to two questions one didn't you waive the psych you meant by agreement also in this law to be considered in the context of a reasonable welty and two are you saying that you only consider the will of the wolf on this inquiry only exist we pointed out to the district court that under seagate the court would need a finding of objectively facelessness with respect to the appeal in order to find willfulness going forward that analysis was never done and therefore to apply willfulness to the ongoing royalty was in our view an error as a matter of law with respect to your second question the court is will be different you've been found to infringe and therefore it's going to be willful infringement we look at the conduct post for act as to whether or not that will be willful i'm not sure why i see that a prerequisite to that is necessarily that in the previous marriage case you were found to willfully in french genista my question i think i do in in the a lot ok so this court found that it was improper to treble the ongoing royalty rate going forward simply upon finding that one there was a finding of validity into there was a finding of infringement if found that was an improper travelling in improper increase due to alleged willfulness that case is perfectly even if there was no willful infringement before hand in the mirror underlying the heir to a right in the future you've been found to unfriend a valid past you've got a judgment by this court that you're infringing a valid patent so we're talking about concepts at the infringement that an entirely different inquiry and not relevant to connected to whether or not there was prior willful to the extent that this court would find that the claims for example at issue here are either not infringed based on a claim construction rationale or invalid based on the part that's been submitted then the party's position going in would be reasonable and could have a reason why expectation of success or just well as was the case with the district court level and so hard to have lee says you have to look at willfulness at the time of the occurrence and so what you need to do is look at you can look at the changed circumstances of the parties but with respect to the willfulness issue you still need to look at as a matter of wall whether the conduct that you're looking at is and so having not made that decision there's no basis for applying the troubling or that increase the royalty rate going forward similarly with respect to the application of correct and it was accepted that there would be a continuing practice of the invention with an ongoing royalty is is it your argument that that negates will given that in me ask of will be right if the judge just said i mean then i don't know that you absolutely have to oppose the wealthy right even if you don't have an injunction if you go out tomorrow and he doesn't impose the will to write you go out tomorrow and you infringe the salad patent you're going to be very susceptible to willful damages for that infringement because you've already got the judgment of infringement against you of what's been concluded to be a valid but here where there was no finding of willfulness it was sustained by the district court then i don't believe that's the case and when you when you look at that if you think in terms of section two eighty four that's really there to provide that is actually willful infringement assuming the predicate analysis the legal determination of there is no reasonable expectation of ever prevailing yes i would agree licensing agent for hitachi for many years and purchased patents to pursue the final few holdouts in this licensing program which resulted in almost two hundred million dollars of royalties and a lot being the last one the problem is that as a non whatsoever it is obvious that the world changes and one of the things that changed when the jury verdict came back was that there could be no reasonable doubt in the minds of the defendants that they were taking an objective way high risk of being found to infringe a valid pat that's the standard now once you've got a jury verdict and and by the way there was a jury verdict your willfulness judge would overturn that right there is no it there's no there is a lot of this point but going forward the court has to determine what's the reasonable royalty rate provisions section two eighty four section twenty four it covers damages in patent cases and it says the damages should be a minimum of reasonable royalty up to three times the amount as termed by the by the court that applies for judgment  judgement and if the court were to determine that you could not enhance damages going forward you would be setting up a terrible precedent which would force parties in our position not to seek reasonable royalties ongoing realty orders and cases but the file new cases and do just what you suggested file a new lawsuit argue collateral estoppel and then seek trouble damage for will so this here's my problem i mean let's assume we get past the point we say that  therefore for the reasons you articulated will form us from the potential of up to triple damages is out there in the ether and it's a factor i still have some sort of difficulty with judd towards analysis here but going doing g have the same dilemma in the district court because there was no clear statement of the law on how to how to conduct ongoing royalty analyses it was clearly feasible out of the cases that some enhancement was was appropriate because and there's several cases discussing how the parties positions change but whether to consider that under georgia pacific and try to shoehorn it into number fifteen of georgia pacific where it didn't quite fit or whether to take a different approach and say let's do a negotiation today and then look at w to what would happen if we brought a second suit those were two different ways to think about it judge ward said that they actually came to the same place and i personally was very concerned about that issue and being standing here and being them exactly the key here your honor is that we had dissipated this problem we i was very concerned about making sure we had a legal framework for the analysis that was agreed to by the parties and that we could present the evidence and make the arguments in a legal framework that was a to we clearly laid out in the briefing what we had proposed to georgia pacific analysis and a read factor analysis and they agreed in their brief they wrote as of the second part of minuses to step analysis this argues that the post verdict rate should be an answer based on future willfulness while there is no dispute that a willfulness mahanthappa may be proper intellects does dispute the timing and the amount of any such a handsome they agreed to the procedure they agreed to the legal framework toward employees here with respect to separate from georgia pacific but that it should be a little different than that so how i think i think that there are a number of terms of the court have my ultimately set the the law here  and the way we did it in this case i do think was appropriate this is actually the way that what this is what would have happened if we filed in the case there would have been a ga pacific analysis and then a willfulness and i think on top of that there may be other things that the court ma direct district courts to consider in this circumstance because it's unusual in georgia pacific wasn't quite meant for this situation and read wasn't quite meant for the situation so we did the best that we could with the law as it was got the defendant to agree and then i factor sixteen for the ongoing royalty analysis for what it's about fifteen already cover it it could be argued to cover it and that's what the texas courts were doing they were saying that the change in the bargaining power is what's reflected but the weird thing is isn't that i mean this it seems like there's no perfect answer here because georgia pacific even not for prospects of reasonable loyalty for the past infringement makes you assume that the patent is soon right use the jury's instructed to assume the patents unfriended invalid and then what judge were did here is he looked at the georgia perfect specific factors to see what might have changed between the two thousand and five negotiation and the two thousand and eleven to go she a should see what would have been a negotiation between the parties on that day he actually carved out of his georgia pacific analysis the willfulness piece he said i'm going to consider fifteen but i'm not going to consider well from this i'm going to take that up later i don't think there would be any difference here if the court collapsed that inquiry into one is effectively what happened in the bar the bar case the bar decision this court approved a rate that was significantly higher than the jury rate base other way to do this we think that the way that was done here was perfectly appropriate and within judge ward's discretion and most importantly it was agreed to by defend fair reading of the record here including his analysis is that he didn't treble damages i think i would agree your honor that he did do the george specific analysis came up with a point seven five percent and they are living a life that well leaving aside the so that the wealthy and you've got to get to the one point five not fight to prep when the point five but by doubling what he's with the updated number a point seven five right that's correct and so from our perspective it should have been a point seven five issue in this case that a number of foreign defendants face in this country which is what to do about zir tax obligations when they have an obligation to withhold taxes for the war going to several that have been dispositive going to ask for a have come from one single source that's in a less work in taiwan that has the withholding obligation so to extent that those funds are going to be used to pay this then from a tax obligation standpoint we modest getting a windfall of that needs to be grossed up and then modest going back to taiwan and claiming a recovery of a portion of those taxes that unjustly or enrich is modest and unnecessarily punish is jim you know if you have no further argument on this case we will conclude this case take it under advisement and we will be