please support the district court committed reversible error by finding that there are ways to use twelve thirty four why you have an automobile air conditioning system that did not infringe the broad message claims of correct the error the court said and find a third toward a judgment jurisdiction in this case and remand for a trial under the basis that the trial court didn't understand whether there were alternative ways to perhaps but i think see there are two parts to that to get to that point the first part is this court looking just at the claims of the suit and the second part looking at the assertions  for some other use it's right in the honeywell complaint with respect to the composition patents and you came back and looked at your answer you admit that that's what your plan is exactly and you're not suggesting that you're selling this for some non infringing use i mean the fact is you have a plan if you want to sell us stuff on the own manufacturers for use and her conditions except right so what is the potential  nominee fringing use have to do with it i mean there's no no one is suggesting that you're selling a person undefined you use the allegations you're selling it to be used in automobile air conditioners yes  that is the problem is honeywell's assertion even on the composition of flame is just that sale of that product to any automobile manufacturer conscience constitutes an act of indirect conflict and it's other uses who cares i mean the cement the kind however uses an automobile air conditioner most carnies agree that that's what your plan is what are we talking about non printer uses for that's that's our point that's our claims it was fairly simple and where the district court area was believing that that was not enough that something more was needed step perhaps commercial sales had been done or some further determination had been made or the standard and i share judge data confusion a little bit what as i understood the district court the district court problem was it couldn't find among other things it couldn't find direct infringement direct infringement before you can sign an active in directing for enjoyment in what is the direct infringement act for the method that that's what i'm trying to understand certain so that's when we look at the claims for that they have bought they bought it from honeywell and we want to sign a contract today with g m to do it for their sale and use as well and what honeywell is using if using these what direct infringement has occurred since today of method that  question i'm very confused by the certification here which we saw except in the first instance before we can say we have jurisdiction how does the court say that the underlying case can have no impact on this action  honor and the first part is procedural the district court was aware of the fact that we moved to supplement and he denied their motion to supplement and it knew that we had every right to file a second action on them that it claims underlying and he didn't state because they're unrelated he stated because if that this court reversed and remanded it would be much more efficient and practical to have one trial with primarily one prior reference and consider consequence and that's why arguments trying to have one trial to deal with all the patents that relate to its sale of twelve thirty four wire to g m one of the things that puzzled me about this case counsel was you had an opportunity to create a event these patents are valid to a large amount of damages we're talking about contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars that's how large the supply it's in our concept he wants the clearance right before it's signed such a contract and gran if they did it would have the question just judge players question how is general motors going to use it in the general motors that's new and alleged that they're going to sell the general motors for use in the air conditioning system that's not the end of  let me let me back up all of the clients require that twelve thirty four y f be combined with something else delivering twelve thirty four y enough on its own is not an mean there i mean if you look at your own name or in the composition which are in the easing the illuminating you say this there's a huge market for this it's an amazingly successful market that that there this is now become the standard in industry and we're going to be selling going zillion dollars worth of this because everybody wants to use it for this one purpose and that is the purpose that it's intended for right the purpose it's intended for first of all there are multiple have clarity as to whether or not they can sell it to an automaker you want lynch that they want to sell it to the on the deal manufacture for use in automobile air conditioners they admitted and what's the problem what they didn't admit your honor i think there's a disconnect to what they've made it is we intend or we want to sell to an automaker in twenty ten and also remember the courts looking at this and they want to enter the contract now well what they actually have said your honor is the same did this all the most of the supplements they follow the discovery sponsored a four forty five that says argument has no what standing offers for sale or pending requests for quotation from any third party but that the points of point is that they came before the court and in a know they said we intend to infringe this packing and we intend to help others use the product and infringing manner manner was going to happen but they wanted to have it both ways and if you look at how they planned it and you look at their discovery sponsors one of those and to supplement and judge on has before him what is the actual record in the case and what he was looking at and what is decision found is as follows arkema said a four forty one they didn't have knowledge to be used in the heat