support the district court committed reversible error in finding that british telecom's actions against cable one did not constitute a real and immediate injury against us specifically also can be accused of indirect infringers by selling this equipment which complied with these industry standards that injury such injuries direct and significant they have an obligation as contributory fair that its customers get sued in a new direct fashion to be sure arest could participate in the suit it's now been filed but it should not have to it should be allowed to continue with it's first filed case based on t the cable companies operations now this is important every single assertion that british telecom makes is based on those two pieces of equipment the modem it it's true to the extent that when kibble run decided to add voice to its network which many companies do now for a complete solution from arabs in short the key components to the verse over the internet system at a level that's relevant to bts patents or what they did was they submitted to your soul to keep it one of the mobile and the termination system that is compliant with the industry standard that makes a switch that connects to the phone system what they call soft switch but the central material components are the worst aspect of cable one has ever since modems and terminations systems and that's very clear and the system made in supplied by and has just an obligation as it to its customers to protect its goods products these are not products that have not infringing uses these are products that are built in designed for one purpose and one purpose only to comply with the standards so people companies can put them in plug them in and earn money for the service for their customers now the sixty four dollar question in aras out of the case the honest answer is we don't know but the likely answer is they want to they have to believe it they'll have a much better damage award by asserting these patents against kibble companies that are in the billions equipment manufacturer to clara torrie judgment jurisdiction to put a stop to this this is why the statute was created to allow people who are really the targets of this to come in and defend their products so that the know the legal interest is clearly here because of the the economics by well all they're interfering with their free right to sell these products on convert by these infringement allegations that's what the declaratory judgment is set up for keep value bts licensing agent what we see here is that the allegation is actually that nortel not arris was the primary technology and services provider of the voice over internet  p services alleged in french and i'd like to point the court to two pages in the appendix when it's eighty one eighty five and they're on the right hand side that the presentation that was made ninety five of the presentation it stated in the box at the bottom that cable one has signed an agreement with north tel to provide a complete end to end v o i p solution incorporating work tel the record and show the court exactly how it is that iris does not infringe and i'd like to do that i'd like to show the court exactly how it is that arris is not implied lee a direct infringer a contributory  that is the position that is in this record your honor that's right b t w i don't know that we were asked to give them a covenant not to sue and i don't know what circumstances arose concerning that what i do know is that they rely exclusively on presentation that was made to cable one and if you look at the face that presentation you cannot imply an allegation against aras because every single one of the combinations that are alleged to infringe include  to begin with there is no evidence that the docs and taxes standards have to be used in the infringing way if the presentation that was provided specifies that only certain versions of docs to support a claim of infringement implying that certain versions can be chosen for use without any colorable infringement and there are a couple of examples of this in the record there is one at a to five six where it states that only the use of darts is one point one versions give rise to an infringement and then it eight to nine three it stayed in relation to one of the patents that we'll tell you clearly stated to be mandatory and then they go on to make the infringing argument based on that and then they send the bottom of the page that docsis one plato whacks the ability to conduct real time polling so there are certain docsis standards that are alleged to infringe and certain that are clearly not to allege infringe the other reason is that our us hasn't shown  must infringe to practice the standard many of the cited sections in the standards are pretty as are presented as optional there is eight to six so the statements are that the c m ts may use session there's no infringement why don't you just give them a couple of your own then it would be as you acknowledged a few moments ago an easy matter i don't and there is only there is no adverse well i don't know how they might be doing that but the point is that bt doesn't need to forfeit a potential future right and look into the future to spell x all they've done is gone against the cable conduct and then you would be holding that piece of paper up to us and saying this case is fruitless but you're not here you're asking us to judge newman points out deciding cases  yes the yes but the issue that was presented in the briefs was simply whether the presentation made an implied case of infringement and it does not because there is no underlying infringement against child yes see their parents do their products that's right at the end then their products are used by cable one in infringing manner and do not know they do infringe when they're used by cable the network infringes cable one puts together a network comprised of nortel and us components that network infringes is the real snow cisco license in the record it was well but what they are or what they did was a they have a large cross license where they basically cross license each to sell their components and their systems and let customers use them as they may but that implies nothing about whether the components have a business interest here and a potential concern as a result of that but under medical unit there were credit to show an adverse legal interest and they're trying to show it in one of two ways first they're trying to say that under the entire portfolios of the company they're not even looking at these patents individually which is the first step they need to make to even begin here to make the argument they want to make  broad cross license not granted these patents it's looking to clear the dust completely so it does give them a business concern it doesn't give them an adverse legal interest here product is licensed it implies that you thought that it infringes but that doesn't logically follow here because what happened was that there was a broad cross license involving all the patents of the company nobody was looking to well yes you're right i simply want to point out that they haven't made a standards based case here because there's no showing the standards are mandatory there bt we asked them for a licenses they refused if they granted us it covered it not to sue for our sales manufacture sales and use of our products to comply with this i would not be here but they refused to do that and that's the legal harm we do have a threat of suit ready that this century your honor perhaps but i don't know if i have the authority now to ta shouts representations here i appreciate you putting him down on that as freeing my client up front or liability but if true then there would be no jurisdiction but the statement has to be clear unequivocal british telecom would have to represent in this quote find that their representation here that use the sale and use of our quit as it complies with these standards does not infringe if that's show mentioned about optional features of the standards these companies to comply with the standard have to sell equipment that can perform all the options the cable companies