interpreted of course in a number of decisions and said look we're does say you can just contract out of your right to challenge the your patent but if you have accepted agreement we're going to enforce it to the same extent we would a judgment in the case because we have settlements we policy but the reactions rule is interpreted in cases like foster be home like hugo lab does say that you can't have a consent judgment that stretches beyond the bounds of race to the top so here we have a situation where do we the corporate form the way it was when you said of instead of having the merger in which there's a single corporate survivor well if a couple of things first the question of penalties independent of corporate structure and i don't think the patent policy is intended to discourage but it's not true that you could avoid the problem and if in this merger episode or had maintained the corporate form and simply made the acquisition or the effect of this this merger but why wouldn't you make that explicit in the agreement instead of saying is this agreement appears to say that you assume all the obligations well remember wouldn't help us because it's the original u e c contract that according to the i c c gets us into trouble it's the fact that you make the promise to find it successors but the core is focused on the language of the agreements and and they're affected so maybe i can turn to that question i jeff you can't challenge the lenity that's your big problem right right now according to the i t c we think that that's erroneous absolutely under the reactions and what the effect of the successor provisions is and the court has been operating in its questions fabric a whole series of cases that say yes you have the successor provisions and come and murder partners to take on the obligations and the rights of their predecessors but that just means that they take them on to the same extent it doesn't expand those rights and that's the effect here and that is that the lead's that does have the right against episode are to enforce the agreement as to the n b a and t v products into their or their successors but not as to something that at star developed independently and by somebody this obligation not to contest the seven eighteen pet will suddenly explode into a promise about all of its operations and then we have a second layer of argument one if you're focused on sort of what the special facts this case are  provisions perhaps i could spend a little time turning to claim construction questions here i'd tell you substrate it to start with the idea of throwing we have here i think to a legal principle and several parts sentence such techniques are kind of the use analogies as well as other devices were current spreading is desired even so most of the light generated is under the opaque metal patterns is and is blocked this is the critical eye to your language another technique is to use a transparent right series resistance because series resistance of is a characteristic of a product not a function the high series resistance of i t o e cannot be a function of where it appears on the device that is in the nature of i t o e wherever it appears the second point is that that is not that description of the front electrical contact is not the middle bonding pad which is alouettes argument and you know that for the reason that this is a criticism of the prior art and there is that is the metal binding pad but what they're criticizing in the seventy thousand patent is what's called here the transparent electrode in the lawrence patent and that's just a layer on top it's not the metal body had and that function right there transparent electrode in the large patent is precisely what we're doing in our products it's precisely what was in compass within they're playing instruction in this case so they have to convert this reference to a the consolation of the parties at the time of the you read the agreement that they weren't thinking about merger correct well they were thinking towards any other product or any other subject was well produced by u e d but they weren't thinking about the possibility of a future merger just a small instance well how can it be irrespective and in the sense that if we're trying to understand the intent of what the parties meant by their contractual agreements why would surrender in its merger and all the rights that it paid five million dollars to acquire just unless a year before why wouldn't that result why can't we say the successor in interest caused does not affect the earlier agreement governing products which on which they can challenge touching on the point we're going to play destruction because these were products produced only by after star before them their pre merger products and there's just an awful lot which suggests to us this suggests that perhaps if judge harris had considered that earlier epa starr agreement and the implications of it he may have construed it narrowly to a bargain for that with you we see and at the time that had a pretty restricted meaning the things that you e c produces and would payment of a settlement then that payment of five million dollars you'd reach an entirely different agreement with those products right that's right but you know it's a lengthy period of negotiation cuts both ways right i mean i would disagree with that there are for this circumstances the and it says specifically with respect to any suit claiming infringement with respect to the licensed products they can raise with the assumption must be that they can raise it across the board right in the story that left undisturbed what into what the language is not is not explicit but the contemplation clearly is was that if they got sued for infringement even on the licensed products they could have certain validity as a defense right well  the way the prosecution history seems to teach away from considering the i q you know with then this claimed invention and indeed the inventor him self didn't consider the i p l at the time to but everyone in the case agreed i did it was material has a very low resistivity that's never been disputed what causes the resistance is the interface contact it's very different interfaces with it so when you say a contact as high resistance because it's interfaces that has no bearing on its use as a window layer and in fact ever store has agreed to that very fact and they've noted that the contact unlike a windows layer is used for wire bonding and so epa start really it's very difficult to use something like i t o this time tact with the wired part and that's why they agree with the patent statements that if you use it as a contact you have problems there's nothing in the suggests that you couldn't use it as a window that covers the whole width of the device and actually the window layer on top of it has the metal contact that's the best and easiest way to contact a layer and that's one of the reasons why duffy's brunswick opinion for the seventh circuit say well what race judicata means in the successorship context is that to which the successor is in privity with the original company and you aren't privy with respect to the original product and right to be able to leave if they came after us on oh man they are getting rid of that contrary to the parties understand thank you very much