and forty had a battery compartment if you come out you could open the battery compartment you could put the batteries aside on your desk and if you inadvertantly then put the smoke alarm back on the ceiling or wall and god forbid is a fire is not going to be a b and you're not going be protected that's the safety issue that is at issue here now and trial mr service says his testimony is unopposed i cross examine him and he admitted all of this about the essay three dollars he admitted on the witness stand that you could open the house if he admitted that you could take out the pattern compartment he admitted that you could open the battery compartment and he admitted that you could put aside the batter's and he also admitted significantly that you could put it all back together without batteries and put it on the wall and that's the issue and that's the problem now the district court in addition heard the testimony of st alerts vice president mark divine on the witness stand demonstrated with the actual clear and for mr service to say that the district court either ignored or disregarded the mandate to consider the evidence that was not a single piece of evidence that mr serby offered that was not accepted by the district court even over my jacket objections district court accepted everything and if you read the district court's extensive opinion you see that the district court takes the time to review the evidence and explain why it reached its conclusions and why it found mr service testimony in its words on persuasive now service new theory is that the design has to be of a model to be openable where the batteries can be replaced like the very old model of smoke detectors that existed before is back but your honour's the settlement agreement says nothing about battery replacement and the patent says nothing about battery replacement what they say is a battery compartment that is openable and that's what was proved that was proved to try your honour's of the district judge who is obviously in the best position to evaluate the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses and so we submit that was not clear are mr serby did not sustain his burden of proving anything about consumers we presented an expert witness who did a study regarding consumers he criticised that study but he didn't put his expert an expert of his own into evidence he did not present a single piece of evidence as to how a consumer could or could not open any of these models the only witness on his side was himself your honour's this was not clear or the judgment should be a firm if there's any questions i'd be glad to try to answer can easily pop out the whole circuit board put back together put it on a wall be issue the district court then brought in another criterion which nobody which is not part of the settlement agreement is not part of the expense  say anything about meeting it would open up the case v and opposing counsel is incorrect in that there is no evidence set forward i brought in for models of smoke detectors of the old type battery  dr would show that it took up to five minutes for for the test subjects to open up a smoke detector and that's after they were shown how to do so and after a demonstration and verbal instruction old definition that this court said was not those are not proper and cannot stand and that's basically why we're up here because if you're going to get thank you thank you very much thank you we'll reserve decision in this case which of course somebody can come help you