to try to determine whether as a contractual relationship between the parties and lot of arrangements between all kinds of parties in this litigation and i've seen parties all kinds suppose german law covers all that but that but but at any rate there's nothing about contractual relationships in terms except we had a deal with here and we have a deal there  just tell you that up to me is a problem i agree you're in and i think especially if you're having it the formula or whatever it is transferred around that surely requires some kind of contractual taras generally just so you don't know for what for example you don't know where they sold the formula or whether they kept the formula if they sold it and it got it back i'm talking about your client got it  they got that big contract for first lot of small contracts or just a purchase order what is it sell it my client said like all developed the ten sixty six to one resident and it is always possessed that resin i understand but that and that they sat right there was it that did g s a the global settlement agreement entered into in two thousand and ten both of the parties here were parties to that agreement there is i think a dispute subsidiary of an international are what there is far as i know they're entirely independent and they only have distribution are you telling us the record doesn't tell us any of these things i'm telling you that what i'm sure of is that the plaintiff in this case went from sell a call to anybody else would be when it when the formula was mailed to mr headstone well that the bay by tribe kind of agreement yet in that that agreement was made in sight and paragraph five of the global settlement agreement y i agree i agree with that i don't know where my nans kaput with respect to the misappropriation statute that there are two important points i'd like to make this morning first of all is that georgia wrote its misappropriation statute in a very specific way if you look at page twenty nine of our opening brief we outlined the statute and highlighted that each sub point of the statute requires that there either be an acquisition of a trade secret of another or some derivation of a trade secret of another by by the person that's accused in misappropriating and as we said multiple times below the statute just doesn't fit the facts of this case in every case it's a classic scenario for the particular provision that that acrylic on and realize for years what that was found in this court's precedent and in the allegations at least in penalty kick versus coca cola where wherever somebody with a trade secret gives it to coca either that or somebody voluntarily gave it to them or they got it through the global settlement agreement right if at all that how they got it i know that the go global settlement agreement says that it was sent to a parent had stad but but but the evidence in th case that came out at trial had not gone to the settlement agreement it just i speak from last of you throw it out it said some things you can't do and you're saying that individual was not related to acrylic on was sent by mail to him whatever to get your client had the formula and i go as i said the friend delivered it to somebody so that's a belmont under american law that would be a bailment and lesser some agreement on that  consequences were of the uncrushed and of the delivery zero he was able to do anything with that formula once he received it put aside the connection to acrylic on that gentleman was able to do anything he wished with that formula once you received it pursuant to the terms of the global settlement agreement he could have sold it on the open market he could get a card that he could have made the resident self if he had the capacity no i think it would've been prevented if he had done that it wouldn't be a trade secret anymore what forget not forget trade secret it's a piece of property the formula is a piece of property and it went somebody creates liability at the terms of liability this happened in germany yes and it's but our client continues to possess there's i think there's probably a lot to happen i'm not sure it's all your guys they'll record your claim still make that as far as we know still produce that they don't they they've i believe ceased to produce the resin as of twenty four i know we're deviating from what you want to talk to us about what we're trying to get a handle on just the underlying nucleus of facts that leads to all of the arguments that both sides are making here and i think some of us are having some trouble figuring all of that out in this complicated record would one of the things that popped into my head was whether or not the sending of the formula to this gentleman might have been akin to some sort of licensing  sort of analogizing to patent law where the patent owner and holder continues to have all rights but licenses the product or the intellectual property to someone else for a period of time for a fee and that without all of that being and that would be an agreement a written agreement you know there's there's no there's nothing like that i don't think there's any such a licensing agreement ok so on the trade secret then you you meant i thought it was relatively simple but once you got down to it your argument is under the georgia trade secrets law my client developed the formula owned the formula never gave up rights to the formula although it might have shared it with somebody else and whatever else may have happened my client can't be held liable for infringing the trade secrets of a product that it developed an that's essentially the argument right i would like one that you can't violate trade secret law with regard to your own secret is essentially your argument nice that's right that's right your honor that it what it is our trade secret it's always remained our trade secret and the statute is just simply ill fit for for what the allegations are and what your position is that whatever else may have happened whatever other theory of liability might have been asserted with regard to what happened trade secret could not have been it because it was your trade secret and never ceased to be your trade secret that's correct your honor the one thing i would i would say is that it's not taken it for you but to people own it if a bunch of people and i have common sense of a bunch of people not know what the secret is the right right and i do think that there's one distinction to be made with respect to patent law that in patent law it's different from a trade secret because you know everything is public about it right so you can actually sell and transfer that i was only entities yet there is a license agreement in place between the acrylic on entities that historically had developed and held the trade secret ri acrylic on usa the plaintiff in the class where is that in the record that is plaintiff's exhibit thirteen exclusive license agreement and in paragraph it well but in the trial record pages one twenty one through one twenty four is that he developed the idea of this resonant he went to silicone just to have them manufacture it in and from the outset silicon all acquired the formula under circumstances that gave rise to a duty to keep it secret in mr tech mr hague stead testifies in no uncertain terms that from the outset there was an understanding and agreement that it was exclusively acrylic khans resin and beyond that acrylic on zero and the formula ten sixty one as w that's the root of this  and where is that in writing that's it it's in the it's oral testimony evidence in the record right now it's confirmed as well throughout the relationship should first so just to confirm there are no it doesn't mean that accept the testimony but we should not hunt through this record for a document which tells out what mr hanks that testified to know beyond a set of letters confirming the understanding not in agreement but a set of letters it's exhibit plaintiff's exhibit twenty five twenty six and twenty seven where silla called repeatedly throughout th respectfully the trade secret rights do not have to derive from a written agreement the standard i understand up of what somebody does with something it is covered by