which suggests that it has something resembling cylindrical characteristics right well no a virtually identical term addressed in scope this court held an international rectifier that it did not that you would expect the inventors to use a term like generally or substantially if they meant to broaden the term and here we have a stronger argument then a national one is the the the the prophetic veil before it's implanted figure nine is after it's implanted you know it gets it gets reduced and expanded it goes through all kinds of permutations but if you look at the claim language it corrected entity which is going to be twisting every time i move my body but we're talking about what's claimed here you know that in the knocking about geometrical recission here but it isn't but it's an infringement analysis where you can take into account substantially you want that to be constant along on just to non x say show me any place in the specification uses those language that language well it doesn't use that language but just as a sixty degrees because we all learned in high school geometry what a cylinder is or what a circle is but even if the court doesn't agree i think we need to look at the district court's construction of cylindrical which was you know the court said without any reasoning that  means any shape relating to a cylinder and i would submit that it's hard to see how that could be right because how would the public or a jury know the need some balance of relating to the district court didn't recalled a portion of it appears to be from erie or other yeah but see that's the problem and the other problem is we put this in context and it's the human body which is nothing is perfectly geometric in the human body never we're talking about a cylindrical device before it's implanted in the body it gets collapsed selecting fit into an artery and then expands and when it's implanted it will art would recognize when you're dealing with devices planned a hole in the body cylindrical is not a three hundred sixty degree circle i was just referring to claim construction on this issue but that's not true at all we have no four off with the plain meaning of projecting our appeal is based on lack of evidence if you look at the core valve device it doesn't have the projecting posts that are depicted in all the valve or why columns extending to the top of the device how they could support komisar all that of attachment points in the middle of the device in other words these are both support and so you would expect at least a ru columns going all the way up were mistral supports but he did not explain that off how they support the two mr all points the veiled attachment points and were not always the basic explanation there's really no another of evidence here is just generally parallel to the counter that obvious problem generally that's generally is the word generally is the word which means it does your you found was generally how do we get around that because the only evidence that it was generally paralleled despite the problem of thirty degrees which appears to be far more than general it can be came with this fork analogy but the problem was that it depended on the committal supports going all the way up to the top of the st again without any suggestion as to how those supports at the top support the points in the middle and so again it's just some bear analogy without support which we submit is insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict of turkey the obstacle specific to human implantation you know they did those pig experiments but they were done surgically through the abdomen with a much larger prototype but the difficulty with humans is that you have to shrink that  invention which of these projections and let me just mention that there's a distance but it's pretty easy to see that you can extend the entire device up to encompass the projections isn't the jury seems to think that's what happened well though there was no evidence so that projection becomes part of the device that no there was no evidence of that and i would just point out that if the patent was initially rejected by the patent office for being obvious you don't have any more time let's do this let's let's give you a couple minutes of rebuttal time back and would you give mr nathan an additional two minutes so that we can keep time even certainly  it reads on the device when it's compressed in a catheter in a recent device when it's put in the body they accepted that ruling they have not challenged it here on the peel they just ignored so the fact they claim the claim dividing line between relating to a seller and not relating to the son or is a question of fact for the jury and in this case the jury found that it was relating to this film and what the judge did because frankly corbell that my math is right axis and he went on this is the instruction to the jury to put it another way the term cylindrical is use in the past in this case does not require the presence of a chamitoff cylinder now it's important to keep in mind i understand this word chalice and i've heard enough for years the point is that the cylindrical some work means he's holding a part of their device it's what dr bullard through as the blue box that's all it if it's not the upper part it's not the part of the slopes it's the bottom part and dr pinchas who is their engineering expert testified at the trial and they did that and here's the question the answer support means incorporates device just like dr buller had no trouble it's the blue box and that's it and the fact is above the blue box it then slopes out and slopes in and so on is a realm one thing is lost in this projecting komisar supports now i'd like to say something about this thirty degree business there's no doubt that core bounds the vice valve itself attaches to the chalice part of i'm going to call it that at a point which is on the thirty degree slope but that's not how the claim is built the claim is constructed that the geometry is that that can mistral supports a general there are the claim doesn't say that you measure the now we've heard from her against morning that there is structure above the points of attachment in the core of l divides well in anderson figure