transfer composition all the claims would require that they also said we don't know what lubricant it will be used with the three six six patent which those allegations that judge sites referring to required a particular lubricant twelve thirty four royal used with something called the pag was the question as to whether it would infringe the three six with twelve thirty four y f in mobile air conditioning systems with electric compressors and ultimately then the judge in his order said do you contend that if they sell this stuff to general motors for us based on the record your honor i think that's correct but there's no the position arc on the top was not as your honor suggests they admitted what they were doing would fall within the claim they wanted to have it both ways and to judge on that they were saying that what they were doing wouldn't necessarily fall in the composition claims but they weren't saying that it wouldn't fall within the broader method claim that didn't require a specific what they said is that they didn't know what the automakers would do so could it not be infringing for them to sell it to general motors for use in an automobile air conditioner together with a lubricant they'd only claim they point to your honor that could fall within that is the idea that it's a heat transfer competition and your honor the district court judge was looking at the record before him and he was presented with two facts your honor that contradict that first arguments position at a four forty one that they don't know it's and how it all is going to play out now and step back just in this from the viewpoint of judicial officials see the net make an awful lot of sense to throw the method into the same litigation as the isn't that a sensible for a start with the first principle but i think we'd all agree the fact that it might be more efficient does not confer jurisdiction but it's also not more efficient given that the district court judge has stated th so the logical and most efficient outcome is given that the claims that are there may or may not survive to the hall and re examine should a case go forward anyway and so do i intended to start selling this stuff as they would like to because they're afraid of infringement actually has to be a real and immediate dispute where the court knows the district court has to decide the counter claims that were compulsory for an entrenched and or non infringement the only action is that actually or alleged are samples in two thousand that patent with respect to where we are now on these claims what you have is is it real and is it is immediate and whether to deficiency arguments or whether we say that we think we know what they're going to do that's why if there is no jurisdiction that a court judge does not have discretion to choose to take it but they've even assuming there is even assuming we find the district court had jurisdiction because there was a real case here th question judge on ultimately looked at on this record was was it a real and immediate dispute on both grounds based on what our commom put forth their own discover respond do you agree that there's a plan to sell this product and everybody agrees that selling the product would be an infringement is i don't want to do this until one goes for a curry judgment do you agree that there's jurisdiction over the circumstances i agree that if both sides say selling the product will be an act of infringement and there's a concrete plan that's immediate in its future as are all the cases just then i do i think that's not the situation because what was what happened is since twenty ten every instance and everything the judge had before him was they have no current plan they're on willingly to satisfy what the court has said for an indirect infringer you either need to have an accusation of direct infringement or someone has to accuse you or you have condemned if and they had choices and you don't get to just want to know whether you can sell something those are the only circumstances you think and under which jurisdiction could arise i mean what about back to us or and mary and all three judges in that case unanimously agree that he had  standing and that in that case that that was the vision of the real and immediate and all he did was say i've done some research and i'm prepared to go court and a distinguished that minimal activity from someone who just said well i i might go forward in the future this is these people have built a plan they said they're prepared to go forward why is that different from every doctor or start in that case would be the direct infringer and he pled i'm going to satisfy and do everything that's  sponsors said that is not infringing that's in the district court's order because it was also in the discovery sponsored if article i had said to just play this question selling it alone and putting it in an air conditioning system would be a direct infringement and then the air go would be the indirect infringer then i think we would be in your situation but they didn't say that they said the opposite they said it will not be it depends and we don't know what they're going to do with it and that's why alternately when the judge looked at he said the language was how can i know how they're going to use it and when they're going to use it and when he said honey will couldn't the surtees patents because we didn't know enough we don't have jurisdiction  purposes of using it in refrigeration system air conditioning system in the automobile that that those manufacturers would then be infringing the method yes you're on a circuit claims yes certainly and that's why we have t and that's where the confusion began and should be cleared it's interesting when you argue declaratory judgment jurisdictions have the accused infringers things infringed in the patent the says you're done but we're comfortable with saying on a broad claims that the