something very strange about this case i'm a little hard pressed to understand why this is a dispute it's worth the the expenditure of time and resources that the parties who get into it shows in the united states with their actual devices is that what this is all about you're pretty reasonable no damages so all we're talking about is very little of this long and winding road the most you get out of this is an injunction and it will be an injunction presume we don't bring the little chips in it will bring in presumably films pictures displays but not just not the little chips is that is that what we're we're here in this dispute all about there's another point you raise but the this case is really directed to the issue an injunction not so much in damages because the damages are minimal sure but just because the damages are minimal course not i recently had to have it you have a technical question is what's really going on here you know what's really going here is that we had a trade show in the united states and we set up a table here yeah and we ordered voices that are salesmen and they're talking about our products our patent problems and simply spends an enormous amount of money on research and development description but from our perspective there are knockoff company that's located on brazil they've come up to the united states and it isn't necessarily just our products that they've copied they've invested as far as we're we understand any research and of any past they look at everybody's products who they're interested in they make copies of those products and then they present those they talk to people they talk to distributors they talk to doctors in the united states and it has booth with your products in that booth and nobody else can why is it that a foreign company can do that but it domestic companies could never do that but you wouldn't have an argument i simply if they brought in anything but the products they bring bring in brochures they bring  so your real concern what's what's driving the case from your standpoint from your standpoint mr chosen is that is that really using the united states as a platform for commercial not necessarily exact infringement activity but as we stated in our paper iraqi years show after show jim rose has shown up and they've felt that this was easy to do we could bring in we could we c d make more copies we can bring more products there that are covered by happens and i'm not saying it's just our products i'm saying is the industry products as a whole and some or and i guess the issue was somebody has to do about this because if you look at the statute it's a violation of the statute and in this case since he's made a decision this year if they show up again with our products right in the booth next to us we're going to sue them and that's what happened  because i think it's fair to say that his question your response touched on an area that you know probably all of the members of the panel in one way or another were thinking about but why don't you now turn right to your imported into these companies brought these products into this country and that they used them in a commercial setting and you laid down a very clear bright line rule let me just give you two hypotheticals because it's a case that sort of lends itself to this sort of musing if you will let's assume you have a case where someone enters the united states at the mexican border and texas has with it a bone implant device the person has with them and they drive from the texas border up to the canadian border into into canada and there they engage in commercial activity  has there been with your weed in your view and infringing importation no no activity at all the united states they just drive to spend one night in lincoln nebraska and then they're in canada that's the end there as a matter of the reasonable into i would say what if what if they can't travel and the whole the airline puts them up in a hotel for a night in san francisco so they do clear customs but they're put in a hotel for the night with their device and then the next day they get on the plane the weather is clear they go on the day cooper well i think the difficulty i understand your concern but it's a case that makes you think about just testing the limits of your position well i think i think cl read into the country we best thought it was clear and the difficulty we were as a person i would say that you know that doesn't seem right to me i think the statute says that would be an infringement interest what about a person who i did ok that the question i was thinking about was answered when you said clearing customs so i would ask the question i was going and so i think you know i thought about those  and there is a case where you have a patent the soon to list infringer and what the court stated in that case is the act of infringement there's an act of infringement that occurs within the jurisdiction in this case was a dispute in the united states and there must be purposeful and therefore that's why i think in beverly hills family the court didn't need to go any further they said it was a really active infringement that was impacting virginia  the question i have is whether there was an infringement that occurred in the united states and forty two and then a question is has there been a sufficient allegation of fringy act and in this particular instance there was no question if there was an allegation if import means bring into the country or if there was a use based on these demonstrations that occurred which rachel or the reason i said the reason that there was some need to get into some factual development is because of office that's a that's a much more factually based argument jim rice in this case submitted to really declarations and other declarations and that's where she was discovering the development of those issues but if there was an offer to sell issue in the case i believe since there was no dispute by g m rice that they were at the