next case is number zero seven ten eighty seven don't have to prove that they would have won that would be the ultimate test right that's correct why isn't a conclusion by the district court that there's a substantial question that it is sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the case at the injunction is against not against continued infringement but against sending future warning letters to potential customers that's correct and quite unusual so injunction would present your client from talking to any customers the customer says you know what's going on i may buy from your competitor i'm going to cancel your order and  heard it would be very difficult and i was just really thinking that if it was before the district court that customers who had if i can use the word defected to the competitor  were canceling those orders i'm being told that they were running a running a certain risk of being involved purchasing your infringing products it does seem as if the trial judge was trying to balance various interests which is why i thought that the focus on in fact the likelihood of success on the merits was what it should turned on  one i can find where they really are talking about the object to be based with the m three with it presents a close question i think i think various of the other place if you look at pages and we've had that viewed by counsel and it infringes climbed one three five or whatever it is but that isn't what they said they said we found a prototype and we simple believe it infringes that one reading or interpretation happened to george had in mind well i think what the judge said was don't make vague and unfounded statement that says communicate information  information is properly permitted under all the k test and that is you've identified the vice you do the juden type analysis rely on competent counsel and then you can go out and say that the proof device infringes claims one three and five please stop that's what they did they said they got a prototype and the judge said what did but that the prototype looked like and and they couldn't answer they didn't produce it we don't even know to this day what the prototype was because they've never even shown the tools and so the judge said wait a minute how can you go out saying there isn't a bias never produced it to us never coming into the court to even show it was to show that your basis was and based on that the court found that there wasn't a good faith exercise there in sending that general thirty first letter because they didn't even produce it so that it could be even be examined by painting and so i don't believe that the courts or princeton is saying anything to customers in fact circumstances that should be given in deference by this court we believe the fourth should look at whether the proper standard was applied we believe it was inciting means on a case and others and then applying that in this case the court made  specific finding it went through what happened since our people were fired went through the deep suppose it trade secrets looked at the circumstances in which the documents were customers never mind we'll be kind you will indemnify you or whatever how do you harm us and have gone about our business but this is a nonspecific broad statement against dismissal with precious so the vagaries of the letters i think of what prompted the court to say don't communicate things like in the january thirty first letter which says