necessary basis for a year for our court to have jurisdiction twelve ninety two provision on injunctions just so you have to establish for us to have jurisdiction that any junction was entered against you am i right in thinking that the only basis for your contention that there was an injunction against you is the order that you need court twelve thirty five from presidium scientific where you have a we just before we get into other areas that again other than the order of regarding firings is there anything else that satisfies that requirement in your view of  to bring new arguments to and with regard to even the injunction against adding new filings luck court permission we see where that has brought about a substantive problem in this case already the last page of the court's order and docket entry one forty five the footnote says there are ongoing proceedings against fountain with regard to the amount of money he owes as a result of the order of docket entry ninety and what happened there i had objections i wanted to make and that was documentary one sixty those objections were not allowed in the record that you order of rules one sixty one so i can't bring to you except as a new argument why i think that sixteen thousand dollars reward was incorrect and that's contrary to the usual rules of the court so yes there is that injunction and that injunction has had substantive the fact if we don't deal with it now will never be able to reverse the media procedural detriment rule fifteen doesn't apply here and the changes that were made to rule one in december of fifteen or in little this case don't apply either specifically with regard to the of the entry rules what constituted ba critical element of their case even precludes construction they have no evidence what the level of ordinary skill in the r s therefore my plan a judge in the claim constructions or hearing stand up and say no evidence no interrupt can i take you back to something better i think i heard you say but maybe i didn't i thought you said something about how you're inhibited from filing documents necessary for your appeal yes so  not at least that maybe subsequently to the particular order that you're challenging here enter an order saying that the priority or does not require you to seek leave prior to filing any documents and so a subsequent order says i hereby grant you blanket permission for this category six months after the order came down five months after my request for permission and five months after any the second issue comes up with the next appeal because according to knowledge of the last page which order we still have ongoing proceedings against our money judgment i can't bring that in except that it will forty six to you we still have other issues coming in now last thursday they filed a joint motion more in the bird so we want to read to act according to him clued the prosecution bar wait a minute i represent one of the other competitors and for patent prosecution i now have to come back into court and say whether that a retroactive prosecution bar i need in this case substantively before i want to be or not and now i have to go back and was given permission five months after the deadline first admissions restrictions go up that is effect of the throwing me out of court and that's where the injunction really has substance or procedural problems without through throwing you out of court with respect to this case or throwing you out of court with respect to the the sanctions matter against you in that particular instance threw me out of court with regard to this case right but you're not you're second in the order of docket entry one forty five the findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the actions taken by mr frum were clearly erroneous and obviously nice to have a more detailed order explain all of things that was done let's face it we're all busy and the best is the enemy of the good we can't change the damage it's been done but i believe those three sentences will cut off future damage to a large from doing something that you're ordinarily entitle to do and district court cases you are not ordinarily as a nonpartizan title file documents and so they bring in that in that terms this is not an injunction but if we look at the if it clearly prohibits you from doing something you are not that you would normally be entitled to do and things like restraining orders are definitely injunctions even though they may be saying you are to keep away from the following address which other people are free to go to do so you can't really mean it's quite that broad that was a more simplistic way of discussing and judge and that's why i went back to the specifics of what the what the courts limited to what's requested by party if a court sue a spontaneous orders you to do something outside the court room or order not to do something outside the court room the fact that the other party  didn't ask for it can well change its character as an injunction i would think that that the narrowest point he would have to make is that the subject of this directive this entirely  about the conduct of the proceedings in this court and of a quite familiar sort to namely don't file without leave i think that's  we've had docket entries one forty six one forty seven one fifty seven one sixty one sixty two and one and one seventy five have been since been filed by mr found since this alleged injunction came into play he raised the the protective order interest came up and he's been provided with leave to address that issue so i agree with my opposing counsel that this really is not an issue of an injunction but really more of an issue of the court just maintaining its docket and what i would suggest here others is that this appeal itself to me seems to be an example of sort of serial litigation we've dealt with appeal sixteen deaths twenty one fifty one of which this court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction mr fowler raised appeal seventeen dash to four six six previously and then withdrew it but as part of that appeal not only did he appeal a different sanctions order he also appealed and included within that this particular order so it to me it seems like this is an issue where we can address all of these issues when mr when the case below is resolved we can address all these issues together rather than deal with a piece  know thank you being raised down there for your answer it's also addressing your doc in the sense that i can't bring the next appeal to you without getting permission from the trial judge who has a track record of sitting on things for six months which means standing to address certain issues so therefore i should be entitled to file documents as a liberal eve party on those issues the relief that was asked for on those issues w a motion documentary one of seven by the other side they were asking for relief they were asking for injunctive relief they didn't get exactly the injunction they asked for they got something else but it was still relief that they were