i hope you're not going to need a material but i'm glad you wrote it  yawners i would like to begin two days or argument by discussing and informing legal issues which i believe is one of first impression for this this issue is about damages specifically awarded or the rate of fourteen point five percent in this case must be has to get is based on proving lost profits it's not just what's profits is the plaintiffs profits this was based on an estimated expected profits of the defendant completely different concepts theories in my view might be wasted on a topic that i'm not really seeing your argument on namely that the damages question ok so if you have something at least that i mean you can shortly tell me that you want to take so much time off from what i think is taken the value of what was taken which is what you said really is about the value necessarily from the infringer side of the table is what do i expect to get out of a deal if i enter into one which is what are the incremental profits expected profits over what else i might be patent owners lost profits not the defendants expected profits from entering into a deal two different people two different sides of the table yes your honor that's absolutely correct so so what they did was that they were actually using the backing the profit margin to the effect of royalty rate which is actually a different number based on the defendant's sales price and then get so this is what happened so on the left hand side there is this confidential profit margin aspect so there are experts admitted that she started with that and backed that into a royalty rate of sixteen percent that they were asking per unit so then what happens is that in the end the so that's where the pump is because if you do that if this approach were allowed to stand what happens if and no mind whatever try to prove lost pro in this case actually that's our position yes that the amount they're asking will result in a huge profit margin after the rosie is paid and such a tiny one for us and  never had any ownership or control relationship to call the minister and is asking if if that's true as far as i know that is actually true they had well they still have  cooler master that there was an injunction running against  with prejudice simply means you can't be enjoined going to put that aside you make an argument the you're making extraterritoriality going to put that aside and you make what is i think the core of your argument that  when you don't even make an argument a separate argument that meaning cooler master is improper unless the substantive standards of acting in concert or being legally identified where the successor to are not met and you make the argument that the injunction reaches independent conduct and you're not legally identified and she and i don't make a separate argument we did not have the opportunity to contest the fact about whether you were really a success or well i guess the reason we didn't make that argument was one of credibility issue don't know if throughout the process that  throughout the process whether they were in a position to argue lack of notice that many of you have not made a separate argument we haven't made a separate article your argument is again putting aside extraterritoriality and putting injunction reaches too far as contempt would reach too far that's right as you had exactly the same whether they're named or that's right that that's actually that the key argument so to if if we were to send it back for further inquir what would be the facts that would be relevant to that question where do you think that there are no more relevant facts and as a matter of law you simply can't be covered whether by contempt or name by an injunction which you're now and here's why it doesn't it requires anything that isn't violates paragraph to which is called a master can't infringe on the united states the only way that can have that is with c m i is cooperation because no evidence that it's turned so hot all we have is rather i'm sorry there is no evidence either way there is the cooler master witness at the site where he talks about the relationship they have with cooler in the record that says that cooler master can do this unilaterally or the other way that you've just made an argument that in order that we can conclude that in order for cooler means to reroute its products into the united states t work together to market the products in the united states they work together to price the products in the united states so there's that basis of the district courts and i think the answer is well can i go back though i mean i guess maybe you not understand the question because you know i think because you're not answering  that if they act in concert going forward that action that activity by either cool or master c m i seems to me would be covered under paragraph one of the injunction and am i wrong about that i don't think paragraph three that where this paragraph three talk about acting in concert with see em out i think it doesn't but that was the basis for us asking for paragraph two was to make it explicit so the cooler master couldn't later complain that he didn't one to bring it home to this case would be cooler master doing stuff to assist c m i in itself violin the injunction the other is if cooler minister is legally identified with the successor to with with respect to this line of business c m cooler minister gauging in conduct that his country that is of importing selling  that's the one that starts cooler master co ltd i'm sorry yes does it cover activities for example cooler master importing into the united states directly to some customer completely bypassing c m i usa the products listed in the injector well it still won't because those infringing products were created by the two together so the so that's another part of the acting in concert something you're buying  concert does not actually require c m i to be doing anything more than once again then extend it once and for that for that aspect correct right right because she and my poor master jointly develop the products they came up with a marketing strategy on the product in the united states they came together with this pricing so if derail this i don't understand why if we're talking about just aiming at infringing products that have previously then created by he can't by those two points acting in concert why would that not be covered under paragraph two if you're out of there the reason we insisted on the other paragraphs with this notice for cooler master because this came this this litigation has been the question you asked earlier has cooler master ever own c m i we never got a straight answer to that question either we keep getting these people don't the same have been accomplished then look at paragraph two if it cooler master would be covered by the injunction the so now i was to need to rewrite paragraph two it seems to me paragraph two seems to cover everyone and you're saying well the only thing that paragraph two doesn't do is call not only a spike in infringing sales after the verdict from c m i but the nature of the sales coming into the united states changed as well in two ways that are in the record but that there are more as it turns out but in the record we have t we have cooler master on its website a cooler masters website start selling c m i products makes e m i products available on cooler master websites and represents that their pool or master products in these are websites that are in the u s they're not foreign websites they're u s web sites targeted at u s customers more concerning today's attack was all of a sudden a m d starts releasing and infringing product and he is partnering with cooler master to release an infringer particle a m d is an american company importing products into the united states that c m ice customer according to the arrangement the cooler period graph three seems to stand on its own and doesn't implicate see amman doesn't require c m i to be in any way shape or form related to anything going on in pure graph three and i think i hear you saying well that would be a problem but that's not what we intended to cover in paragraph three correct what like you don't want to elevate form over substance we didn't want cooler master to start trying to elevate form over they will say if we just have paragraph two that when they ship directly to n d and c m i is not involved that's not in concert if you want to get us under that for contempt you have to establish the alternative of legally identifying our us for our new c m i independent activities we've seen him so they how does that get nailed down in advance if it's proper to do so because it well in advance of in advance of your bringing a contempt motion litigating under the heading in concert with what the only evidence right now on the record or do  await that we i don't think we have to i think the reason was to get this prospect of the resolved so that everything that it's very clear cooler master had a chance to come in and put in whatever evidence it wanted to about the relationship with c m i we were very upfront saying that cooler master couldn't possibly come into the united states without c m i's agreement they know what no attorney ever raise the argument you just raised as toronto which is that we were able to sever regular with axiom i said that right there's there's not even argument in the record that that's possible to be done so so what we have in the record is not an existing or not not get it counsel just said they have nothing left to put in the record they already had an opportunity to put whatever they wanted in the record so your answer is that would beco paragraph to the scenario you've laid out press t v i own i forget the price played there if they're acting clearly in concert or as an agent for or in conjunction with c m i then they are clearly covered and cooler master continues to perform do what they have been doing that's coming to people corroborate we have no intention of extending all sixty five t v on with this court has already said it can cover which is active concert with the name defendant any activity in the united states has got to be in concert with c r mind because there's there's the only other knowledge there's left three to not require well paragraph three is probably because it would only cover even there is an expressed reference including cooler master inserted into paragraph two and a m d calls you up and says this is just between us to tell the guys down there is a chain oh is that where the  know yes yes yes that's where someone sent us some of these goods are you in contempt or not they say you are because the only way sorry about the red light the please answer the question reality is that we are not doing that we are not selling directly to the u s everything based on my understanding call the master are selling because products only