is it a fair thing the holding in that case that an object to be reasonable effort to litigate cannot be a sham the gargles of subjective intent in that is that a fair statement of what the supreme court held in that case question was not structured to tell the jury to differentiate between subjective perspective all that they versus the jury's perspective of good faith versus what any reasonable person would have thought it in that baseless plaintiff has the burden of proof and the jury concluded that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing that no reasonable person could have realistically expected to succeed the jury's findings contrary to what the appellate say were that there was no confusion it was two parts the jury found the pre litigation correspondence was not objectively baseless the jury was asked to answer part two only if the activity was objective rea baseless the jury didn't ignore it the jury actually put a slash through it they crossed it out and that was regarding whether a pelleas had subjective intent to interfere they didn't just give there's also no group if they published a disparaging false statement about the business and when they published the statement they knew the falsity statement or they acted acted with reckless disregard of whether the statement was false so there is nothing in there that decide decide whether or not the statement was false or was the other standard that was up to plaintiff that they wanted to include a different standard and we had an entire day of jury charge an entire day and  and with regard to there was a question asked the client during their portion of the case about the jury charge the jury charge not only do we have an entire day judge ellison gave them ample opportunity both before and after to do it and they tried to put something in well they knew we were on a plane back to houston i believe it was a sunday night and judge ellison made it clear no more that was enough because this case had been arduously tried there had been difficulties throughout including during opening arguments where there was almost a mistrial this is continued to be seeing throughout this that they continue to look for new ways to be confusing but there is no confusion this if you don't have any questions i'd like to just go back and it does seem odd to me that the opinion would apply even though the one who writes a let entire trial he saw that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing that it was objective we've baseless in this circuit only reckless recognizes one exception and that's the see an exception and so that's what was done in this case in this jury made it clear that there is no confusion they were twelve the they were they were unanimous with regard to number twelve and there to make sure there was no confusion they specifically slashed off the we can consider of the eleven the want to answer to see if if there was some confusion no people because it's a diverse of all it's not a verdict and nd of all it's a different standard one it's a standard that is subjective intent and that was our burden to show that the standard for number twelve is objective and that if the objective standard is that they believe that no reasonable person could assume that if you look at the facts of this case and why the jury did that this is what the jury heard just in some nations the construction talk to task catalog takes over twenty thousand man hours a year mr stack used and took the construction task catalog from his employer who was a license then somehow one man create recreated something that took gordon tens of thousands of hours in years to be and he did it in less than three months so what gordon did is it had a staffer view that data and found the striking similarities that alone shows that it was not objective lee baseless but there was more how can the plaintiffs claim that no reasonable person could conclude that there was no sham exception when rd parties in the industry who testified and the plaintiffs themselves had reason to believe there was a problem mr stack used what he referred to as a cross walk data tool to import his data mr stack testified that through clients and heads there were blocks of data that he could not rule out were imported from aristide's that's what he said mr powell mr stack and mr brown exchanged e mails that they were themselves concerned about all the identical lines of data between the two products and then mr stack similar the jury did not find the jury did find that there were issues with regard to the yes but the but that does not mean that there was that it was a checked of lead baseless it's a different standard there there was an objective basis to do it and there was no sham exception and the plaintiffs did not meet that burd had no way to prove fraud they identified no witnesses identified no experts they could not see testimony from the examiners gaurdian had two federal trademark registration the ownership of a mark constitutes prim evidence that the market south korean sources register on the market of principle register after five years of continuous use on the supplemental register complaints wanted to argue that defendants had no valid basis to believe they have a trademark rights where they had a valid it's not our burden it's that it is their burden to show fraud and work and so they didn't raise the issue of fraud until they got to summary judgment that was the st time that it came up and they at that point they still had said that they were not going to have any witnesses they were not going to have any any experts and they had not subpoenaed nor did they try to get any of the examiners to determine so if you're going to prove fraud one of the things you have to do is you're going to have to not sure if it can be to a sham exception i'm sure evidence of fraud is relevant to some things the problem here is that they had no way to show it they they had no they weren't having any witnesses they weren't having any experts they weren't bringing i of outweighed by the by the abuse and that's exactly what judge ellison did in judge ellison is permitted to make that call he he felt that there would be unfair prejudice and it would be misleading the jury because this was something that came up at the last minute it was something that they had they couldn't cite any evidence that they were going to bring in there were going to have a single witness that was going to be able to testify and that's and they chose during a case that had been going on for several years not to bring in the goods and services through continued use it submitted proof that it's a choir secondary meaning that proof was two decades in thousands of contract solicitations it turned eight figure annual revenue from it had a seven figure marketing and advertising budget it was well known within the construction industry and they regularly used in trade shows  we never got to produce at the trial if that's what you're asking about someone with regard to summary judgment happens we produced evidence that showed that that's what this was something that was unique to them and what we also did is we showed that this catalog was not just a catalogue of construction texts so what they're saying is what judge ellison did is he took the component parts of construction test catalog one word in the time and found that each of those words is generic that's not the right standard what he should have done is taken the compilation of words the phrase and determine whether or not that was to america but it wasn't in the u s p t o had determined that it was descriptive and they developed a secondary meaning and the reason was is because the construction task catalog is more than just a list of tasks in that i mean that it provided labor information it provided material information it provided geographic locations because each construction project in different locations would have different that one last point the st time parents made the argument that the mere act of mistakenly writing prints the ball rather than a supplemental which is something