their having their corporation formed for purposes of establishing then you went didn't make sense since planck were plaintiffs located is irrelevant to establishing venue in the first instance but we did say that it might be relevant to a question of that a motion to transfer sounds so the court goes back and says ok then i think that it's acceptable because they form this to try to prevent transfer why isn't that why does not address what we told them to do hard with respect to transfer for convenience and so what the district judge did is just simply make the assumption ok it was located here and we oppose the motion to transfer venue therefore it's exceptional therefore  sorts of things the district judge did not analyze that that knox did not possess any of that this is important because the case was filed in the eastern district of texas originally and approximately three or four months after filing they central district of california has purview all it did was say the motion to transfer was filed we have posted and that cost time and money to the police did you oppose the motion to transfer on any basis other than the fact that you had a corporation in that state of texas where all of that was certainly one of the aspects of what we had what were the other aspects that you were certain well mother bent to challenge the other side factors right right certainly that was the largest part of the connection there the the largest are not the only part of it was that there was the largest party we w and examine all the factors and did it make any findings as to whether there was anything reasonable one particular issue and what are you just complaining that he didn't give you a good enough reason because you know i think he didn't do the if we read his opinion they're saying you know i think he doesn't have the right to assess whether filing there and opposing the motion to transfer created to an exceptional circumstance are you that's a very interesting point because this court have people to show up to an office was a means to file in these district a trance or oppose it then you changed and that was frivolous right although if he said all of that explained all of that why isn't that good enough well first of all the reason my mentioning hunger decision is i'm not sure that he does have the ability to do that because this course said in high mark that when the tribunal decides to attorney please proceed in with between different tribunal is that the one that ultimately reach a conclusion i can imagine that that's what we meant and highmark i would be surprised how close it was to that we were talking about conduct outside of the litigation rather than conduct that affected the litigation when highmark actually the case was transferred from pennsylvania to the northern district of texas and supposedly there were some misrepresentations made with respect to the transfer motion in the context of that and that was used dollars worth of fees but the reliance on the e mail current employer so not one penny of the fees that they're asking the court for my client to pay was incurred with respect to that and so that seems to be somewhat of a red herring with respect to but then we say the first time around and maybe it was wrong but didn't we say the first time around that that that could be a factor that the court could consider this absolutely under the totality of circumstances which is a pretty impact the fees that they've already presented to the court and others if they say seven hundred fifty thousand was incurred as a result of that was a not impact the piece but it certainly tends to show that the case was exceptional ok your honor i disagree with that for the reason that down about five years back to some us exactly five years and so there i mean it sounds an awful lot to me like you're saying that email shouldn't be considered at all which we've already said it can be your i think it can be considered as part of the totality of number of hours here did you preserve an objection to the number of hours where you just arguing that it should have been a portion more closely to the misconduct you're already it's it's difficult to say yes we do object not the norm in terms of how people practice law before this quarter to this is not all about you know puffery and stand your honor i apologize for that let me go to the point that was made at the end first about how many hours were spent i don't have the number but if you divide seven hundred fifty thousand by an approximate average rate of seven hundred or six hundred or five hundred dollars per hour it sounds like you are in the range of about twelve hundred hours of work in that range thousand to fifteen hundred well sure sounds like even still even if not thousands of couple thousand it sounds like an awful lot plus another young partners work at another young partners so this was never overstaffed we did it but the courts and the court said you're allowed to charge partner rates for all this non partner work just because you don't bother to hire o that's up to the p t o to decide what happens in the real exam so you spend a lot of time in your brief talking about what they should or shouldn't have done in the end during the reexamined process but that doesn't have to do with the exceptionally obvious case i  the eastern district of texas and in california seems incredibly minimal relative to the rigs and there's no legal authority to award fees for what for time spent in their example except not part of this case at all i mean this is remarkable that you even ask where i am it's remarkable your friend on the other side failed to a job and it's remarkable that the district court judge a is there a possibility that you all could sit down and calculate which hours were a tribute of will to the p t a or proceedings and which not and then reach a resolution of this issue based on that there's an absolute not just possibility but i believe the certainty that we can calculate how much of our fee smart for fees were directed towards the eastern district of texas motion to transfer  with right so the question the question is if you can do those calculations and and present them to the other side and then i mean and then we can see whether or not there is anything that needs to be adjusted you god can just you could stipulate to an adjustment of the fear ward i think the other side knows that they've got an uphill battle with respect to a court exercise and it's just a question with respect to finding exceptionality and even with respect to lodestar calculations but if there is a way to to get to the bottom line here that at least we'll know what we're dealing with yes or are you willing to to go through well i think that would be constructive i think so i think it's something that should be done what why don't we do that's why don't you do this calculation submit to us that that then break out even if you think they were unreasonable at the reexamined that doesn't make them even on reasonable the same claim contract and so the point was if you if he's saying the claim construction arguments are unreasonable for purposes of the litigation and he's basing that on what happened on the rigs and we said that does that's apples and oranges because there are different standards that apply that didn't mean that we said he should go back and read look at whether or not they were really acting in bad faith in their exam what we that's not relevant to whether or not which so we have to rethink whether they objected leon reasonable app using the philips standard using their the standards that are applied the burden of proof everything else that applies and the of the e mail either i think that i mean might have been you know putting my own district court have back i might have actually sanctioned them separately for use in that having said that we do have cases that say that hundred ten reasons why the court right i'm saying is actually i mean we said in the first time around that's a factor you can consider in determining exceptionality i have no problem with that and i still have no problem with that but the question is she was for the two days before filing the complaint the patent was assigned to the l l c twenty days before it was even formed they never conducted any business in fact this court agreed well but but putting those facts together and then making the legal conclusion that the opposition to the motion the transfer was for the less is a different story i mean is there any language and we told him to look at we told him to look at whether the opposition was for what would you rather with all due respect when the opposition be frivolous if the down together and take another look at the fees and consider whether reexamined expenses can be pulled out and once you get to a number without and that that you all created this entity you fought the transfer to a pretty obviously appropriate district you fought it every step of the way and he believed that there was impropriety that occurred so yes we've got a lot of criticisms of things that are not in this opinion but you know it we send it back again and as you said he's liable to say all right well this is what i was really talking about so maybe if we can get the numbers right the number of hours right that you might consider whether or not it's worth continuing to presume this is a p r i'm not telling you you can't but i am saying this is you know i there are other outcomes right i understand that it i've got five seconds left basically i just wanted to to refuses point nowhere does the district court refer my time's up  number of decisions have to have some way to recover fees and to eighty five it has to be objectively reasonable the district court absolutely does not go to that because it refers to the venue issue never said that was every so thank you for your time let me ask one last question why didn't you raise the question with where these fees i mean you had the the the the application you saw the numbers why didn't you say is any of this relating to the  i mean why didn't you object oh and we could find this whole thing waived well i think that we objected come to the totality and so forth did we specifically point out you cannot object i mean you cannot recover attorney