insignia has to show that any error was clear and obvious and not subject to reasonable debate and with that i would like to first address the issue of attorney's fees and whether been adequately presented in the found order the record is clear that that is certainly true that she held that the my argument is that it's clear that parties made that agreement and it is it is why did you need to make that agreement i don't think we actually did i think but ruth fifty four persian for the day i can't find it i still think it probably happens that working to your faith that it was not in the pretrial i'm sorry works in your favor on the roof before it was not in the pretrial when it says that all the parties clearly intended to pursue those claims that would've made it we would have made the agreement otherwise and again there's there's no prejudice and it my argument would be that the courts should go out of the way to enforce agreements and counsel made that are designed to streamline the trial rather partition for essentially a clerical error in leaving it out when there was no  exchange between can also confirming that agreement this case and respectfully it seems to me that the district court applied the wrong standard in determining whether this was an exceptional case the the district court's order denying their request for attorney's fees if you won't take it one more question back to this question of arg as argued who we were well you know  tially verbatim out of the previous federal circuit law interpret in the statutory language exceptional prior to acting fitness and the whole purpose of the octane fitness ruling was to reject that standard and adopt a lot less burdensome one and the standard that octane fitness and this court has now applied and in in the trademark it was not weight should remand i do not think that's necessary because i think the court could hold as a matter of law under the circumstances of this case that it is exceptional and the reason for that is predicated on the federal registration and if that factual underpinning was based on a frolic i argue that that's exception which is a matter of  let me also address the issue with regard to whether there was any evidence presented that mcentee individually sustain any damages break up damages and i just think that there's an inconsistency there and it's just a simple matter of distinguishing between the individual in the corporate  the court we are here seeking redress for fundamental errors that occurred at the trial that resulted in insignia marketing losing valuable trademark rights here i'd like to focus on two of those errors that really underpin all of the ultimate findings and rulings of the jury i think they're extremely significant constitute plain air first the settlement communications that were admitted by the trial court those necessarily had many statements that ultimately must have affected the jury deliberations there those are essentially the statements the jury would have had to rely on to find much of the fraud cancellation and nonuse findings that they did without this communications ultimately there would only been the statements of christine mcentee the principal of insign mostly about well these are statements of frustration indeed they were but in the context of the settlement attempts to resolve this without having to be here or tried how you approached inevitably that even if there are things in there that aren't necessarily strictly to settle i think that's why we have formally he is basically for lay people the talking back and forth we have to have so policy preserving that ability otherwise all these things will be let into the middle of the day there wasn't a woman and it wasn't will that so we have to be able to preserve that  had there been up to action the judge could have evaluated and made a determination as to what was the purpose and whether it was a good man or whether it was a settlement but without an objection that the judge's hands were tied to it to make that discretion of the trial court to hold there was a waiver there's a post quote one of them saying this is not an exceptional case but i think there is there is literally no authority saying that trademark office which is a claim that only affects