to make any ongoing payment obligations that would have any impact on this case they order up a belief that has and we would say that that's an issue was the only patent that was at issue in that particular license agreement here that i don't see that apple has established that if it successfully invalidated this particular patent or either of these two that it would then not have to make its payments i'm trying to be careful i'm sorry the reason stuttering is you guys have like peppered the record with little weird things think applies because and to be clear by fewer we need like orders of magnitude fewer and many orders of magnitude fewer in fact and so here if you do have a license that maybe covers potentially let's just say hypothetically you have a license that covers an enormous number of patents this is a pure hypothetical so you have a license that covers tens of thousands of patents and you want to st ten surely have the right to bring to make under the license agreement which may hypothetically cover hundreds of thousands of patents so if that were the case why in the world would that confer injury in fact like metamucil when there is absolutely no  irrevocable license or permanent rights in it during the settlement and it to this day it continues to refuse to stipulate that it was not i'm sorry you you you are not paying attention my hypothetical in my hypothetical there let's say there are one hundred thousand patents in the licensing agreement and you have to pay in my hypothetical royalties in my hypothetical on the basis of all one hundred thousand dollars patents and that there's no evidence in my hypothetical record that would suggest that any one patent gives rise to the obligation to pay as opposed to all of them so why would you have injury in fact to continue to fight over one patent when out counsel the fact of your case and you had the obligation to establish standing you gave us no evidence of how any potential payments are being allocated among what could be any number of very large number specific monetary savings per patent that is being and that is being invalidated come of that terminations of the agreement whether i expect for a season or due to renegotiation the number of patents remaining alive will parties and that the settlement resolves only part of it and so we would look at the carve out as really having in what is the new good from what would be what was clearly a case of controversy that gave apple standing you do with injury in fact and stipulation doesn't say anything about whether you have standing to appeal to us so i get your honor what we would say to that point is the dispute was a li settlement agreement you are capable of negotiating standing for yourself or do you believe that is something that we as a court have to evaluate regardless of what the parties agree upon you know you and of course we cannot negotiate standing for ourselves so we are not you brought up about whether we had standing by anyone until very late in the proceedings and i think you were you were aware you were back in the back when you do have the settlement belief that aspects of apple's allegation that they outstanding st judge moore i think your question regarding the actual link between this case or these cases and these nothing about any products apple makes plans to make and as a result can say nothing about whether those products have any functionality or operational characteristics that year extension neo's thirty seven patent for example it by my calculation expires in nine years so when the declarations have to tell you that apple intends to make product believes you at least think falls within the claims of the thirty seven patents eight or ninety eight years from now in order to have any potential argument about a very speculative and future infringement wouldn't they have to not only refer to the thirty seven patent but refer with precision to products that it believes it will be making eight to nine years from now that could give rise to an infringement right there too i agree with apple's counsel that there are really two injuries that i don't think apple is incredibly clear about in their reply brief but the one i think you're rigid addressing now is the potential injury that sometime years from now there's going to be a lawsuit but most interesting about that is having read the actual complaint regarding the thirty seven patent i discovered that that  intend to make i phone four through seven to really be able to make the argument they want to make which is eight years from now you might sue them because they intend to make the exact same product you've already  mean if you look at these declarations the circulations work even for these appeals they photocopy declarations for different appeals on different patterns so we know that there's nothing in these declarations hits the requirement of the standing law that apple link the outcome of these appeals to some injured they simply can't and to address judge believe as judge lane is point about the question  it needed evidence in these cases and why did apple not put in any evidence and its opening brief if you look at the declarations it's simply implausible that apple thought it could argue just on the record a record that included t those other cases i didn't look myself to see at what stage they're in but are they raising the standing in the blue briefs in those other cases it depends on the case your honor where intel is we actually moved to dismiss because unlike the apple situations where it was in the record that the claims had been dismissed and so we felt you know apple knew it had to come up with evidence for standing the until cases are   ask you about whether we have the discretion to make it is because given the very very very large number of related cases and your acknowledgement that some of them raised the issue in the blue briefs some of them  did it really make sense for us to deem in this case it waived only to kick the can down the road i mean your honor i think it is important for the court to enforce the project's requirement that a point at that point based on our discretion in these particular appeals your honor i think i'd agree with you but i think there is a countervailing factor which is that the court set out this requirement and fudge an ex try to keep from having this voluminous briefing that you see in these sets of cases and i think there is a new you know about you to the court even from just kind of a pragmatic point of view of saying if we meant what we said in five gen x if you  qualcomm i see your point but i think for the court looking forward beyond these and you know this standing issue has come up a lot recently so i don't think this is the end of it what i think is important to move you off of off of this with despite not knowing what products apple may or may not have you know in that scenario we've got this potential a stall long far out and eighty x court said it is not a sufficient basis for a stand so we think estoppel does not provide a sufficient basis for stand pursuing the i p r so they were actually at that point during the i p r doing anything that could ever have even been accused of infringement they couldn't have been subject to they were just saying they might in the future want a life with their patents so that's why i phones today we all know they are not telling you they aren't but the declarations are completely silent about current products future products let alone any relationship between current and future products and the actual patents at issue so in terms of evidence even taking into account apple the d declarations apple put in and its reply if you look at that evidence you'll find it's exactly as lacking as the evidence pointed to in fy gen x and for the same reasons the a stop all by itself cannot provide the basis for stamping with regard to the other argument that apple makes i think yours did point out apple hasn't gotten anywhere near what madam you said it was required to have an injury based on a current agreement of course work referring here to the ongoing payment obligations of apple but if you actually look at you rather than try to create this broad bright line rule that apple wants of any licensee two hundred thousand patent portfolio with ongoing payment obligations can go after any of them you know madam ulan emphasized multiple times that the relief in the case was tried to actual change in circumstance so it won two hundred and twenty eight you know the petitioner had put in evidence  even if it's not what i thought it held is that right that would certainly be our position your honor i mean we can certainly discuss out but it does seem like the court has least for a couple of years made clear w and thirty seven but not the eight the cargo chemical tells us that a company was charged with infringement must remain concerned about the risk of similar charges if it develops and market similar products in the future and so that that would give rise to reasonable the making payment obligations relative to lots and lots of stuff and so what you haven't indicated i see nothing in any of these declarations that says you intend to continue making the same or similar products at all much less that you so i i believe he has not conceded that point and you introduced no evidence of it and you had the burd this license expires are you asking the court to take judicial notice of the fact that apple will still be selling its i phones that could potentially fall within the scope of the thirty seven patent six to eight years from now is that where we have to go to fi general assertion consistent with our president specifically the two g cases that requires a much more detailed connection between the patents and future products you're just saying we're going to keep making phones and watches and there are press for that haven't lined up how the patents could potentially be in french future products particularly ones significant way in the future in a dash changing technological space