criminal you presented it claim to struction the notion that you had to have a convention use of conventional tools and that was rejected by the district court end of story it could be a coin in this instance or something that was not necessarily that decision the district court i think may have done more than what you said and then the district court also say or indeed any tools at all but your honor the question is what is a tool that was the factual question left unanswered by the district court's claim construction what is a tool and specifically with a point in this context in the air the area of aviation maintenance be considered to be a tool that was what it was you have in mind you kind of drew up the distinction in your proposals or in the market in which said without the use of conventional mechanics to it so it wasn't that really what you had in mind the distinction between whether coyne could satisfy the two own district court answered that question and said no i was just much broader than that you with with all due respect i don't think the district court answered the question to say no a coin was not a tool as a matter of law we were trying to advocate for a construction that would have defeated the non infringement argument as a matter of law that we won it we think we would have been able to get judgment on that issue but the district court judge should not instr the word tool indeed its construction uses the word tool and so that left the factual question of whether a klein in this circumstance is a tool and that was a factual issue we presented a summary judgment and at that point the district judge did say well yes that's what i had intended to to construe the claim as but that's not what the district judge actually did construe it as in fact when i highlighted that eventual issue and said that under the construction of without tools it would be a fact dispute at the markham hearing this is a day flow of eleven through a twelfth well the district judge appeared to agree with me and say that it would be an issue down the road so certainly when its construction was without the use of any tools the what is a tool in that context in the context of this patent is a factual dispute is a coin a tool would some other item be a tool or not and so based on the construction and without the use of any tool that's where we work had the district judge been asked by b each to construe the claim as only using one's hands and the district judge had accepted that instruction then i would agree with your honor that's the position we would find ourselves in that's not the position we were involved in construction and of course there is abundant evidence in the record that a coin in this context is not a tool including from our expert mr meyers at a sixty eight eighty one b is on documents that say you can removable without tools the maintenance manual say you can use a coin abandoned witness testimony that they're not familiar with the use of a coin as a tool in the aviation contacts including by mr neary and so this is following the court's going to structure in order factual issues now the other point we raised was whether in fact there was sufficient evidence that the ball would could be manually removed and on that point there was evidence from mr neary at a fifty two thirty eight thirty nine where he said he definitely recalls that that was the case and so we decided that as well even had the district judge entered the claim construction that the now argues a yonder there would have been evidence and should be evidence to go to a jury on that one but since the district judge should not hold that tool asli meant only using one's hands there's the fact dispute as to what a tool is under the construction i'd like to offset any of the questions on the zero five four go to the next  zero five five here again the district court ignored the fact is what is it about a coin that would distinguish it from a just a conventional tool link i went out shopping for tools this past weekend  i was just thinking about this case when i was out there and those looking at all the different screwdrivers for example and they have different sizes different edges simmers that is a quarter some as a dime but they will serve the same to aviation approved tools we are already construction we advocated in the district project that was conventional mechanics tools and we offered evidence of aviation books and that was essentially what we are arguing is that it had to be a to of the sort that an aircraft mechanic would likely be to have on it's his or her tool belt the district court rejected that again in our mind and i think under this court's precedent leaving the question of whether what is a tool as a factual matter as to whether any particular pointed to is the combination in the b toilet of the flood control unit also known as iowa state and the discharge belt also known as a flat file they are mounted together on a single piece of plastic from the frame that when the frame is expanded this component may be removed the question is whether it's an l r u a single module targeted for easy replacement in the field are evidence and the included our expert mr modest extensive analysis at a sixty twenty one to twenty six a sixty fifty nine to sixty eight including his review of b documents that had language such as a thirty seven seventy two saying that module such as flush valves are readily accessible and easily exchanged but there was  evidence on one side and nothing absolutely nothing on the other side but it seems to me that the district court is within his round if he looks at overwhelming very significant evidence to establish that they removed separately notwithstanding he might have put on some evidence come the other way write wrote your i don't think it was overwhelming versus very little i think there was also evidence of their video where they showed actually taking this component out and replacing it with in three minutes again easy replacement and the other problem with that argument is that it inflates the claim karmel argue which is a modular component with the actual method part of the claim in the actual method part of the claim it's not a question of whether you have