qualifications i'm able to say this because g m has worked as a lot of my fingers for the last year during that time she's exhibit tremendous technical skills diligence diligent attention to the default as i recall was on the and they on the entire case but the court had declined to set aside the summary judgment of was that the existing judgment if affirmed the case would be over if the existing judgment was reversed and the case was reviewed and the case brief shovel i apologize for not having a much more thorough dig on this legal issue i understand the concern and i'm answering the best i can without having any notice that it was going to be read as if not i'm not complaining to the court that it just wasn't raised in anybody's briefing shelves so i don't have an alternative argument my belief include perhaps a reconsideration of whether or not the the court's prior ruling on summary judgment ought to be revised in some way you know it added as part of the proceedings on remans and we felt like that was in place the rematch of this court's decisions and say it was  belief is and was that if we go back and the question of the rules thirty seven sanctions was back on the table the broad discretion of the trial court would include examining it it was clear that this court based on the actual findings made had fed cern's about the fa of sanction therefore it was alright just a patient that we would be back in court and the district court would be free to say ok i'm going to do something l one we said in that opinion the district court granted partial summary judgment to america here on two thousand and determining that the defendant should prevail on all claims other than  formally off the table they were never appealed i never fully resolved i understand the concern and of our understanding was especially given the fact that the summary judgment remand and it would reconsider sanction it would remove little fault and then the entire page that the court would have discretion to do to deal with the case a new was mine was my understanding if i am in the wrong about no basis whatsoever for such and understand the problem i mean this seems to me to come close to make the frivolous or trial court real the infringement case and allow us to go forward to prove as best we can given the misconduct of the defense  where we intended to go with the q one and the court did not allow anything except the one that admitted infringing and said can we do more discovery the week on remand what we did do is we first asked to file a brief to explain what we thought the the appropriate remedy agreement was the trial new motion seeking what we thought were the appropriate sanctions given this evidence that had not been previously considered up to that point that the district court just sa trial court would i guess i'm looking for something in the jail what's in the jail and i look at that shows me what you saw in the district court below beyond one hundred eighty seven thousand dollars it would be in the  court set aside the the summary judgment that the court re open the infringement claim so that we could prove it as best we could and that is where did they all that  let me let you find were here last time to discuss and easily be on the fly you'll be able to show me where you get some motions of terminating fan actions you specifically asked to reopen your infringement claim so you could try to get more discovery to see whether there were additional damages it seems to me in this motion your accepting the fifty four thousand is the correct measure well  i don't necessarily disagree with that i was mistaken when i my i remember that we were looking you know to reopen the case and i had frankly forgotten  june thirteenth two thousand and eight letter they gave your client notice that the shipment was already on the water server telling me it wasn't shipped until june twenty third and that points out i think a central place where as i've said in the r answer of course there is nothing in your record to show when my client received that letter neither of us cites any place i'm not asking look you said on page sixteen exactly this shipment was already on the water  at the time i did why did you say that that's not what you said i said at the time my client received that notice from the letter that was written on june thirteenth the shipment was on the water that is different from the shipment being on the water on june thirteenth that statement is not shipment was already on the water at the time of the june thirteenth two thousand and eight letter that is in artful drafting by me i should have said at the time of my client's receipt of the letter and that is bad draft on my part because at the time of the letter the ship nt was not on the water the day was and the day of signed it was off the record is clear in that regard what i intended to say was at the time my client learned of that from the letter that was issued on june thirteenth the ship was on the water she could do nothing other than do what she did which is receive it can't turn the boat around and put it in a warehouse because she knows that further use of that in commerce is further infringement it's already in france but when it hits the shores which is why those brushes sat in her warehouse until the court ordered their donation you i'd like to address the question of exemplary damages and attorney fees arising out of the trial and i would point out what is on contradicted on the record the party stipulated that the finding of damages from the default damage hearing where the trial court heard evidence from experts the fifty four thousand dollars would be the measure of damage a trial defendant did not contest that there were two infringing importations want to which was sold to new york completed to receive the money one of which we just discussed sat in the warehouse defendant did not contest that each of those were infringement she did not oppose any of that further defendant herself prior to this trial had moved for the imposition of a permanent injunction against defendant plaintiffs believe defendant continued and perhaps believe she continues today to continue to infringe the patent for that reason to give plaintiffs as much surety as the court can she said please enjoy me i won't do it again the trial court saw her testify and listen to her testifying this is appendix one zero two one and the trial court specifically found that her testimony was credible that is the record that brings you here today i don't see how that can be squared with the case is telling you that exemplary damages and attorney fees shift happened in agree just and willful cases where the conduct of the infringer is like a pirate what we have here is someone who from the testimony in your record intended to stop infringing what would be an issue patent when the passion patent issues and that's why she didn't sell the final shipment she just didn't learn of it and that is her fault when the patent issues it was on the federal register everyone has constructive notice she made two infringing shipments and then she stopped and she did what she could to resolve this timely and appropriately this is not a case for example the damages or attorney fees on the terminating sanctions on the sanctions motion plain to put everything it wanted to in the record to ask for the relief it saw the trial court appendix twenty three said that had i considered all of that that is a trial court's exercise of its discretion and a decision to say not good enough motion denied is one well within the trial court's discretion which i would ask you to affirm the final point unless this panel has any other questions for me i did not see the procedure large from an argument you judge vandyke of identified on the fraud claim this record is procedurally a bit twisty i'm not going to address that because i didn't raise it but as for the fraud claim i will tell you that i believe washington state law correctly supports a summary judgment clearly is another basis for a firm and so if you choose to follow the question you outline with a policy counsel unless this court has any other questions i would just be listening to that is that through the years of the litigation we did god as far as we could go and that was why the relief was fashioned the way it was and i apologize for not having that information right off the top of my head