the law correct when  use it for this purpose only exactly that has legal consequences exactly yes and that's what i'm looking for it is something that tells me that's it other than other than a swearing match it's not a swearing match because there's no buddy saying anything different all right what what what you're telling me that there is no testimony whatsoever and i know we have to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict but you're telling me that there is no testimony in the record whatsoever on scilla call side that it developed the formula there's no ten this testimony these cite to is from the summary judgment record just asking you whether or not not a testimony a trial not a trial that they developed the formula not a trial ok not at all nobody nobody said this formula is ours somebody in our company developed it nothing like that and that's the reality here is they did not call the witness right case that was never admitted into evidence they objected to it defendant's exhibit fifty and they miss characterize it they cite to declarations that were filed as part of the summary judgment record that never made it into the trial record stead's testimony confirmed by those historical letters and and also the testimony of the buys that acrylic congress bones the trade secret that's the bottom line here which was affirmed on appeal already in this case permanent injunction that's the law of the case here recognizes that global settlement agreements not only valid but in forcible and entertain the just actual question and i don't care no here's the issue with that judge silicone we can see it had the right to appeal the summary judgment order which permanent injunction is a final judge that's right the clip of appeal of the issue directly as part of the final permanent in john action that they did not all right and that's a fundamental waiver point but then there would have been vick and there would have been two final judgment in this case which goes against the notion of piecemeal appeals because then you would have had a final appeal as you say from the permanent injunction issued at summary judgment but you weren't satisfied just with that because you wanted monetary relief so that you had to go to trial and then there'd be a second appeal and you'd have all sorts of collateral estoppel issues i think i think first of all it was their strategic decision to appeal interlocutory they could've waited and there are collateral estoppel effects here based on the permanent permanent injunction the summary judgment order that was upheld on appeal it decides jurisdiction it decides for liddy of the global settlement agreement and it decides breach i may have spoke i may have spoken a little bit too loosely maybe not collateral estoppel but log six exactly that applies here that's our waiver argument on the jurisdiction issue they co jurisdiction directly to the extent it was necessarily a piece of the summary judgment order but they did not and they don't get two bites at the appellate at the appellate apple they never even address the summary judgment record on jurisdiction they focused only on the motion to dismiss but but i want to make sure we emphasize the global is there some but there are certainly there are certainly appellate issues whatever they may be and however limited they may be instruction issues things like that that's right absolutely but when they never not only was jurisdiction decided by virtue of their not appealing it in character not the summary judgment or that there was nothing in the brief but my jurisdiction  characterization but the terms of the global settlement agreement are very specific in paragraph five makes clear that silla call to the extent it still is going to manufacture this formula for acrylic con it's got a duty to keep it exclusive and secret hold it in trust and in confidence not only under the contract but as a trade secret but the t wo parties still do business no acrylic ons got its own manufacturing facility now where it uses and keeps and holds it owns the formula and what it would what were the breaches of the trade secrets law that it sold it to other absolutely people for years before the global settlement agreement was entered into and al therefore if it if the settlement agreement is really global the before doesn't really matter it does because stole our appropriated the trade secret blonde to the end of seat of your client well and that's what you've just said yet they've been doing that long before the before your client was ever correct ok that's why i ask questions agreed but that could practically relationships which are extremely important otherwise you just have people talk about those legal conclusions is they don't dispute it they're not disputed of course but beyond that it's factual statements about the relationship the relationship was i call agreed that it was going to be exclusive for acrylic con that's not necessary a legal conclusion that's an understanding about the relationship and that's what the global settlement agreement confirms and that's the representation that was breached which said which is at the core of this case that they had not previously used it for anybody else consistent with their obligation and the representations in the agreement and that was a false thank you you before you start mr kaplan says that there is no evidence presented by you at trial that contradicts mr hanks tad's testimony that he developed the formula and then worked with silicone all to develop it he says he slipped it on behalf of acrylic he says that all the evidence that you cite in your brief comes from the summary judgment record response to the complaint other parts of the record that predate that predate the trial and that the trial the evidence was one sided as to who came up with this formula and that was mr hanks that what's your response there would be a couple things so one is the global settlement is in agreement these are is in evidence and paragraph five of that as we've discussed already says that they're going to send the formula to add why would they need to do that if he developed the formula back in the one nine hundred seventy s it just doesn't make any sense so the why why would there need is the why was there a need to be a settlement agreement if there were no disputes about anything there there were obviously problems right or else there wouldn't have been an agreement to resolve those problems well where were deficient the agreement may have been so did anybody testify on behalf of silicon all at trial or did you obtain any adverse testimony at trial that somebody it's still a call developed a formula at trial actually some of the clearest evidence that sell a call because that was the possessor of the formula came from from relationship with a car and they sent it to them under some kind of terms they could possess and as a bailey with almost no contractual relationships but under the german log bailment some kind of responsibility formula absolutely and don don by said that it has to i was looking for the specific site but they said that she was asked what did you think you got in the global settlement agreement and she said she thought we got the right to exclusive rights to formula and a trade secret formula so if if she testified that you said it was done by who testified to this if she testified that she believed that they got the exclusive rights pursuant to the global settlement agreement what does that say about who developed  formula to begin with it doesn't say anything about it because they so there's no testimony contradicting mr has tags version of events which is he developed it and then he went to silicon all to develop it but what does that mean he establishes any chain of ownership of a really kinds ownership of this ten sixty one resin so they all we know it was recorded and what you're saying is that the play that the pla there's one last issue and i realize my time when i ship the last issue i beg you to let me hit on personal jurisdiction and there is the suggestion here that we somehow didn't have p o appeal from the summary judgment order but i think and document two forty two in the record is our