I understand that and I read as much. You can refer to anything that has not already been decided by the judge. What is the point of precluding a jury from hearing about the ITC ID evidence in an order when you can simply delve into the detail of how an ALJ at the ITC ruled the way he did in opening and closing remarks? I could go on and on. If I'm wrong so be it but it doesn't make any sense to allow the attorneys to simply use opening and closing statements to introduce de facto evidence. It becomes persuasive and prejudicial to TPL/PTSC if HTC can remark upon Judge Gildea's ID. What is the point of excluding it then ?