pointed out their expert testified that the g s m is three to four hundred references drafted by ten or more subgroups upby each subgroup has at least one  that this wasn't publicly accessible because it somehow confidential but isn't the e t s i networks own all encompassing with its membership and that confidentiality is competency ality agreement perhaps today but when these withdraw i'm able to point back to the time of the application and we're going back in time somewhat you're talking about prior art so the question is back then prior to the to get patents on chunks of standard that can do it after the standards exist seems to be a computer the mischievous and risky proposition because you end up having a standard that everybody is essentially compelled to comply with and then you have somebody going in iraq you know chunk of that that's that's not what happened here earlier i mean the petn application was in process the standards evolve over time i'm not sure you know what point in time they're claiming the fix for the purposes anticipation and the standard certainly do not contain all the all the limitations of of the nih they don't they just have to be publicly accessible that's that's right but there have to have to contain them something that anticipates that the claims and you just said to me you did that's a new point to me at least and you said that wouldn't answer to be anticipation or use the standards don't anticipate even if they are things were yes they they they were and we have a number of of points rambler first of all just several points report the party in the best position to defend infringement was qualcomm and they manufactured the chips that we are proceeding against they were in the case from start to finish and defended vigorously as you saw at the outset the notice set were proceeding against the chips and were proceeding against those chips as used in cell phones and other electronic devices so anybody that was paying attention and by the way the commission several others were subpoenaed they were all provided with the expert report from dr mulher that laid all this out so they were all on notice that we were proceeding against these chips they all had an opportunity to either participate through it with qualcomm or intervene and the ones that made requests to intervene timely in the remedy proceeding dinner thing and they've had more process than made a criminal offense if they participated fully in discovery thirty eight depositions were taken participated in the evidentiary hearing before judge below they participated in the two day hearing before the full commission they all submitted presentations to the united states trade route which has the authority to veto the remedy they fair and enormous amount of process and by the way their input was respected they got an order that is very very favorable to them because right now we're standing three years and more after we filed we have multiple findings of infringement by qualcomm direct infringement and induced infringement we still have any remedy against the interveners because all of the devices that were on sale as of june age adequately address their concerns about being heard the liability stayed absolutely for two reasons your honor the manufacture of the only chip the only different product the only article that has been found to infringe is the space beyond chips meet bike walk on now there is nothing preventing any of the interveners from seeking intervention earlier and certainly nothing preventing them from assisting qualcomm in its defense and we're certainly not hearing any new not infringement defenses from any of them all they're saying is well we weren't there but they had the opportunity to be there at once that ship was filed in french as it was then you have to have a regime and the i t c recognizes this where  try to protect against all forms of importation but it's not just the chip it's the software and the question of how the software itself was implemented that that's correct your honor but the commission found judge bullet found that they are implementation of the software wasn't sufficient to meet the terms they had they had qualcomm had every incentive to do that in the liability phase of the hearing and judge bullet found that although chipset makers can change them there guess the porters were persons violating the provision of the section that has to be part of their work you are aren't they were so this is a case in which a person found to have violated a provision of the section somebody who has a right to import as this case and set because obviously the panty can import licensees can import the federal government can import so all the one provides is that you act against the article and then once the this language imported by any person violating provision to section is that it read imported except by a person authorized to that's another way yes the way the commission is always read it and that's a reasonable way to read it and i would suggest case like this it's impractical to name every import it's impractical to name even every customer we don't know a lot of customers are and some of those customers showed up after the proceeding began so if you're going to turn this back into an in that number one that is going to completely gut the itc's ability to effectuate the purpose of the statute which is to give patty's a right to protect their property and number two you're ignoring twenty to thirty years of interpretation of the statute by the i t c this change that they're talking about was made in one thousand nine hundred fourteen years ago for tiredly different purposes it had nothing to do with downstream remedies nothing to do with limited exclusion orders it had only to do with the practice of issuing general exclusion orders where you didn't even a dental fight the qualcomm in that case you simply proceeded against an article generally with no reference to the manufacturer that's not what happened here  minutes and mr starr will have three is that correct yes thank you judge ritter appreciate it let me start off with the specific intent issue in this case judge rader us the itc's counsel specifically what's the what's the standard findings there and it may be that it in a different case you could find specific intent but the truth is there is not a finding of specific intent in this case which is absolutely clearly required and absolutely requires that this matter be vacated  it seems to me we're not playing on a on a level playing field you know that the language of the claim is extremely broad it says a communication different from another communication so that it is incumbent on the other side to come up with something that very clearly limits that language and to stand here and say well sure there's language and in common thirty nine it reads precisely the way i suggested it should be read and candidly i think if you read figures eleven through twenty and all of that the companies them where they're talking about polls for data and responses back and forth those are themselves not methods of communication those are simply different communications that simply cannot satisfy their required burden to show that the specification and poses the kind  limitation that the commission adopted in this particular case and if that's true of the committee the claim construction is wrong then the matter ought to be vacated and sent back to the commission to evaluate it against the proper calling construction one minute and determine the validity finally with respect to the jazz sound ted specifically said that's a single reference it's at each these records to be sure it's written by a lot of people but lots of vets have lots of inventors who who participate in the writing process that's not the issue the question is is there a single document which never directly and friends are only only claim against us is this inducing infringement on that there is no specific thank you thank you mr carter philip we found out i represent to the court a number of us on this side of the table found out with the expert report and then a warm belt started to go off they've opposed it they should not be heard to say why didn't you intervene what they should be heard to stand to account is why didn't you name them this court has spoken to this very point through the voice of judge died they rely on the commission's longstanding interpretation we rely on the wall of the finest circuit the federal circuit has said let's head exclusion orders only apply to the specific parties before the commission and the best you can see it is also with respect to the meaning of gap because commissions counsel brings to mind justice means as we have interpreted one would have to engage in one minute which judicial creativity in order to determine that somehow part of us does not mean us now to allow this to stand it's going to build in very perverse incentives that the commission itself has said please name the respondents broadcom says or we just don't know who they are false i think judge rader responded to that but if it is difficult to put yourself to the burden of seeking a gentle exclusion order that's what comes before much discussion with respect and run a red herring procedural process whites do you attach to any proceedings and the final thing i want to say the only evidence in this record was a single european hence that is not substantial evidence i think the court has i think i prefer the fan on thanking all counsel for their help today