to remove and replace that specific i'll argue we satisfied that element by showing evidence of bone replacement the question is is this an l r u this module of the flush valve and the flush control unit and i'll argue and certainly while the residents on the other side  knowledge that they are the evidence that arctic were excited about it being easily exchanged and be actually showing people in a video that it could be done it just didn't dealt with the video at me and he said that the video didn't clearly identify the flash control unit but that that simply case the district judge seems to have taken the view that because he did not include the word road with his in within his construction he assumed as a factual matter except that we've representation that the toilets the out turned part on the toilet will that itself was heavily disputed and the district judge should not accredited their evidence over ours our expert said there not ribs there are course ribs such as our own tend to be horizontal structures these are  that have recessed edges slots in them so that the bearer can begin certain removed from the front there are two out turn edges that are expert identified at a nine hundred seventy four and a sixty thirty three to forty one in cabin columns and alone shows that there was an issue of fact here the man with the fact that these on x were also admitted that of the two edges in question the top on the upper reds that we've had the second is in contact with the top of the support structure and and that issue was resolved at claim construction as a matter of claim construction law so very specifically at the claim construction hearing the other side proposed the construction and showed at the hearing i don't think it's a jury question let me just turn very quickly to the court's claim construction ruling at page eight eight thirty eight where this records for first paragraph of its claim construction ruling said the parties dispute whether the term true asli prohibits the use of any tools or only conventional mechanics tools so that they're repaired made with a simple device not commonly thought of as a tool such a could non the less in french and the current rejected that the plane of the plaintiffs construction and therefore as a matter of law but didn't that's not going to test at some point say as your friend pointed out that that's a question for the judge that's a question for later he did not say that she said that i'm here to resolve disputes is exactly what the judge said and that's the dispute here result that claim construction which is not disputed here now on the question even if it were a question of fact which i don't think it is if the claim construction record is red as as it is it is even if it were a question of fact there is no dispute that a screwdriver is a tool admitted everybody agrees here the coin if it is actually used it's used to drive screws it is actually a screwdriver of a different shape with all due respect the district judge was right we cannot have we cannot impanel a federal jury to debate whether the shape of the particular screw driver is in or is out and as a matter of claim construction law that was resolved in any way on the in any event on the point of the fingernail there is absolutely no credible evidence of that when you say that that's turning the screw without a tool if you actually are doing it with your hands potentially but again the district judge was right there is no evidence of that and there couldn't they just couldn't do it on the aircraft mechanic who has a belt on and the screwdriver readily available and the instructions from that from the company is third to use a screwdriver and again remember this is a total number that never thought i'd say that in federal court but it is and it's not clean they're not supposed to have bare hands and no gloves you just can't do it you want to have some distance and they use their and all the evidence shows that they  use a screwdriver they point to a document that says that we can be done without tools the fact of the matter is that the record is clear that it is a particular that particular sentence  without special tools and there are hundreds of documents that correct that typo and later in the same document it says quote a person equipped with a screwdriver and no special knowledge is all that are required to change a bowl close quote now given the time on this or other questions on this point let me move on to to the other patents with respect to the zero five five at one brief point there is actually a total lack of evidence that the flash valve and the control units are replaced together as a set in the field what about the video so the video is not in the field in the video it's a demonstration on the bench it's actually in a conference room on a table that is where a demonstration a sales demonstration basically is made to show how one can completely this assemble a pilot and reassemble it on the bench in the shop there is no indication in that video that it can be done or should be done in particular in the field the courts claim construction again is the sponsored if here the courts think the other side proposed that it's something that could be done or can be done the question construction was that it must be targeted to be done in the field in the place where the product is installed in this case an aircraft a toilet in here the accused product has ribs here we heard this morning that they're disputing that they're not rigs that they're actually call arms with all due respect that is something we're hearing for the first time now the fact is that that is just semantics they clearly are ribs that this report looked at the product during the claim construction hearing and again it's summary judgment so exactly what is construction hearing as well and that is what they believe in french and the this records a look that is a different type of a structure not encompassed within the scope of the claims as a matter of print construction law and the mag is not appealing that instruction in this court and that ends the inquiry to suggest that is the end of the writ if the rube is out to suggest at the end of the river that has nothing else on it just