secret rights that were misappropriated in this case that was the jury's determination the district court's determination is that allied is not entitled to any relief for were post judgment acts of part of a single claim in hints ally claim for post judgment and should be barred we believe that should not be the law we believe to be what the law says your honor we don't believe the law h addressed this specific issue i understand but the law is that it's a single claim it is your right or there's two big categories either it's continuing claim analysis or single claim congress's single claim right or the legislature it does  believe that this specific circumstance has not been specifically addressed and we believe that it made an entailed a determination of the meaning of the word claim which we believe claim and that final judgment in essence we believe there's no real reason why the word claim has to end the final judgment was there someone else suggesting that well your honor we believe because it happens all the time that you have for instance tort claims where there's ongoing damage and you just get the money now and you may get money for future harm but you can't just reopen it when the future harm is greater than than what you sued for because it's just one tort i mean there's lots of places in the law where that's the case from saying it's not an anomaly that you have to get all your damages when you sue because it's just one claim your honor we don't believe that's the case here because it involves a i think a fundamental assumption that's impractical here and that's that allied could have asserted all of its claims the underlying action for future damages that happens all the time you know you either get an injunction or you get a prediction of future damages and and that's all you get it happens in tort cases all the time where where you sue you sue for an injury and then you get you know future you know all the future damages and then you could die the next day you still get all that money or you could suffer ten times as much injury and not get all that or you get a mean you get the value of what was appropriate the jury awarded that it was twenty three percent of fourteen million dollars there was no evidence as genesis contends that we offered evidence that our trade secrets should be purchased that they purchased a perpetual license that was not addressed in the first case it was a fixed part of the jury instruction it was part of the jury is how much it's worth that was one of the possibilities under the standard instruction but ally didn't offer any evidence of that genesis didn't offer any evidence of that was going to continue to disregard the jury's verdict number two that the court would not award injunctive relief if we prevail but number three that we somehow could have speculated into the future unlike the situation that your honor posed of an injury in their view future damages here in a misappropriation how worried to assume that they would continue to misappropriate be how many units would be misappropriated see how many years would be continue to misappropriate none of that could have been presented in genesis we believe it happens for instance in a conversion claim where property is converted and instead of getting the arm that was the cause of the tangible this if the statute says this is a single claim kind of cause of action misappropriation sounds sort of like conversion sounds like they took it now they've got it they need to pay for it they need to pay what it's worth or they need an injunction to keep it from being used they need to get whatever it is because you get one shot because it's just one claim we don't believe so your honor in a personal injury or conversion case your injury happens in your paying for the damages arising from that injury in a conversion the property is taken and you're how we don't know whether they would do that how are we don't know whether or not the number of units would be one unit would be five hundred what's the period there's answers to that one you can stop it by getting an injunction if you can get it we give one and a half percent of all future profits for this kind of activity this way it could have been done right you know saying that couldn't have been done conceptually in cases future damages can be predicted here i don't believe it could have been done how sure we could have said would it be done then that's of grounds for getting an injunction and we move for an injunction your honor we move fast and should have appealed maybe and maybe it was wrong but this that doesn't mean that it wasn't properly dealt with in the in the in the original case where your honor number one we did appeal that injunction ruling quite frankly we believe it was improper because ironically the same judge denied the injunction on the basis that we were fully compensated by the jury's award took away that award so number one we believe it's wrong but we don't have to say whether it was right or wrong or not we the current court because that case stood i mean what lots of times we're bound the wrong decisions of work or if you can't help it you're correct or you don't have to decide whether that was right or wrong the denial of that was right well regardless it's a different issue we did move for prospective relief to be out of the very situation we find ourselves in that was denied in right or wrong the denial of an injunction is not the denial of a right to a subsequent claim for damages different issues just with the idea that it's a single claim excuse me right and the fact that it was litigated before is consistent with the idea that it's a single claim you either get it or you don't try and get it again when you didn't get it before honor although we didn't claim it prior to this in we believe it's impractical to seek an injunction you did seek relief with respect to this arm that you're now seeking relief for yes your honor but that was  prospect of relief it was extraordinary it was subject to a clear and convincing standard of proof what we're now seeking is actual compensatory damages subject to a different standard in so regardless of that court ruling that does perhaps we were denied and perhaps properly denied prospected for leave injunctive relief that doesn't mean ally should be denied a right to a claim for damages is there a new additional sizes have been misappropriated that they have expanded that dealer network into other regions that we believe there have been additional unauthorized disclosures i e they are now advertising our shrink fit in disclosing it to the world those are new thefts your honor and we believe under this court's amalgamated decision those are new claims that are not barred by the thirteen thirty three sixty six one act in that regard your honor but we are not disregarding ohio we are