trade show and that they had their products physically at this is a product at and they had the products at the trade there was no dispute as to those particular facts and the court without any discovery could have addressed the issue of whether there was important or use  activities as alleged at the trade show constituted infringement in order to rule on the personal jurisdiction question i think infringing activities i don't disagree with the conclusion if this court finds that as a matter of law there was no allegation of infringement that we should enact up to twenty six or some other s all we have to find is that you have a leg to adequately infringing their career if you find that i think that's the end of the argument but if you say we're not going to work to make a determination as to whether any of these activities were infringement we're just deciding whether there was years fiction as i say jurisdiction in this case you can look at all the v a and what their contacts are with the form of the united states again and make a decision as to whether your stiction and that's what we see there's four ways for this court to find jurisdiction whether there was importation whether there was use whether there was an offer to sell or whether they activit yeah i'm hung up on a little on a point that may or may not be terribly critical here but i can you explain to me when we look to the  a sufficient contact let's say with california is sufficient to get you out of the normal rule which is that you would look to the state's  if the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state courts of general jurisdiction well that's they may say that but you don't it necessary for the court to make a finding to that effect before four case comes in to apply  i think jurisdiction is issues where it will so i think a party comes in and says this is what our position is in this case the court said that i wasn't clear when you say that as soon as they came in and said you don't have jurisdiction  bringing in of any accused device no matter whether it has any effect on the domestic market place at all but should we really go beyond them in the clear it's always so comforting for a record to go look at the clear language  not only what would have happened but that is what happened you mean they actually could be were people on what they were foreigners they displayed a clear sign on all of their product brochures in on their tables and products not approve what they had wouldn't answer i don't know whether or not they would or would not have answered them your honor but under the facts of the case there's no evidence that any american visitation did come to talk to them we have to sign in sheet showing that the only people who came talked t were foreign residents i think that if the court says if it's brought here for commercial purpose and stops their route and then going on to say it also has to have an effect on the domestic marketplace you're going to have justice that actually effect on the domestic market way down a little bit like the standard with the international trade commission in her an industry in the united your honor i think that's correct and i think that that's not the standard of that rule that's not the standard of the patent laws but the patent laws entire scope is securing to an inventor the commercial benefits the benefits of their invention the whole statute is oriented around commercial purposes and along something to benefit from their invention it's an incentive system and so to have someone who comes to the united states and brings a product in that has absolutely no effect on the united states market and say that in a than in a very real sense the devices were brought into the united states for a commercial purpose namely to enhance sales of the sales of the product albeit if one accepts all of the g m rice assertions outside the united states i mean there was a commercial purpose in bringing them in the united states in that sense was there not and the except in your proposition that they were targeted that they had a little you know chinese wall up and i'm not saying that pejoratively to you know the not target u s citizens or u s companies who are but still there was a commercial purpose in  in bringing these devices in wasn't it yes or no it was a commercial purpose but it was exclusively for trying to advertise or promote their products to foreign purchasers patent law is of all laws extremely territorial you have to construe patent laws in terms of the effect it has on the united states market you cannot go outside of effects in the u s market and and  was raised that no concede no nobody could lock a convention door if there were just photographs or brochures or a slideshow presentation or something like that i mean here we have companies first and second what patent all ultimately kids specific rights to exclude and unless my client actually violated one of those rights in the united noncommercial stands and it really company ship some six hundred students to defend it in minnesota then the minnesota defend it turned around and spent most of them there testing facilities i not our definition of import should prevail or since this definition of unfortunate prevail ultimately in order to determine whether or not there's personal jurisdiction based on an alleged specific act the district court the district court said that they were noncommercial in nature but ultimately found there was no personal jurisdiction against that offend it merely because he said that that was it didn't miss infringement or that there was no infringement because it was  united states clear impact on the domestic market whereas in might be trying for sponsoring scientific no impact on the domestic market place even though in fellows you have a handful of devices coming in and staying there and to you've got six hundred of them some of them staying here some of them being sent elsewhere ultimately that touched up both these cases can