just the end of it is actually within the scope of the claims again it's legal stuff astri simply because they lost something construction it cannot simply be that now we have the same exact dispute on using the inventor's knowledge to infringement under the guidance of counsel is not the relevant factor this is an equitable doctrine all equitable factors should be considered and if as the law is the analysis is to be done in light of the infringement the analysis should also include the opposite of that which is evidence of a lack of inflexible rule but that's absolutely irrelevant he did not consider with second point that this report should not have extended the assigner a stoppel theory to a case such as this one where the inventor is not a founder of the in after that was never any case that you can cite to us that says that the have an absolute requirement is that the inventor and the founder are have a substantial stake in the ownership of the company no your honor but there is no case that goes the other way and expands the doctrine to facts such as this and i will say that as a matter of policy a minimum that is not with this court should do with  ers all you do is pop something in there turn it a quarter turn and it pops out so the screw terminology is something they've introduced in their brief before this court they're not screws like we traditionally think of them and as council jargon it's just confirm they're arguing here this argument that well a coin is really the same thing as a screwdriver because you use it for the same purpose that's never an argument they made that claim construction before the district court they never asked the district court to hold that a tool is a coin or the t means anything other than your hands now they want to take the district judges construction and say that's really what he meant and that's really what it should be as a matter of law but it's simply a factual issue in view of their admissions you can do it without tools their statements and their manuals that not only a screwdriver but a coin can be used such as the day sixty seventy eight and the district court judge a statement today twelve well where i raised this issue and said it was a factual question on infringement and he said i'm here to resolve  so we'll have to resolve as best we can and move it to a jury as quickly as you can get it that combined with the mark in order is not the ruling us or matter of law in fact in the summary judgment or had page a sixteen when discussing the documents we pointed to that said where they said there can be removed without tools the district judge dismissed those documents and said well those documents just use a definition of tool that excludes coins that's in the middle of the page on any sixteen and he said there's an inher ambiguity in whether a coin is a tool this is in the summary judgment well that's our point exactly these be documents show that there is a dispute a fact because they're using a definition of tool that excludes coins just at the district judge observed so that should be a factual issue for the juror on the zero five five just very briefly the video that my friend discussed it is true that was not taken in the field but it's from a b e proposal sent to customers and it's a training video about how you're supposed to repair take down and put back together this toilet in the field on the aircraft so we can have the video itself question in the field its purpose was to talk costumers here's how you disassemble and reassemble our product in that video this valve set was removed and replaced as a unit as it's documents said it could be easily exchanged and then on the ninth floor too i just want to point out that is it simply not correct that the queen construction hearing i admitted that it had a ribbon that therefore the only reason we the only way we could prove in french and is if the district judge adopted ribs in fact they had a model or toilet of the markham hearing and i walked up to it this is the page forty five of the clink destruction here and apologize i don't have the records cite but it's a page forty five and i said frankly that's an upturned edges well i don't agree that there's no river they don't in france so it was very clear from the beginning that we thought these columns at edges and so for that reason as well we think that one for two should be reversed just very quickly in the time i have left on a sign or a stop will up with this case is is not a case to make new law the court's decision in intel is dispositive that if you rely on the knowledge and assistance of an inventor to design a intel again we intel this court said that all illicit purpose or indeed any purpose is the relevant question is are you using knowledge and assistance to design a product that is accused of infringement and in fact that policy makes sense because that encourages legitimate good faith successful design around efforts so that there is no infringement suit so that's i believe what the court held as it did in intel but the last point if i may make i see it in my last ten seconds we would request that if the court is inclined to reverse on any of the patent issues that we would like to request that and also from a sonorous stoppel we were parts of the court direct immediate entry of judgment on that issue as it did in apple the samsung we have some pending i p r proceedings we entire case is not does not resolve the issue here in the intel case two things about it first of all the illicit purpose that the court addresses there says that it's not necessary but of course it doesn't mean that an the inventor provided personal guarantees and then then a t to the company that was found to be in privity with again there is no case of the federal circuit that found prevail in a situation like this and this is not the case two weeks span that if that were the linchpin if brit meanly bringing over an employee as park over a very large multinational publicly traded company to work in various engineering capacity if capacities and if the only requirement more or less is and that's not what critically is meant to be you really mean do need a situation where the inventor is if not the foundered in such close