requesting the crew were to fashion a rule for circumstance not contemplated that a final judgment in the single claim that concludes that claim all acts of misappropriation in this case for instance from the time of filing up to trial had to be in this one claim we couldn't split that cause of action but once a final judgment is issue that commences the time period for a new claim post judgment should constitute a new claim of the would not be the case you agree for something like suit for physical injury correct because the not be the case for consistent with the standard charge they were instructed that there were a variety of measures they could use it could be what a rude and prudent investor could have offered it could have been the savings in time in production in various other measures sure those were in the standard charge but there was absolutely no evidence offered is to the purchase of this trade secret as to  license the only off the only evidence we offered the only evidence we argued was the proof of unjust enrichment is that they sold fourteen million dollars of these offending units from zero six to zero nine in their own documents show the twenty three percent profit margin that was their unjust enrichment at no point did we argue damages going into the future nor could we because in a very detailed analysis there was an analysis of the specific number of units that were misappropriated that we discovered in discovery we had no idea and could not have speculated as to the number of units that would have been misappropriated in the future and had we done this in his genes recognizes which we believe they're speaking out of both sides of her mouth they say we should have presented this in the first claim but that claim would have been subject to the standard rule that damages him do we speculate if we would have tried the measure of damages that you presented consisted of than the sales that they had and then a profit margin correct they is that what the jury we believe so your honor there was no specific in iraq atory to the jury that was the evidence we presented in the determination by the jury was almost dead nuts with that amount twenty three percent to fourteen million they awarded approximately three million dollars which was the only evidence we presented and then when you asked for a court said well there's no reason to believe that the amount that you were given didn't include i value of it i think the court said two things number one that they don't believe there was a reparable harm even though ironically they recognize the will settle rule that trade secret misappropriation constitutes a reprobate farm and then too they claimed we were fully compensated by the past losses then in that same breath they took away those past losses from us that we were left with no compensation and no injunction but regardless of how they would have ruled intitled to an injunction we wouldn't be here but not entitled to an injunction as they ruled that's prospective relief that subject to clear and convincing evidence exceptional circumstances that's a different burden of proof a different claim and a different issue then damages compensatory damages as they occur we don't believe that ruling serves as a bar to the current claim ok are there any case that deal with what relief you have to pursue in this type of lawsuit another words are there any cases that say you do or you do not have to join in that suit your claim for the value of what was misappropriated that to state this differently that as a plaintiff you have a choice you could go in and see the unjust enrichment based on their profits you can go  in show proof of what a prudent buyer would have paid for the secret you can approach it another way but basically you make your choice and whatever your choices that's the end of it your honor we believe there are at least two decisions that have recognized this line in the scene and the propriety of coming back in a second suit claiming for post judgment acts of misappropriation in there was no contention that these should have been cleaned in the first case that this circuit six circuit decision amalgamated in the third circuit's decision in electoral miniatures in one of those the trustee case but yes the amalgamated versus in that case there was some there was an alleged failure to pay the percentage that they agreed to pay that not right or wrong i think that's wrong your honor in the underlying decision there was a royalty that was  issued one point six eight percent but that was not on the subsequently offending products and so when the when the claimant came back in pursuit to it did seek relief the court did hold that it was time barred but it equitably told  point is genesis contends did it allow that suit because of the prior prospective relief being granted that wasn't the graph i'm in of the court's decision and in fact it wasn't granted on these products that they claimed in the second  value to the defendants of the trade secrets resulting from the misappropriation to determine this value you may consider the value to the defendant of the secret at the time of the misappropriation such as what a reasonably prudent investor would have paid for the trade secret but that but they didn't introduce that i mean they all that was the issue in the first to purify my iran because the trial judge said you didn't present any evidence to support the unjust enrichment ward in this court said no there was enough under that instruction to justify the three million dollars right or wrong there is an adjudication by this court that they got the unjust enrichment award based on that jury instruction that it was proper and so my colleagues argument that somehow they were handcuffed and could not ever prove their future cases is simply wrong if you look at the ohio statute thirteen thirty three sixty two provides for an injunction thirteen thirty three sixty three talks about damages recoverable and as the court has pointed out when you go to trial you get to prove your past losses and here they were seeking lost profits and couldn't prove it in addition to that you can protect yourself in the future by getting a royalty or an injunction now what the trial court said this is their fourth bite of the apple members of the court they in the first case they sought the damages for basically the taking of their trade secret that is a property right and so it is a breach of a confidential relationship and it's valued now whether they've had enough evidence or it was just kind of the right evidence it's over it was decided they got the value of the assets then they went back into court and said they didn't get profit earned during that period of time at the end justified profit your honor it is the is the instructions said it's the value that we sieved because of the misappropriation