evidence in that in that hearing was and from on this issue was decorations from both mr bast and the c e o of balsam saying they had no intent to cause judge or recusal nor did they anticipate that it would happen judge also offered you c p a chance to have an evidence your hearing on that point and they declined suggesting that intent wasn't necessary and judge also granite decline to class objective test a plot an objective test and granted their disqualification your judge or it's opinion it was not completely clear to me whether he was saying as to the work done in the front gate litigation that he thought he was legally precluded from whether a legal principle was would be correct if it said you can never look to the earlier litigation if you weren't a party which is what's a bit what he suggests do i have the independent basis to say even if i even if i ship joined judge oregon disagreeing with you on the merits the arguments just didn't don't meet the exceptional case then so i don't think i think we because one they weren't required to roll over and play dead and to know because they relied on an expert with a solid c v and our position is that in terms of doing a fees the case you just finished arguing whatever we conclude look let's suppose we buy something here to continue the assumption of your being prevailing that what we've got going is a fur can we take into account the our own let's call it struggles with a series of four or five issues ultimately and if we think yeah you're right but really it was there was a lot to debate here don't we th automatically say of course this there is no abuse of discretion and say that there's that this is not an exceptional case i don't think so you're i think that the district court is the finder of fact and he know this was an issue in a just the key am i believe where one court wanted to rely on fact finding that was done by its predecessor this court had  for fact finding and the nd judge didn't do the fact finding i think that that is the role of the district court the district court needed to give us some fact finding on the merits prong and there wasn't any and  amount to bad face and judge also who heard the ricky example do you get fees for that episode yes for that specific episode right and so what i'm saying is if the whole basis of  attorney's fees award were reversed by this court i hope that doesn't happen and it was sent back to the fact that we couldn't get the other fees that were asking for is a non prevailing party if those fees are tied to this conduct and i think the district court erred in not looking at the other conduct in the talent of what happened here then we could recover those fees even if outside of section two hundred and eighty five so the issue is is that you see the point part of you c p is a prevailing party in this case in the d j case and so the question isn't whether or not it's prevailing party it is the question is as the prevailing party what is the scope of the fees that it's entitled to and our position was that this court case law says that you are entitled to all fees that are related to the case or that and in our case we did all of the claims construction in the front gate case and as a result we were to summary judgment within seven weeks in the d j case and in so those those fees were paid by c p and they substantially aided in facilitating the d j action so if our prevailing party and were entitled to the fees that got us there those fall within that definition you judgment motion and while some couldn't prove that our trade infringed the patents big they came forward with no evidence so we prevailed in the d j action when we prevailed in the d j actually asked for our fees and our reading of this court case law and the statute as those fees should include the money that we spent to get the mark meant in order that allowed us to prevail any other questions from the court deport acted well within its discretion in denying the fees that they seek here it's every bit of that inquiry is an abuse of discretion standard and it was very familiar both with this litigation and the front gate case and it concluded that