involves two ships out of p r the first is whether the district court erred in dismissing the case for a lack of specific personal interest in the second issue is whether the district for abused its discretion want but is whether the series of cases starting with acro genetic implant systems breckenridge and have a sense really help you or whether the distinguishable in a way that helps your opponent yes your honor i agree that is the key breckenridge they said that license agreement should be close to him and so the question of what why should that license agreement because this court said that it must be examined for whether to bring suit against infringers or a provision in the contract that allows the licensee to bring suit and neither of those is present in this case except to the extent that there's reasonableness requirement that goes along with the decision by the patent did not bring suit for any reasonable reason so that you know when you look at the language of breckenridge breckenridge talks about if the license agreement requires the defendant license or and grants the licensee the right to litigate infringement that's not present here as far as i can see so why is that that case at least distinguishable on that ground well actually i believe in was in the license it it is that the licensee could bring the action subject to the duty of good faith of the of the patentee to cooperate with the license which is necessary in any infringement that is to say it can't and the only thing it has is the reasonable to squat to hang its hat on is that right well i would interpret a point to you as including the right to bring down the plane in the context of that based on the four global paths i would argue that the eight point two is broad enough to encompass that but you also have ten point one a point it's it says with ford's prior written consent correct distinctions that were drawn by that case where they looked at for example the burden on pet mitigated by its status as a non practicing pat how this court deals with partial jurisdiction once the two minimum contacts are satisfied then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a compelling case that it's not fair and reasonable and in the pabst case you only had again i would argue the the xilinx case supports the argument that we're arguing for here you're just looking for an additional factor because the only additional factor that related to the enforcement and defense of the particular patents in xilinx was the trip and the status as an ob practicing entity did not directly relate to the patents ensued and also the prior suits that were final those were filed on different paths and they did not specifically rate relate to that to the patents and since so you only have one additional factor in xilinx you only had the trip into the state and that's what we're saying you're just looking for one additional factor you should not look at you know the  tests at the district court try to use it which we believe is error is overall you're looking for overall business integration and coordination that is too much you're just looking for one additional factor which satisfies a minimum contacts triggers the burden on the defendant then to come forward with a compelling case which they have not done in this case and i would go back to we also let's see if we can get an answer first and then you can explain ok i raised him in the response i raised the licensing agreement the issue of the licensing agreement in the problem as it was  so so again in this case we do have the continuing obligations in the licensing agreement we have the must not unreasonably refuse which we believe brings it within the context of breckenridge we have the inde obligation brings it within the context of genetic implants and so we believe the court you know should just be looking for an additional factor rather then rather than this overall relationship so in addition to the xilinx case which we've talked about i would also point out that it would act like fail to see how it supports your partner i said i fail to see how it supports you you're going to have to convince me more don't say we've talked about it because you're not there yet but with that let me say that to my direct point that you're just looking for an additional factor and of course what we're trying to do  satisfy due process and burger king we're looking for something that is not to add an additional factor was seven times they utilize the federal courts in california now you can say that's on different patterns that's court states the issue in this case is whether it's fair and reasonable when you look at the fair and reasonable this problem problem you can look at all the other factors that are not just directly related to the patent suit you can look at all the other factors ok to to enforce in the license agreement and did not focus on the overall relationship between the parties it just very briefly and this is sort of off point and i realize that but just this is a case in which you have not your your go into the choice of four and there are a lot of issues in this case there are other companion cases that are pending that are focusing in on different areas of law but ultimately what this case is about is addressing whether we pair parks for autumn for vehicles should be covered by this i pads and whether design patents on those parts of valid and forcible and whether my clients have willfully infringed these patents so obviously and again and side of the reasonable miss factors the state of the state of texas probably purchases more of these ford f one often see where it says you know what we have a lot of prior case law that points in different directions so let's try to crystallize it let's try to break it down and come up with some sort of standards of law that are going to help cases in the future  infringement so but there is a limitation on who are global it's complete discretion whether to sue him up it's the reasonableness limitation to me that seems to be a hook that you need to explain why that doesn't make the two parties effectively partners in the enterprise and deciding whether to ship sure so i think there's two things one is that regular says that both parties have to have the right to a certain patent infringement so we say ok for you doesn't have licensee the authority to sue with an agreement to consent then that's it that's the equivalent of the patent deal and the licensee both having the right to sue you wouldn't you wouldn't disagree with that i don't think absolute sorry for global has the absolute discretion except that it shall not reasonably unreasonably refuse so in other words it's a reason giving require that it says that for global if you don't want to bring suit on these patents that's fine you just enforcement activities in the eastern district or northern district of texas which is my friend pointed out has certain attributes attached to it that way since source which by the way for the global work doesn't think it's worth spending the money at absolutely i mean there are any number of commercial reasons we don't want to enforce our patents there and therefore under afro and under add the senate where you look for the four smith related obligations in the form not just in gross but in the form section eight point one gives for local all for global doesn't have any control over that or power over that so this is a more arm's length relationship and we see in all the other cases so you know whether you attach the label of exclusive to it it you know what breckenridge says if you look closely at the language of addressed that in her decision on reconsideration she said look you could have brought ten point one to me sooner you didn't do it and i'm not going to consider it at this point and that is perfectly within her discretion and that's part of what happened in its case is that every time an argument was new theories of personal jurisdiction over for global because that gets to i think the point we were talking about in closing which is these claims could be brought in the eastern district of michigan for global agrees that is subject to general jurisdiction there and they can be resolved as part of the other you know can they bring their claim the united states it's where they bring their claim in the united states and they have already formed the eastern district of michigan and there is no reason to expand this court cases past what is already said to allow the claim that has a ready and i think the the court of address whether this license agreement was exclusive this license agreement is exclusive as far as my client is concerned because my client attempted to get a when you have an exclusive license agreement that has been entered into by somebody who is doing business in the form that is excluding everybody else that is excluded my client and that is really where one of the terms of this license agreement for a global was not allowed contractually to enter into not into enter into an agreement but it was allowed to decide not to and for him not to sue for  indicated in the brief and i think that's the same relative standard that that the license will is subject to in the breckenridge case so so the key is when you look at the exclusive and the whole purpose of an exclusive license agreement is to exclude other people and that's why you do have the provisions in the agreement on in force that because without these clauses then of course the exclusive license agreement is meaningful of course we also have the indemnification provision which was an important provision in the genetic implant case and that's further evidence of a continuing obligation  between the license or and the licensee that we believe falls within this line of cases on the motions for leave yes this is ben a very procedurally complex case we certainly have our side of the story on everything that's happened which i don't think is particularly relevant to this case take a long time to explain but the matter s in the amended pleading we believe also go to enforcement and defense and would support the ruling particularly in the signings case for personal jurisdiction