two there is structure above the points of attachment in his is so it can conform to the channel and of course the channel has got all kinds of different shapes different people are built differently and so on and disease enters into it as well we have figure nine and fred perhaps most important fact that the the devices got to be greater than the channel which is built placed let me say something about this question of the two separate parts from the index in case my time for limited yes indeed and back and because in this court said this you cannot have the same part the form two elements will hear you have two different parts in corvallis device just like you have two different parts in the anderson you have the feeling in two parts slender support means and the projecting can this will support the fact that they are hooked together doesn't mean there are not they're experts at trial said that was a unitary structure just like corvallis is a unitary structure they say you can't overlap well if you look at figure one in figure two the missile supports and the central perk which is  and there's no secret about this we had dr go to get them from standing go to the elmo and actually construct these drawings for the jury and what is here is an actual picture of the corbell device sitting on a table free in air before  inventors with their own hands and a fifty dollar budget did this work in pictures no doubt about that there were videos displayed at the trial it worked they disclosed the pig experiments in their in pigs is uncontested that pigs are used because the anatomy is closest to a human games and so they say well look pigs are great but the device was too this wasn't enabled in human answer is that the parent says that a corresponding formal account parsed funding form can be used for humans that's the word the pat points out and that means that same magic two parts the san francisco i made a pot visit to hard court and said show me what you've done let me see your prototypes and so on and they showed him nothing and he testified about that so the last three years while they were trying to find somebody then they lost seven years why harcourt and tampa search for had the the right and they did nothing and then what happened p v t came along at a startup company their engineers and within two years they went from scratch to putting it in a human being called first in man and his industry in two years and most important dr sigyn who was the president and founder of corba said i had no idea how to do this and then he got the five five to pat and he marched off to germany to a stent manufacturing call adhesive says on the record and said build this and they built it and they put it in a human being it worked  have a completely circular argument they said to the judge don't enjoin us because we can move to mexico and the judge accepted that and three o they factors all talked about the fact that they could move to mexico and twenty eight jail that was filed in this case by corbell they had met the judge relied heavily on the fact that they could move to mexico now since they were in joint they say well we didn't move mexico because we were in a joint so don't join us because we can move and then we didn't move because we can't we were enjoying it's completely circulars catch twenty two and the lesson of the cases is if you're a big medical company or a big multinational company all you have to do to be an injunction and get a compulsory license is to say i can move offshore then there's no injunction and you stay put and we now know for the first time in black and white in the yellow briefs on page forty six that they have not moved they are still in irvine they moved there because they needed to be near these medical device engineers they needed that special facility that was available to them the cleaning and all that and they needed this skill workforce that's why they came from france to to has been under the gore case that the station of infringement moving to mexico is not a reason not to deny an injunction which is worse here they never moved and this is going on  alternative grounds on that point and there's a lot of evidence in the record that there would be a serious public health issue because edwards cannot fill all the the needs that the that the court of the voice is currently serving and so on that basis we think there's an unusually compelling public interest argument but on the irreparable harm point the judge said that they offer only evidence of past time no compelling evidence of a future harm and the judge found that that injunction the which is going to mount to hundreds of millions of dollars of dollars and they can continue to seek lost profits damages or oil betting is that a separate suit after the accounting would be a separate suit or they could negotiate a license or  in ordering a just an injunction under the circumstances but you don't order the injunction don't you have to provide for the ongoing infringement you see now well  language it says is the closest prior art but if you read the reference in the in this anderson specter that we're talking about the fact that it was an elastic will stand and so is partly collapsible but not fully collapsible because it had to be planted surgery now would be an awfully wasn't just that that and that the people at stanford who were doctors from stanford university who form stanford stanford surgical it wasn't that they were lazy or unmotivated they just couldn't solve them although nobody has been able to solve the problem with projecting  made you wish to speak further mr nathan with none beyond all the times and reserve you had reserved and then we went beyond that let's give mr nathan a minute to protective order i was not smart enough to be able to figure out that they would drop all their prior defenses the night before trial and one of the patent office and now they say that my colleagues and i who have spent years on this is long the doctor people are looking at this prior i cannot participate we think it was an abuse of distraction not to reopen the protective order there is a clause in their paragraph twenty nine that allows that to happen to take into account the fact that this is just not frankly fair