it's not our profits that's  the evidence they used to justify their claim but conceptually what the misappropriation claim the unjust enrichment claim awards is the cost the value to us of having taken those secrets now that we've taken them we've paid the value and what the district court did in the first case which this court affirmed is said well wait a minute after you have recovered the value of the secrets it's inappropriate to give you some forward going additional damages or work to give you the royalty or to give you an injunction and this court affirmed that then they went back to the district c the appeal and then they said well ok we couldn't prove our profits we got the unjust enrichment damages you denied the injunction and you deny the royalties all of which is how the uniform trade secret act deals with these future losses and they said but we want supplemental relief we want you to reopen the case which is as the court has pointed out what happened in  case you know it's interesting if their theory is right there is never an end to trade secret litigation and that is not the structure that the ohio legislature has chosen under the uniform it would have been conceptually cleaner for you to make a leaner for us to think about it that way than to think about it in terms of you know it's six of one half dozen of the other your honor because the problem is under the trade secret act there is a point in time when the statute of limitations begins to run in the legislature's clear the cadence case for example from california and your cases say when you've got a uniform actually look at other cases and in amalgamated you looked at cadence and said this is a very thoughtful decision it lays it lays out this whole concept and one thing it says is one claim is one claim and it is not just one claim for statute of limitations purposes although that language appears in the statute of limitations caden says it's one claim for all purposes for any litigation purpose so that's collateral estoppel and if you accept their argument you will basically be eviscerating the statute which sets out this structure it says when you know you've had your trade secret taken the clock starts to tick and you can seek damages for that and if damages aren't going to be adequate you can seek an injunction or royalty there to statutory provisions sixty two and sixty three that say that they tried their damages claim they got the value of the secret they then went back to the district court after they got that jury award which might have been different if the jury had also been told now in addition you know they're asking for an injunction and they're asking for a royalty the jury may have found the value different but but that was never presented that's not our problem is that does the jury decide the injunction this you know the jury doesn't but the the damages award may have been different if it was in fact going to be limited or subject to the supplemental relief of an the the royalty issue they asked for a royalty in their supplemental relief to and that was denied ok but there's that does the word realty issue ever go to the jury believe that it does around her case again that's an equitable ruling that my overarching point is there is a remedy for the harm that they claim they can never be protected against they say if you let this happen then when they continue to make our product in the future we'll have no recourse absolutely wrong they have recourse in the structure of the uniform act you get damages and if damages aren't enough which is what they claim you get injunctive relief and royalty now this i i mean i understand your argument it's kind of an unsympathetic argument though because it means that if you win that you can just go and use this willy nilly well your honor we paid three million dollars for the privilege of using it and i don't wouldn't say it's will earned during that period that was the evidence they chose to put in to value it we said that's not good enough they said oh yes it is and they convinced this court on appeal to reverse the district court to set it aside well if they get the benefit of that argument if they get to say the proof may not wind up exactly but it's good enough then they certainly cannot come into court later and say well it wasn't really good enough it really was something else that so you're saying that the measure that they presented was not a legitimate damage strategy it was legitimate because this court said that it was this court said it's good enough under the you read the jury instruction and while the argument was it doesn't fit in there that was our argument they said well yes it does it is an adequate evidentiary basis for the elements of unjust enrichment and this court said yes it was if you give them that which you did in the west opinion then they cannot turn around and say well that wasn't really what we were recovering because they cashed the check they satisfied the judgment and now what they want to do is go beyond that in the case law simply does not allow to be making the same argument even if you look even if you'd won the last people it would be harder lizzie it wouldn't be less correct it would simply be more sympathy sympathetic so what so you're saying there is no way to recover for a new infringement well infringement isn't quite the term mariner it is use of the the trade secret and yes there is a way the trade secret access under one three three three point six three six two you can get a royalty if you think they're going to continue the misconduct or the the use of the misappropriated trade secret you can just you can ask for that relief which is what happened interests appropriate something else you can then sue on the something else yes and i want to make this point absolutely there is no claim whatsoever that there have been any other secrets that have been taken this claim against i e s all i e s did was by genesis there's no claim no new secrets there's no new secrets in that let me just go down that path so the royalty request comes at the end of the initial trial in this case it did well when is it supposed to  come i you know your honor it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case but when i go to trial i have to present all of my claims it is black letter law that i can't hold some claims back and say well bring that in the next was s a thing that the royalty request has to come in the first lawsuit it does are ok so now let's say you have a situation where the juries ruled in the plaintiff's favor it's after trial the plaintive goes to the court and says judge we either like an injunction because we're afraid they're going to keep doing that's right or a royalty exactly and the court says to the others are you going to keep doing this and they say no and the court says ok there's no proof