mr stevens whenever you're ready that we hear but don't accept your interpretation of what the commission said in other words an errant craze but that what the commission of five was really is a knowledge requirement where to where you left even putting aside the language that you know that's not that has to do with knowledge of infringement not intent right i would disagree with that i think one sub just subjective belief necessarily goes to intent and not knowledge i think the knowledge requirement  satisfied when you're told something when you're for other claims whether or not you believe it whether or not you subjectively agree with that accusation goes to in ten knots or not so once the government was put on notice of the patterns and put on notice of our inducement they talked about the knowledge requirement being the same knowledge required and as contributory and that knowledge we climb in being knowledge that you're introducing yes  obviously in congo the question before the supreme court was inducement not contributory and you're actually correct supreme court said the knowledge requirement is indeed the say but then there's a separate intent requirement when it comes to a distant regiment so the language in local tech income will get neither of which certainly is rated to address contributory infringement i believe the language is consistent for example in global tech the supreme court said in dicta but as it relates to contributory infringement the supreme court infringing right yes your honor and that's where the error to court said once you have a cease and desist you have knowledge that the the action was infringing and if all you have is a contention from the other side that it is infringing why it happened that the knowledge that you're infringing that you have been charged with that knowledge your subjective belief or subjective disagreement or agreement with that is a separate inquiry that comes in only under two seventy one bit and not to seventy one so you're saying that's a totally different standard for inducement and contributory there by the definition of the fact that there were definitely yes the standards are different but i would agree that the actual knowledge requirement is the same for each you must have knowledge of the pat with lead to the conclusion both an inducement and contributory infringement that a person or entity could be liable even though he did not know the acts were cringing in other words even if the defendant reads the patents claims differently  reasonable it could still be libel because he knew the acts might infringe on global test requires more it requires proof the defendant knew the acts were infringing but again i don't believe that the supreme court  opinion said once you receive the season assist letter there is no defense to the senator requirement if you suddenly want to see i do think that's explicitly in the in the opinion in fact i think it says the knowledge requirement affords no defense with respect to sales made after january second by taking nine hundred fifty four which is the day they received the cease and desist letter as to the district where proceedings yes but there was no argument in arrow that they were not infringing at the time imprinting and then they proceeded to try to get a license and failing to get a license they decided to design a route and my stating the arrow facts as you called them a slightly different and i suspect you're more familiar with than i but i'll tell you my three designs i give you is a different circumstance but with respect to all three designs the knowledge requirement affords arrow no defense ok but that was so maybe maybe arrow is confusing but we have an explicit statement  question in this case are only compatible with a certain range of hits and so those the only use for everything else would be so you had no direct testimony that there were no substantial nod from the uses we had testimony of our expert we so in question to sixty three he's asked you since question to sixty six right it's short structure to sixty three because the question to sixty six relates to different products of question sixty five math the math dictates that the transition time for kids to prosecute a downscale is for the math which has never been disputed in fact cited favorably in the commission opinion dictates that at most the transducer in tucker would have been placed with the middle of it beam thirty degrees below below parallel clover horizon and now it's disputed that the commission takes a two word phrase from the concluding paragraph out of context and somehow just walks after acknowledging the math so you're thought a reason that they would never be supplying government in its appeal to the commission in its petition for again never presented a motivation to provide the commissions to aspire to a sound one but in one sentence citing nothing and so that that is also error in the fact that these two things are very different devices one is huge and has to be huge based upon its physics it's literally over five people has hundreds of pieces as twenty seven pairs of wires feeling to the ones that have to do with whether comes with a  this has to do with the motivation to combine it also has to do with whether it comes into claims because you need all that punctuality to make it official right which is why it's not clear why it self is not in the claims but putting that aside there's also a reason why they would not be combined because there tucker in addition as part of the obviousness analysis the commission considered several object that and the sum of that objective in disha did not overcome a strong showing of obviousness tell us about the motivation the look here's something that we can do to improve the image there's also expert testimony from dr tice he also referred to the same disclosures and said the person an ordinary skill in the art would understand that and also find it obvious to combine r can i turn you back to the contributory a share i think can't find it now but somewhere i recall in the commission's opinion where rely on staff that there were findings below with regard to non infringing uses do you recall that i mean what what's the it what was the standing of the evidence with regard to not infringing gives us i don't recall what it was that your arms referring to but the commission did not address the issue of iran and your friends reading of aero is that because they ran the clock from the date of the cease and desist notice and because there were efforts to subsequently design a wrong that that in combination means that it really was the cease and desist notice that triggered the liability for contributory like disagreeing with mr stevens and i agree with your honor that there is no indication imperative that the supreme court there is a body of law that tells us how we find that out and whether you've something whether something is or isn't quite mainstream is i would suggest not informative on that and you know we've had cable separate windows on the screen side by side so the combination doesn't have to require them to combine the data in such a way where you only have one image there's no overlay i did as i understand the question i agree with that doesn't make sense turning back to tucker for a moment and then ability holding we looked briefly and there was not we were unable to find a holding that tucker is not a to the head rather than transducers right so we're looking out a b p x one ninety nine through about two o'clock so from a p s one ninety nine the top of the old one the judge recounts all the factual evidence we've we've we've not pursued that issue but the judge didn't say the same thing for the transducers he says in the paragraph before there's all these allegations that last extension out of engine uses and then he says the reason i'm holding the gets now the co is because i find no