well there are different parties ford motor company was sued in the amended complaint and there's a successor an interesting argument there where ford global then steps in the shoes of ford motor company now there's i guess there's a pretty argument there but there is a different party and there's also different patents involved in the amended complaint if we agree with your response to that the rule is different in the fifth circuit and that is not a claim from preclusion issue that is an issue preclusion issue it's the so called curable defects in some of the circuits how do we distinguish comber them if you do your issue preclusion will comb her the comber case was based on subject matter jurisdiction and so it was dismissed with right manner and everything else they'll say that there's we need to stop complaining these two questions but assuming we're doing occlusion and whether we agree with that or not it appears that there are cases in the  say that issue preclusion can apply to a personal jurisdiction dismissal without prejudice meeting and merits dismissal that's correct issue preclusion potentially can apply in the circuit but with a new set of jurisdictional facts and we dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction so so go take it somewhere else and that's really the dynamic of the tension that's underlying a lot of happened here and i would say that i agree that it's an interest of the court to not have litigants coming back and back and back and that is particularly true in with claim preclusion when you have a final judgment on the merits like summary judgment and you've gone through the entire litigation process invested all this time but the dynamic is different when you have at the beginning of the case when you're trying to get into court there's really no motivation for a plaintiff to try not to get into court on a say in make syria them arguments they're not address the merits of your arguments in a different form could you not questioning the integrity of the quantity of judges in michigan at judge michael some just make some rulings and then she's you know very professional hardworking judge i have no case where ford global sued new world that was up in michigan has been transferred down to the northern district of texas under t c heartland those are thirteen patents for global versus new and transferred from michigan doubt of the northern district texas now for a judge gabi also the related litigation with the automotive body parts association that also represent sued for global to challenge these four design patents are based on functionality certain we've received a an order and a judgment from judge michelson in michigan and where she denied ford's motion the case is moot and granted their summary judgment on these issues and now the case is on appeal before this court in the but in the briefs are due in april so now we've got the margin case are these individual patents an issue anywhere right now other than your effort to get them to be an issue here yes they are at issue in the a b a versus four global case the two nine nine and six eight five patent two of the five patents are at issue in a p p a versus four global the ones that are now in texas you know the ones that are the subject to the michigan action that are now in this court ok ok so now we have the i mean the larger case is now down in the northern district of texas so so we think it would be appropriate now to keep to keep this case in the northern district of texas as well right so all on the issue of claim preclusion i think we've talked about that but there wasn't a final judgment on the ok with regard to the issue preclusion the the issue is are the two points here two key concepts what is the issue that is being precluded and that doesn't make a difference of facts were already available under identical issue is actually presented fairly adjudicated and and resolved the fact that you might not have discovered additional litigation before the order of dismissal or before the complaint was filed the case is say different things it's important because in this case we're talking about personal jurisdiction personal jurisdiction is determined at the time that the original complaint was filed and here we have facts that were alleged to have occurred after the original complaint was filed and so the court couldn't have looked at those facts in evaluating the personal jurisdiction appeal of but here we have the facts are that we have a single phone call in march and from ford global to new world and then we have a lawsuit filed in april then two months later in june we have a follow up phone call from another person who now begins to talk about an ongoing business relationship and follows that up with two additional e mails so those are facts that occurred after the complaint was filed and could not have been considered by the by the court even though we put it in the amended complaint to tell the whole story those facts could not have been considered in the twenty fifteen actions and so you see to your rebuttal time you can continue  same jurisdictional claims so i think when i say it doesn't really matter it's sort of what label you put on it i think the best reading is the one the district court had which is that in the fifth circuit this is a kind of claim preclusion with an understanding that it's not technically on the merits but it's on the merits of the jurisdictional issues and i think the importance of calling it claim preclusion in this sense is that it has a raised or could have been raised requirement another words the judgment in the first action is the things that you know it's the things that were anything in the restatement supports any of this oh sure well i think that's when you sort of transition over to issue preclusion and you know i mean let's talk issue preclusion judge about right that's what i want to talk ok and i don't ask you to do that well i mean decided but i think if you look i mean i think the g s s group case from the d c circuit i mean it's this case it is this case of all the particulars it's a case where you have a personal jurisdiction argument rejected they come in and say please reconsider under this new theory i thought  that the district court found was available to new world and new world one which is why the district court denied these two and and it's what this court held was why denial of leave to amend was not reviews of scratch about these facts were available to you and should have been brought to the court's  so you know even if you call it so all the courts that address the some of the issue preclusion land so i think part of it judge o'malley as perhaps the fifth circuit is unusual in saying that this is claim for inclusion with a loosening of the on the merits requirement as opposed to courts like the seventh circuit is that the facts you know that the operative facts here are not just you know the phone home first the letters first the licensing agreement that ford is to let it set for global is allegedly trying to enforce its patents in texas against the new world order threatening to do so and so all of that was wrapped up in the world one and again i think it would be quite unusual to say that new world could just get around the world one where these exact i mean the complaint in this case is identical more or less weren't available you know during the world one so if they said you know what four global yesterday made a call to texas and franklin and did all the things you know so it's not part of the new world one nucleus of facts yes proportion might be different  so we're not saying that you know if the facts change they can't bring in the lawsuit of course because that would be different they have to be present company yes they do and i think that i mean i think that gets to our alternative merits argument that the district court recognize which is that even if you look at the amended complaint from new world one in the complaint in this case it's still not enough to get personal jurisdiction over anyone you know as for for global the alleged phone calls to the suppliers would cause everything else is basically settlement conduct  not create contacts inside of texas so that solves the phone calls with suppliers that and then it's a ford motor company the only thing that they have completed its appendix page thirty one paragraph it is that ford f g t l n l k q have quote engaged in multiple ford is a part of any more at appendix page forty two paragraph fifty six so you know even if you want to get past all of the preclusion things we've been talking about they still don't have enough on the merits of the personal jurisdiction issue so you know if  think this is confusing and mushy you don't even have to solve it because even if you get past preclusion they still don't have enough on the underlying person jurisdiction and then finally there's an argument that they need jurisdictional discovery under the under this court's case law in this xilinx case if you have these continuing negotiations concerning perhaps setting up a business relationship that establishes the requisite we had this june makes the second one in this one again it's critical because you're beginning to talk about a business a is a long term business association so the argument is that that supports the minimum with regard well i will say on the jurisdictional discovery to the extent the supplier information we believe it's adequate but to the extent it's not i think that forms a basis for additional jurisdictional discovery