judge laurie at five sixteen f there in the first appeal in this case said that the contention that section two eighty five limits but these are can be awarded under the contract is rejected are two sentences in my brief that basically contend the opposite that is not the reason that i concluded the discussion of interest spiro and connally in my brief and at age eighteen i explained what i was trying to do which was i think given in this case my argument in this case is based on proportionality the fact that the principle of the amount of attorney's fees awarded in his statutory case should be reasonable in relation to manufacturer or some liar competitor which is what these patent cases are are all about well the district court that he had caused eighty some odd thousand dollars worth of damages in this experts testimony showed that the money that they say was eighteen thousand dollars but david it is uncontested they never planned that it would save seed in any year but two thousand three and played it they they tested in two thousand and four and they admitted that he didn't save any seated two thousand and four he never violated the temporary injunction assoon as it was issued in april of two thousand dealers i mean no sale dealers less monsanto has a as a dealer list david could if there was no injunction and lord david couldn't buy seed for you know for any purpose or any where you're arguing cost should be lowered well i just read the court's mad day that i knew the law mandate and i checked it and even were even aware of the mandate is erroneous case i cited my brief where the district court had no authority to enter the post judgment interest because it was constrained by the mandate would it be better no it just didn't make sense to me to ask the district court to do something that was beyond the breadth of the mandate now that the two hundred the reduction in this case for two hundred twenty six thousand to eighty seven thousand dollars is it's a very stark change in facts and i don't know that i can add anything to my brief on what i believe to be the control in this case court which really there's never been a fine by much at all they try to relate specifically and have this four hundred eighty seven thousand dollars to these three episodes of one deposition two subpoenas a review of surat herds and six hundred pages of deposition which is that there's been a start change in the factual circumstances in light of the that reduced damages award if that would operate which it would is a exception to the wall case doctrine it's also a recognized exception to the so there's not this situation where the district court was powerless to change a result that it knew was faulty because the facts have changed it's no different than if between the time of the mandate issuing and the district or considering the case and rema it actually doesn't contain specific details so if we're technically going to be very technical about this you're looking at the man the mandate doesn't contain a limitation on what could be done below that in riverside and every case that mr davis has cited for there was not any injunctive component to the relief so in those types of cases the result obtained or the success of the after billing parties is really defined by the amount of damages that were in this case he mr david are cues that the injunction was worthless in this case and so is completely not valuable it's not you know oftentimes an injunction is sort of priceless companies will pursue eagerly their competitor even without damages but solely in pursuit of an injunction but here the injunction concept does seem to be a little bit weak in terms of what its value really is distinction from riverside and every other case that it's better relied on by mr david is another of those cases did you have conduct by the losing party that was found to have increased the amount of fees for the prevailing party so i don't think for example in justice rehnquist's hypothetical in the sense in riverside where he says if you have rigid contract case was ten thousand dollars you couldn't justify twenty five thousand dollars in fees that that hypothetical a case in which well one didn't win anywhere near what you were asking for and perhaps he should not spend four hundred thousand dollars and attorney's fees on a case like that riverside certainly gives the suggestion that the extent of the wind not to be taken into account you're right it does suggest that i think there are two points there one is if tracing back and what that means the extent of the success that typically refers to the case where one but not all of the claims that were brought or success injunction or owner injunction would be far in excess of what it has now which is a permanent injunction in order as mr de if monsanto has a good good believe that it is violating that injunction it can return to the same judge the judge knows the facts that judge can assess whether there has been a violation and if so will you take the necessary steps to remedy the land here and likely explore with you very briefly what the extent to which we may have already  last time this year mr david did argue that the amount of the attorney for the award didn't bear a reasonable relation to the result  and we rejected that and we rejected that considering the record before us at the time which showed a range of of planting gra extending from three quarters of even a thirty seven and a half pounds to one and a half units seventy five pounds and we remarked that you know that that was a range within which the that suggests to me that this issue of the reasonable relation between the attorney feel ward and the result the chief has already been addressed his is damages work to the attorney's fees so i do think that the court directly addressed that issue and i also believe you're on record we addressed the legal argument that they don't have to bear a reasonable relationship i think directly addressed that it was not an abus opinion that's that specifically states there is no requirement and frankly rather i think that it's this court is on many occasions set forth the factors that does consider to be relevant to the  hasn't specifically identified the proportionality but it's left open that there are many factors that this report could consider in this case that this report was never asked to consider the relationship between the attorneys fees and the  on that meaning that the case was caused by a willful tort committed by mr david it's a case where there was pre litigation misconduct there was a kind of during litigation that district court found to result in an incredible testimony that the district court discredited and we think that given the totality of the circumstances in this case given all that comic given the willful nature of the infringement that there is no have more than four hundred eighty seven thousand dollars of legal fees thrown at him over a couple of years talk about somebody that is afraid of get sued it doesn't need any injunction never did need an injunction doesn't the injunction have sort of  fees into these cases the trial bill for months and offer seven people for that money was one hundred forty seven thousand dollars by bill to warren david just twenty five thousand dollars the only reason they do it is because it's their business plan why should lower and david financed by sandoz business plan if they don't get their fees back in this case they're going to do the same thing in the next case they did in this case they're going to spend everything they can to build a circumstantial case