parties in north carolina and the court can deal with that noun conjunction with this appeal in the promise been created of course because accord didn't treat it as a threshold issue and here we are on appeal are going up on an injunction when we believe that there is no person jurisdiction over either a threshold jurisdictional question i know that there are several circuits that circuit and others that seem to say that it seems that in our circuit we just simply treated as part of likelihood of success and say instead of having to address it first you have to were we were in a situation because of what the judge did a lot on but clearly it was a route reversal the plundering junction then we've got back down and then we would have avoided the situation where it doesn't flow from the infringement but obviously the district court felt that the two were tied together because if you were if you couldn't distribute infringing products or allegedly infringing products and then by definition has it was you'd have to go back to a relationship without very well how do you respond it was a few issues there first of all the present this court requires a strong call nexus and in order to test patent for improper commercial purposes that's exactly what the district court did the law even assuming they win their patent infringement case they can't get an order from the district court ordering you to buy product from  because this is about a commercial relationship that went sour that's what happened that's what's going on here and money damages surely will do now only from state law claims but this patent franzman we don't believe there is there is it's about out it was an improper framing of the issue so we urge the court to reverse the winning junction and remand case to go towards trial and and then avoid we can even void the personal  still do you still stand by that statement we are honored yes we believe that l g could purchase the material from sell guard as it done for five years and it was put in to do with pat made an offer of a license or entered into a license it did so to make a strategic alliance so that it would sell more of its base film product as a part of the license  citations it is fourteen fifty seven the fourteenth that the eight in the court looks at the broadcom versus emulex case and in particular i'd also suggest that the district court's opinion out of the central district california is instruct e what's happened here is that self guard has been frozen out of the innovation loop by being excluded from the plugin e v ceramic coated separator market and g m's brief goes  seven eight directly to this point because it takes a long time to get one of these batteries certified here it took two hundred forty weeks once l g had come to sell guard to  license is good enough previously to sell me a patent infringement problem why isn't that actual license and up to five year patent problems after the problem after the fact is that we no longer have access to that market we're no longer a the injunction would be to go back to the status quo which was something you can't get if you win your patent positive injunction i agree with you but the injunction a permanent injunction if it was going to prevent the market from africa going forward in other words if it says that herman injunction says the product can never be had by anybody and never be offered by anybody when not a situation where you're a competitor and you want to offer the product that's correct however there are there are other adoree manufacturers who can take advantage of the patent and who can take advantage of cell guards based film and ultimately supply those markets and are there any that there are there are alternatives to the way that it's being done here and sell guard is selling to others is there a there is not an alternative specifically they went to three m they start scuse me they went to g m and they said we're going to use the sr based film g m said it's the same specs will allow you to do that so there are alternatives in the marketplace we let an injunction stand when at the time the court had not even assessed whether it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and then found it was challenging whether that person was justice i certainly agree with the court it would have been more ideal had the district court addressed that question in the initial order we now have an order in place this court has held in previous cases the united association of importers of textiles and apparel that the issue of personal jurisdiction can be addressed in the in a context subject such as this on appeal without remained and the way i think the court could address it here is by looking to the the order that the injunction back in the court we think that it may either issue another injunction or not but if he chooses not to issue another injunction then you get sent to live with his personal jurisdiction decision for the rest of the trial there's an appeal well here here's what i would suggest as a practical matter your honor if the court is considering a rematch and i would suggest a rematch and with some direction the personal jurisdiction issue certainly  that the court could reconsider if the if a case were to be remanded for further findings for example on imprisonment and at that time we would you know we would make our arguments i knew and hopefully if this case came back out then all of that would be in front of the court at the same time or you're saying now i am not but so i'm familiar with a case where where we decided that we can do it on appeal for the in the first instance but you're saying that perhaps we have asked for additional briefing on the personal jurisdiction question right now well you know it creates a practical issue for the court given that the the court below didn't rule until may we address the personal jurisdiction issue or pages thirty four thirty five of our red briefs specifically on a on the case that i just quoted the u s association of importers of textiles and apparel and the facts i think are fairly well  laid out and they're they're also supported by what the district court found a page thirty nine of docket submission one fourteenth so i believe this court wish to exercise its discretion in the first instance while not ideal not regular it has been done before in that context and appeal for us we don't have the four s are you saying that somehow it's we can just sweep it all it well be the brief we submitted was before this order came out and so the case that i cited to the court did not have the circumstance your honor is referring to namely appeal and then the order arising after the case has been submitted so it puts this court in a difficult position in terms of and you can look at the record that was created the record that was before the court below and your personal jurisdiction is apparent all right let me just briefly address the infringement issue and it is while the court did not make a lengthy reference to its findings in the order on likelihood of success what was before the court was the declaration of the act for white and three supporting claims chart supporting claim one there was no corresponding declaration opposing infringement that was submitted by l g in this case and so what the court was confronted with was basically the point of view of one party adequately supported the only issues that were raised were for crane construction the ados there was region are you saying that that you are willing to stipulate to the proposed construction by the other side no they are saying the court didn't reach i'm saying that the implied leave the court except that the claim constructions of construction you know i think you can look at each of these four claim terms and see that the arguments that have been presented are not supported in the following sense with an oh they're trying to read the specification into the a ceramic composite layer in both cases the the specification says account for line thirty three through thirty seven that reference should be made to the appended claims rather than to the foregoing specification and claims broadly in the case of the matrix material in adapted to at least walk then dry crow there's nothing in the patent that supports that if they think that we can do claim construction for the first instance on appeal if saying that you can review the claim construction positions of the parties and you can affirm the lower court on the claim constructions based upon a straightforward application of plain meaning