is in a position of needing to appeal all errors that have been made by the trial court in northern district of ohio over a period of eight years we have quite a spread of time in that respect this three patent and in connection with the lower court's ruling i wanted to begin challenging the deer made by the court in the everybody seems to agree that those issues are open on a field without regard to the default so what is the what is the practical significance of the fall that that you didn't get a trial on do you midges is that what it what's the you say you had an inexorable conduct defense that was for clark that is correct that was a that was something that was a asserted by the defendants in a pulmonary injunction hearing that occurred in two thousand t not take into account the direct and indirect infringement so that the plaintiff still needed to up you know link up the accused assemblies which you could not do based on that stipulation entirely but there is in the laws process that is correct and there were no other competitors in the market in connection with the damages trial and there are some limited discovery on financial information and subsequently said i was not reopen that you have any basis for challenging the proper action if the discovery had not been open morning this is mostly a case that's not about patent law this case is mostly about civil procedure and as the district court in the district courts authority to maintain and control the proceedings in this courtroom and there are three rulings that i think are important to discuss today the first one you spent most of the previous time here is talking about the court correct yes i think something about personal jurisdiction there does seem to be up for that where you have a single transaction which was  i was under the impression that he had a fairly extensive contacts in the state of ohio there were yes we used an alias there's no question about that but there him picked up the and delivered it and according instructions from the strayhorn and delivered it and assembled it according to mr ray hearns instructions in ohio prisons to the transaction was initiated b that's that's correct we said we'd like to buy a dock we didn't think he'd sell one to his directly and you said we'd like you all to install one that's what they do i mean when you buy a dock it if you said we can it's fallen we've got people here that's no problem ha gotcha you've said you've done business with let's assume that that principle not only is valid but also applies even in the case in which following the initial sale there is follow up action in new york such as maintaining the equipment that's been sucked what distinguishes this case if anything from that sort of case which is to say what more do you have other than the w sale and the weekend installation well there were there was when you start by differentiating installation follow through well this is you were buying a between purchasing a one time single item and purchasing an item which is subsequently easier to install their service to there's something of an activity connected to that single purchase assume that's true is there more here than that one sale and the follow up well there isn't there is there was an interactive website and there is i'm and i regret that i do not have for you but there is a in the last year or so the ohio supreme court has issued a issue more than an ohio home set you see well if the ohio supreme court has addressed the issue of course they they they must consider the due process arguments as well and i think they have  partnership had done business in ohio and that the single transaction of the first of the partnership was sufficient to trigger the personal jurisdiction over not only it but the  involved in the promotion and sale of allegedly infringing docs to a number of purchasers in ohio what are these number of purchasers says that popped up somewhat surprisingly to leonard that they had a number of that the defendants had a number of customers and direct you know miles well those those representations were again determination in painting the fortress i think that that the enhanced images stands on both lights i think that because the default presumes the even declaration and the motion for default judgment set out a long recitation of the willful nature of the infringement and that was not but i could be wrong it's a big record but i i looked through this issue very carefully and thought that connection with the dead they never actually addressed in a willful infringement in fact the fact look at the injunction i think that the injunction really put us in a very bad spot by saying no doubles included because it means that we cannot go back to the district court huge disadvantage to that for us compared to going back and asking is it a clearly a cultural difference and we think we're entitled to the same to be in the same position as any other winning patent be that who can do that saying that i'm not going to treat any further efforts to bring the doubles into this case as part of the case whether for purposes of a supplemental complaint or for purposes of has if he had left that sentence out yeah then you would have gone into court in florida said please hold them in contempt and he would have said no doubles are part of this case and they're sufficiently distinct from this case i don't i don't think that's what he would have said i think he would and i think he said doubles are out because you didn't leave them soon enough but they he acknowledged them as a later developed product and he would have said ok we're going to try this case on the facts that we have and we are then going to consider whether this later developed product isn't really colorful different colors really different or not that's what he what i think he should have done instead he said you have to go back and filing the complain i i would have to check the rest of the items with respect to a serious fiction the entrapment issue that was raised by the courts this the entrapment this is a good parallel in this case because  for a second supplemental amended complaint to add double floats the court denied that just dock is not appealed from that particular ruling and there is a fair amount and injunction so the final injunction when you think removing then you mean he never struck the language that says they're not included within the scope just correct he did he did remove it though he removed that sentence i don't think so if he removed we're using the term removed the judge really moved the doubles from the scope of the injunction with the sentence that where that is in dispute correct right here on the next question is did the judge later remove that sentence from the injunction and are you saying that yes the judge took that sentence out of the injunction because my reading of the record would suggest that that's not the case it's my understanding and the judge clarified the ok that sentence has never been taken out of the injunction correct correct ok and if i may have i'd like to say one case with respect to a proposition the on the cross appeal issue where there is a fair ground of darnedest to infringement by the new devise plaintiff must propose propose this play supplemental or new original bill for infringement and that's the american foundr to issue an injunction is to protect patent rights in art i think if any right protected by happened and the injunction here puts us at a disadvantage and i and i think that it should not and i think that that in that way it was an error log because he was it issuing an injunction about something that he expressed slee said he wasn't going to rule long and again i think that that was clearly erroneous would you feel better if the injunction did not have that don't come back to me with contempt i think is something he shouldn't say the