may please to court the district court committed reversible error when it construed male peers claimed to broadly to allow the use of an external power source such like the highlights oil pum that the mere presence of an oil pump in it in a car engine precluded infringement that is not true as we cite in our brief in ours claim construction briefs or joint claim construction part at oral argument from the judge highly oweis has maintained that nokia's claims must be construed or hit the use of an external power source and that's the limitation that the district court refused to accept concluded that the factual stipulation of not infringement somehow cure the wrong claim construction you know how do we know what the jury considered with respect to the stipulation we don't know what they actually thought in the in the deliberation but what we do know is that with their pursuit of follow up court's instructions and the court's instructions in this case for how do you know because that's the this circuit that appellate courts looking at a jury decisions are presumed that jurors must follow the court instructions if we don't have that system of of review then anything is possible honor only if they had if the theory was presented a jury believe that why wouldn't that be sufficient it's not sufficient because it's the same breath now here said you can ignore the stipulation expert witness told the jury that you can find infringement or the pump is still operating that's what their own expert told the jury so in this case and we don't even have to get to jury confusion in this case so so the question is now we're going to whether they proved that opposite theory and they didn't because there's no acts that the one check valve is open and the pump check valve is closed at the same time but even if there was that decision was taken away from the jury because the claim construction doesn't preclude that the claims are broad enough to read on our non infringing hybrid mode and we'll never know because of that incorrect claim construction now full stop the only defense that their witness argued was that it doesn't disclose direct transfer in a closed line and on appeal no here argues that its claims contemplate that limitation how to put however the claims do not recites that limitation the specification does not use direct transfer in a closed mind at all in fact i submit the word direct instructed not at all your honor was not instructed or the claim support that that's a requirement that these claims are so narrow as to require direct transfer in a close like it's not there and that makes sense asked for such an instruction no and the reason they didn't ask for it is because danka came into the case after the claim construction process and what happened the full impact of this is over broad claim  danger was upon a district court and summary judgment and we put the issue to the court how can they argue that tankard is not invalidating and still argue for infringement is a claim to aren't that way because broadly construed they would read on our hybrid note which they don't want to do and that's how the stipulation can be so there was never a time for the court to consider it was never actually harder to her other than in the post you reclaim construction she said well there is enough expertise but the issue before this court is clearly just one of claim construction if you agree with me up here that these claims require direct transfer direct transfer into a clothesline then he and that's a column six lines ten to seventeen it says attaching to an external pressure and opening a lot agreeing with you we must agree that the jury did not consider the stipulation agrees that the decision away from the court and i just want to talk on that briefly before before i sit down i want to come back to that point the jury could have agreed with us that our pump worked all the time and disagreed with actually trying to introduce to show that the pump was close and there's only two documents in this case that talk about pumping the b one check valve and they work together when is it task on the valve on that yes you could physically make that happen may please the court morning your hon said explicitly that it doesn't anticipate because it doesn't show right plans for a close law and i believe he also testified that the structure is different as well each uses that central cavity which is always open to a pressure source the same thing  the entire purpose of of no i don't i don't necessarily that is melt your claim that is the difference between melky or and banker you but you never argued that that was a claim of yours it's not exactly sure if we did or did not your honor but that's that was certainly contemplated in the district courts claim construction when she construed the claim to read the to the claim to require not only just the chambers but the circuitry going from going directly from those to change the jury was not instructed the circuit and then the jury is obligated to follow the charges given they are literal churches given in new churches given didn't include a you to use direct transfer as a claim attention i think that the district court made it clear several times and again there was no evidence that would have allowed and nobody argued that you could have  infringement without that direct transfer that was the only evidence that was put on that list but that doesn't mean it's a time limitation and what it that the district court did not charge the jury right i don't believe the judge explicitly test of our instructor than that well certainly if that's the case then how can the expert add that as a claimant well he may not necessarily adding it as a claim limitation perceval other than that's the only way the thing works that's what's contemplated in the patent between the specification the drawings you can't look at that and say there's a way to transfer with the milk your method without that close lin that's the whole purpose of his patent that's what differ sim from knackered and that's certainly what the the u s patent and trademark office found on may thirty first twenty fifteen when they did a reading exam and they found once again that that's the claim construction the district court gave when she talked about having to use that that unit directional communication search you argue for that as an infrastructure i don't know that we necessarily argued for that as a claim construction but that was the result of her claim constructions i mean that's she construed the claims to require that unit directional that unit directional circuit which was a construction that you have to have a clothesline without that and struction without a unilateral chamber you don't have infringement that's what she'd instruct that was part of her claim constructions and what's implied from that construction is it has to be a transfer in a direct line and that's what  witness if the jurors open their book and look at the court's claim instruction and do not see the word direct transfer of them have every reason to ignore your opinion about direct transfer because it's not recorded claims correct question to your expert answer well i don't know that that's true i think i think they're going to have to look at the wording then figure out themselves what the wording means  necessary communication circuit between the two chambers and that's the clothesline because the reservoir in dankers reservoir system it's an open system right it's always open to the pump and you have drainage from one chamber to the center drainage from air and then filling from that chamber into the other earth from that pump into the other chamber whereas in our few don't have that central stop you have a direct transfer from chamber to chamber which is as again they recognize that the claim construction hearing highlights council melt your infected this closed loop system that allows us to move fluid from one chamber to the other and that's what he invented so you know that it's an argument they make here but the fact is between the court's claim constructions patent you can't read that patent and not require a clip in a transfer in a clothesline that says that that's not the issue the issue is whether you raise the issue which you didn't ask for this claim it's right and the issue of whether this trick or instruct the jury about right transfer over applause line in the district court did it it's too late now to be or you leave for a point construction that you didn't raise earlier and that the jury was instructed but i think or claim constructions again at forty three also agree that nowhere did the court state direct transfer in the clothesline is required by that structure they're asking you to look at that structure and say it looks like you could have a direct transfer in a clothes line therefore we should limit claims to direct transfer the clotheslines based on the corresponding structure but the law this court is very clear that under one twelve paragraph six you only incorporate the structure that's required to perform the function and equivalen that melters invention somehow is direct transfer in clothesline where the patent specification is silent about hosts they try to come as i mentioned before was this concept concept of cavitation perhaps if hydraulic leads so danker has a one to one ratio it has two high pressure chambers doesn't have a reservoir it has a junction like a g junction which you have a base pressure applied that's connected to basically a pressure tank similar to a water well system its oil kept under pressure so you have a constant pressure source at that just like milk you want a constant pressure point through a pump connection to it's identical to the milk here device and just having a little opening it's not a reservoir just a little opening to a low pressure system is is irrelevant to not yours invention an that's why they can't explain to you where in their claims you could read in direct transfer in the words what is the purpose of having that opening or what that does if you have a what hot water system at home you know you have