be resolved correctly in the same way that they were resolved under the rubric that i'm suggesting eerie let's say of strict liability in a setting in which a particular jurisdiction has not recognized tort liability yet and i'm hopeful that i can persuade them to do question that arises in that setting have to decide the question of whether that is a viable theory of tort liability before finding that i am then i can properly bring the depend or is it simply the assertion of the commission of the tort which in or non frivolous way that is sufficient to satisfy twelve b two and then the question turns into a twelve b six question because i'm not sure what the difference is between having a theory that works as a as a legal matter and having a sufficiently strong factual presentation that you have a decent chance of winning on winning your ca san diego would would it be necessary in that setting for the court to decide whether the items in fact were anything even remotely within the scope of the your device will do to claim that the district court committed reversible error in failing to decide whether or not they're going to valid allegation of infringement infringement because infringement is more than just bringing it into this country and my it seems to me this presents the question of affirming the judgment well what do you mean by the judgment you mean a new order dismissed in the of factual question of whether there was infringement or not because personal jurisdiction turns so very on a legal issue here correct and i assume i want to make sure i understand the legal issue you would say is first of all whether as a matter of where there was he were in importation right is that it what i want to make sure i understand what you say to a legal issue is is the legal issue yes the question of the coming across the border issue all call what do we have to get into in any way you would say that we don't have to get into in any way whether or not there was infringement of infringing activities at the trade  allegedly emphasize allegedly accused the legibly infringing devices were there something they were there was a presence there was activity why is that not enough for your i think your question simplifies  standards for finding a specific person jurisdiction respectfully there has to be a direction of activities at residence of the forum in which the district or conduct was not and those specific activities have to give rise to yes you are and that's the basis of the district court dismissed on but i think that this court can and also should dismiss or sure firm based on the fact that the activities never gave rise to any viable cause of action no protection based on as we all recognize the bringing in of basically five he's not there were seven bucks each but doesn't the distance here in the all be good but you're correct in terms of the plight of sure but isn't that a little bit that ar y bit undermined by all the times in the past when the g m rice representatives of come to the united states for commercial activities and it doesn't seem to be that coming or going doesn't seem to be on its face that much of a burden to the company your honor i understand your point but i think that there is also a difference between being able to come once every six months or once a year to attend a sentry child or trade chair or six months vs being forced law there was no use because the device was never used for the purpose for which it was intended very similar analogy to what we have here  doesn't help us with the importation problem which i think is the principle arrow in mistrials and quiver it does your honor but it also goes to address some of your concerns about how deeply into the merits the district court has to go  three interest of the form state and the plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief they're very weak here as you pointed out in your question my opponent your honor this is really it's about five pieces of metal that are sitting on a table and my phone and said well all damages are obviously minutes but what we're talking about is an injunction so are we going to be forced to go through an entire lawsuit ultimately to possibly seek an injunction which as you know  and if the point of prevails and we don't know what sort of a name jim mcmahon you know i suppose they'd be enjoined from bringing any infringing products into the united states maybe it might be limited to showing that trade shows maybe it's a broad term junction i don't know i don't know you're right your honor we don't we don't have perfect foresight we don't know for sure but any proposed injunction would be what i'm pointing out is that there's the problem of having your company representatives sitting there and having right next door this allegedly infringing product but not to be sold in the united states if we accept that for the moment we're really infringing activity here leaving aside the importation that's already taking place one qualification too because i don't agree that exactly the facts because we do know that they can sell it to for human a customer came to confirm that they are from another country i don't think any of this makes any difference but that's not what they did they have these on a table u s physicians could see used distributors could see competitors could see it everybody could see another another domestic matter of ours could see and apparently you can do this and nobody can do anything about it and so another competitor would say since he doesn't care about th distributors we're not talking about a bunch of lawyers that were there at the street and the question is does that have any impact on our business i don't think we can sit here and say it doesn't have an impact and surely our move would have brought this brochures it wasn't private showings but i don't think that is particular issue at hand because i think there were engaged in the commercial activity and let me point out in their reply brief what we