that you need this well that is that is different in this case in this the right up till the court asked the other citing and keep doing it they say no you've got to describe precisely what this case is because they got the verdict then they went back to the trial judge and said oh no in addition we want royalty and  asking you so so the judge says you know they say they're not going to do it anymore i think that this injury is over and they violate and then they violate it and let's say that but that would be a ground for reopening the decision in the first case now i want to make this point very clear in trusts amalgamated industries versus tressa there were there was hair color and there was a judgment that said they get a reasonable royalty on the end for the misappropriated products later on they found out that the defendant was making some different products and the claim was they're subject to the royalty of the first the lawsuit and what this and somehow the plaintiff decided they would bring a second lawsuit and this court said it would only have been appropriate lawsuit to decide how the judgment in that case impacts this future conduct and in fact that's what the trial judge did in the case he reopened it they put a new caption on it they consolidated the two cases and put a new caption on it but if you read tressa carefully you'll see that the court this court goes out of its way to say if this were just a brand new lawsuit which this is it would be barred by the statute of limitations but it's not it is the first lawsuit reopened here there was a request in two thousand and thirteen june twenty fourth two thousand and thirteen there's an order denying the request to reopen and that's where they say they were misled by the judge the judge said go for a new lawsuit if you've got a new violations the the fact of the matter however is they never appealed the room the denial of reopening but isn't that sort of a discretionary matter with the judge whether to reopen the dead case or say i mean you you have a claim go start a new law that i don't want to reopen this case your honor in trust amalgamated this court said it was an error to reopen or to start a new case to not reopen it you had to continue with the reopened case and so if they've read that case they would have known that this court had laid down the path for them number the court i've got eleven seconds left let me simply say this they've been in court four times three times they have not gotten the very relief they're asking for here statutes of limitations have important policy  considerations perhaps ilk names but also in litigation if you grant them the relief they're asking you are saying to trade secret plaintiffs you can continue your claim for ever notwithstanding an amalgam aided beatrice quirked hild that the holding now proposed by genesis would result in an illogical inconsistent result were new acts of misappropriation would be barred plaintiffs who had been diligent would not have relief that court said this cannot be the right result we respectfully contend that applies here genesis contends that allied was fully compensated in the first case because then it's not unfair to dismiss this second case but an instruction is not proof sure the court instructed the jury on that standard jury charge for unjust enrichment it said you may consider this but what the decision needs to be based on is evidence there was no evidence of a license or perpetual license to go into the future or a lump sum payment there were a specific present of that evidence your honor respectfully yes we could but the plaintiff was not required to we're not required to grant them a perpetual license on our tool and want over we didn't do that in the post judgement proceedings we requested prospective relief in terms of stop them or give us or perpetual royalty and the court denied it now ever  orally yes we did your honor yes we did we appealed it to this court in the court room first and reinstated the judgment but it reaffirmed on all other bases the bottom line your honor is when genesis says this claim will never end it will end it would have had they honored the jury's verdict and stop misappropriating if there is a wrong there must be a remedy and their claim of one claim one bite means we should have guessed for instance in this case that two years after the award that i yes a company we didn't know would come in in a choir genesys knowingly acquire these trade secrets and then continue now to manufacture l x p if it but if the suit what if we agree with you and it goes back and you get compensated for the for the use of the misappropriated secrets for the period up to when you brought the lawsuit and let's say you get that or it is an appeal then they continue to use it can you go sue again  because what and then after you get those three years and that's over and it's not appealed can you then sue again after that yes but by the event but i'll say it's not a contents not providing for a continuous series of suits it is well it if allied presents a claim and it prevails and it's given the perspective really if the court doesn't grant us the perspective relief the court is saying you must come back and improve your actual damages if they continue to misappropriate all doesn't want to be in the situation they were put in the situation because the court despite the misappropriation of the trade secret said we're going to make you come back now there's a reason that this exceptional relief  is is subject to a higher standard that you're guessing into the future should we grant you this perspective relief it is subject to the standard of irreparable harm exceptional circumstances it wasn't granted but all of the cases recognize that if a court chooses in its discretion to not issue an injunction or perspective relief that's not a bar to the plaintiff coming back in for additional relief if the defendant continues to misappropriate so where are those that they were permitted to come back in a second claim i believe but both were relying your honor on more i could be mistaken there were relying on the more general proposition that the denial of an injunction doesn't constitute the denial of a claim for future damages and in some if i may conclude we believe in a situation here where allied has been diligent in every step in the process and it's been the hill that its trade secrets have been violated should genesis's be permitted and in fact given immunity to continue to misappropriate their product that would be an inequitable result and we believe either in terms of fashioning the law that the claim stops at final judgment or visa v the doctrine of equitable tolling is set forth in the mel committed you shouldn't put a plaintiff had a court on the basis of a statue limitation when it has been diligent at every step in the process