for this court to overturn that funny especially given the owner standard of review it must surmount but the jury never had a fair opportunity to consider the southern ninety six patent because it just records clean constructions fundamentally compromised the case that the cells are allowed to present to the germs let me understand exactly what you're arguing and that relates to the out general verdict rule yes i understand what that concept means  presupposes that to the extent that we would have erm any of the limitations you would have a good faith ability to argue from love that that those limitations are satisfied the court would have to send it back for a new trial because it's possible that the jury found that after self satisfied the two other women titian's two other terms even if construed by the district court me give you an example jury could not have found i mean really i think what their position is asking this court to do is to invade the province of the jury because we have a general finding of non infringement but but it is nevertheless quite possible that the jury agreed with us on to t three terms that simply disagreed with the third and if this court were to set aside one of those terms then i think you have to send it back because the standard under the teller facts capital cases this court has to be able to conclude that the jury necessary would have reached the same result and the jury in the court can't do that unless it were to find that there was no possible evidence on which the jury could have found and again looking at the evidence here there was substantial test with the whole destination address limitation sure and that is to i mean if if we if we agree with the district court on that claim construction is there any question at all  destination address and it's the machine key that actually tells you not only what the second computer is what you're trying to connect with but how to find that and that's that's a destination does now we think the district court's interpretation of that was wrong the the the claim says destination address it doesn't say network address so that literally the term is wrong and this and that that destroyed but if we if we agree with that just report was mad even if construed by the district court and there was overwhelming evidence presented by dr tiller x our expert that the destination address limitation was in that now the other claim term of another claim component that we've challenge is just a court step ordered requirement read brief or it argues that the server must communicate the second computer before the session key is generated now i think that that rigid step order requirement is problematic both because of the court's general rules you it showed that under the district court's rigid claimed order of requirement you had to run the bases you had to go to first the second to third and then who wears the expert argue that s s o's position was that the runner could go from home base to second base or then the third base and all around  can imagine and that demonstrative in a complex pattern case like this might resonate with the german and i think if the court agrees that the step order requirement was erroneous then i think that that tees up perfectly the general any one of this step that we think what accurately described and said there is no evidence that that that status is cracked right and i think if you could find it there was no evidence but i don't think you could fairly find that bec again dr keller expert testified that we didn't need the step or the requirement each of the steps at least under the doctrine of equivalence so i think if the court agrees that the step order itself wasn't imposed then you have to find th term is erroneous you'd have to i think you'd have to find prejudice against a king in a baseball diamond demonstrative which was shown to the jury you'd have to find prejudice and then the only question is the application of the general verdict will now on intercept and i think that there are two problems with the district court's claim construction one is the importation of the shim requirement which is not found in the claim language but the other is the importation of the diverting requirement the claim says intercepted and notably does not say diverting even though other claims do and i think if you look at the figure three in the pattern which is on page one of four of the attendant of the blue brief you can see that on the number two arrows forty and forty one if you go into the phone discussion of those arrows in the specification which is on page one thirteen lines forty seven to fifty six what you'll find is he arrow forty number forty which goes from the peer applications box down to the chin that's defined as intercepting which defense cation says hooking or intercept it which is perfectly consistent with s s l to interpretation of it to be receiving from one software module that which concerns well as i don't think it would i mean if it then the question would be whether or not we've met that shim apartment but again you get back to this problem that it's possible that situates argue the case and it's experts argue the case that to meet the intercepting term we had to show that diverting and shinned so it's possible that the jury said they haven't shown diverting even though they have shown that the wind sock which was an argument a trial for expert was actually a membership limitation and so that's it that's why i think under our claim constructions their central argument is that as long as this court can find that there is some evidence to support their inter the for the jury to reach an finding that the limitations were not met then the courthouse to reject their motion that's a j l standard it's not a new trial standard this court's new trial standard in console flex and rise and i'm quoting from thirteen twenty eight on page thirty twenty eight of toll flex the court can affirm only if there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict the court just can't do that on the record here because you have a general finding of non infringement and it's it's perfectly possible that the jury could have found that two of the claim terms were met that we had met a burden on them but but one of them was not it's the district court's claim construction we don't know which one that was it could have found that it could have found more helpful it as a self but i think that's why this case is teed up so nicely under the general verdict or news far as i can tell i think that the position that the general verdict rule would apply here which would seem to come very close to a situation an argument that this is a patent specific rule that this court hasn't adopted that board has applied the general having stated all the problems facing you place to see if your honor understand that i can't address everything in fifteen minutes or try to get right to the point first on the seven nine six patent in this case we have a thorough and well reasoned opinion from judge rewarding experience of destination addresses just being an identifier for a desired location is clearly wrong judge ward's construction is clearly correct the claims talks to typically in our limited to communications between computers on an open network so we're inherently talking about computer network communications that is as a person we're in the skilled new york in the patent would understand are a draft they have addresses they communicate between computers by address thing data that travels between the computers  because if you look at the rise in the services case you didn't even address whether one of the constructions was wrong because there was substantial evidence in the record to support and not infringement on the other claims instructions and clearly here we have more than substantial evidence to support the verdict we submit that no reasonable jury could find that a meeting id and a session id are a destination address as construed by the court which if you  find that know it let's say you re mandate the court's opinion say we don't remain and it's a waste of time that the jury's going to reach the same verdict we don't remember and you've even when you see there is an error in construction you look at the record to see whether the waste of time  basically apply the same all standards say no reasonable jury could say current but i'm right and so what i'm saying is on this record on this trial record no reasonable jury could conclude that the meeting id the session id or the machine name are the network address of a computer server there is no there is no evidence of the support that the cigar points to the fact that the judge at the end of the trial allowed the issue to go to the jury over are with the first in  ma and then we submitted a written j mark but the judge never actually ruled on the written jumala he just allowed it to go to the jury call it a pocket veto ever but we have no analysis from analysis from him of the evidence in the two well the evidence in the trial is in our briefs and recites how in fact we operate fundamentally differently from what's claimed our go to product never know the actual destination address of the computer they're trying to talk to because we're always talking through an intermediary serv all we do is send messages to the server we don't know that destination address of the second client computer so no reasonable jury could find that their expert dr kelly merely said oh it identifies the meeting the machine  identifies the computer he never said it is in fact a network address and it is not and i submit the record is very clear on that from that it flows it if there is no destination address if they can't win on destination address they can't win on the phrase quote intercepting a destination address regardless of how you interpret the word intercepting i agree that a shame is required i submit that judge ward was correct in or diverting so those things should be affirmed but if the thing they accuse of being a destination address is not a destination address we can't in french a matter how you do intercept thing and likewise the step order becomes irrelevant because  can't infringe a step order or a lack of a step or you just don't infringe so destination address we submit is the way through the we don't have to go into a lengthy discussion the general verdict will we have the facts we have the correct playing the destruction awarded there was a similar case which we cite in which the court said well maybe there should have been a prevailing partner but it was within the court's discretion to deny seize and in that case we've really more or less argued that it's within the court's scr here regardless of whether or not there should be a prevailing party because we actually won the bigger patent and they they won the little one but yes they did get some relief we also got really so i don't know if that answers your question  intercepting oh so with respect to the case law i wanted to just point again to variety in services and the ecolab case where this court was clear that the burden is on them to prove  they're only argued for prejudices to say oh well the judge should have adopted our construction and under our construction we're president of a never say that we have met our burden under ecolab of showing that there is not harmless and they don't try to do so your honor again here if this had been briefed we would have gone into it if they had tried to argue that but when soccer is clearly should win second shelf as shown in the patent figure to as being part of the prior art it's not a shim and it didn't function as a shim in our devices because as we say we're fundamentally different since we're always designed to connect to the server and communicate only with the server we never have to intercept anything all of our data flows down the stack exactly as it's supposed to without any intercepting any subverting it's designed to go to our server it goes to our server and so there is no basis for saying under intercepting in this record which we explain our facts in detail an introduction there's no basis for finding th but regardless of whether that's the case the issues were close enough and the evidence was disputed between experts about that clearly our defenses were reasonable recently judge she came up with a decision in april from  eight discloses the mutual up medication we point to it you have the documents in front of you you can look at them you can see that from the specification of the patent so the applications layer is defined as being what's above the t yes i believe i have it i'm not i don't know the answer the question but i believe it is still been over and in that it is a question reasonless is positive is a question of law what would a reason of personal what would a reasonable person have the side of the judge in his opinion never actually analyze that issue what is reasonable or not he didn't look at our evidence weigh it against their evidence he didn't do the analysis that you have done in your opinion it's so you're saying them directed verdict and that's because he recognized that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reach either conclusion and there's no reason for this court to wade in there and no basis to find that there was no evidence for the jury to reach a concrete solution possible evidence he analyzed the issues second to just the core properly concluded that this was not even a close call there are two issues on this first is whether we meant the encrypted file or limitation the whole point of the communications here is to encrypt and here the defense didn't carry the day but that's not the standard that's not the issue but i think it was whether the defense was reasonable you're right your honor but i think that just a court absolutely did look at that in pages ninety five to ninety fact the judge skill straps finding here after sitting through the whole trial considering that means that this wasn't even a close call the last thing i would say is i don't think the court needs to reach that issue here because we when even under the de novo standard because these  applied the wrong analysis in the it was over and over you lost your defenses are all reasonable there wasn't a balance analysis of the evidence on both sides and he was also persuaded heavily by the fact that after the trial even though the patent office had of rejected these claims for a while based on our art after the trial they were rejected finally by the patent office i mean the the claims survived but also this subjective willfulness fails in any way because of this huge gap between their proof that they had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that we were reckless but there was no evidence that anyone involved with the accused products actually knew of the patents or had any reason to investigate them  accurately reported in the breach and i urge the court to look at the record citations that have been cited and confirm that they actually say what they say they say in their briefs but with respect to encrypt files here this is a situation where the court's construction as explained in detail by judge ward through the distinction based on the claim language between encrypting packets and  cobbled together as part of as their evidence of a photo of a document here where there's a little padlock that says encryption will merely encrypting data is not encrypted files based on what the court itself said the claim construction means are witnesses testified mr murtha who was the engineer on the product that we encrypt at the packet level the file and our expert testified that we do not nee