got it wrong and hopefully explain why this appeal was filed at all the district court very clearly in page seven of its order stated that direct infringement requires knowledge of infringement and that is just an and we allege that clearly in the second a minute complaint and thirdly in the contributory infringement the district court imported a c entered for intent to infringe requirement that just is not  infringing activity we believe that they did in fact install in some instances and assist and instruct us during the course of their sales activities ok so but so you're not saying that there's any other argument for direct in ok now on the indirect infringement claims i mean you're correct that there doesn't have to be actual knowledge of the end print but there has to at least be the standard under claims we would allege and did so in paragraph seventeen eighteen a second minute complain that too long term employees that used to work for the plaintiff appellee were then taken hired to trim what i would even go so far to say before this court we don't even allege these employees knew the scope of the coverage of the patent it was their job to know they were involved directly with the name and then around the patent share and and you speak of oh i'm sorry they work directly with the named inventor of the patent they shared office with them they specifically designed these products which is why we believe trim like hired them in the first place and they extol the virtues when they work to a lifetime of why the pending features of these products were a superior difficulty following the district court's reasoning and it seemed that some places it was more akin to a summary judgment motion standard that we were subjected to it was within a month of their arrival and we believe no coincidence that these seals as we showed in the color pictures submitted to the lower court that bear almost identical features to the patented products those came about shortly understood the reason if we may go back to the direct infringement that we believe the court decided this on a requirement of knowledge that just there is this a very straightforwardly on page seven in the i don't see that in two seventy one a or any other case lawyer and that is why we believe that part of this opinion is clear and the induced infringement  pet infringer has to manufacture every piece component it seems to be a thread in here that's just not true the stuck in berg case i don't believe any of the underlying parts were patented however the government which was diligent cringer in that case was held liable because they took this bundle of unpaid parts and combined them to make the patent parts in this case we have trimmed what taken our view which we again acknowledge we didn't make combining it with their part with their employees to make the p t combination and that is the direct infringement to the district court's decision should be affirmed on appeal and i think the court found that this was not a plausible claim and i think the court looked at what the patent was and i won't read the of the claim but it's very clear from not only the patent claims but also the file history that this seal is not patentable at all and in fact the claims directed to the c alone were cancelled and so really what you have is a patent about a mobile living quarters having a slide out room the space and we see from time to time there are claims like this that come out and it is incredibly difficult to infringe a claim like this because you have to sell in r that has a room that slides out with this seal but i think clearly there was direct infringement by the customers if there wasn't fringed it at all and we have various reasons why but it's not before the court right as to why there isn't one first whatsoever of direct infringement direct infringement is you know there's a it is a trick liability claim if you use those seals with the r b for the slide out that's direct infringement by customer right i agree generally ok so big they are court focused on the absence of direct infringement by the name defendant but weren't there allegations in the complaint that the name defendant employees went over and actually helped with the installation and therefore were involved in that the two stage process i think the court found that that was not plausible and it was not possible because in the first minute complaint in their paragraph thirty they first said that this inventor guy was able to obtain a two part seal this is appendix zero four one your paragraph thirty that there was a two part that this inventor was told about and that somehow it was being sold and then what happens that was basically the first order basically said there wasn't to be a problem but the allegations here are not sufficient because they're not plausible and what it's all set up for let's let's let's put aside whether or not when this case first started since the judge took three years to go through this but that for me team was still controlling who give you that we're talking about twelve minutes because i don't think that matters in this case but even under twelve million that we have said repeatedly that the obligation to drop all reasonable inferences in favor of the party filing the complaint remains in full force and effect and that twamley and doesn't change that the supreme court has said that so we have to draw favorable inference he says there were two employees that left one company goes over to the other all the sudden of the second company is making a seal that it never made before and they went over and helped teach these are people are being people how to install it how is that enough for purposes of inferring direction from a couple things like the point that you were making was not in the pleading in others that products on an r v of course river for use of a slide out room that seems very specific granted they're not mentioning which employees they are but they have you know a date they say that his employees went and did this i mean you maybe you'll disprove this fact as the case don't really say who they're very vague they'll say and or agents it's almost as if they were trying to cleverly plead this without getting any into specifics as to who or what they did in fact what if it were but if any of them are true then you've directly infringed if you send an agent and instruct him to do this he has done it your be has to under our laws that would amount to you having caused him to do it in making a direct infringement but that words if  your agent someone you hired by contract to go do it his representative his employees but if you look at the further language just more it says assisted with the installation directed over there in the point i don't think that rises to the level of direct infringement especially what we're talking about here a non patentable seal and our r v situation we don't really know if you look at the method claim it's in the pen is  have various steps that you have to do and the question is did they do all these steps or not they're very vague about this in fact it's so vague that judge miller said that that applying his situation mounted adjacent the opening for the slide out of the forest river he says i went there alone behold it was a stall but doesn't say who did it or how what what do these people these employees or represent are agents what role did they play and what did they do they follow all the steps so it is there is the problem it's almost as though you're asking at the pleading stage the following rule of law my three children go into a room right in that room somebody eats all the cookies or the cookie jar three kids come back out i can't accuse any of them because i don't know which one ate the cookies it's almost like that's what you're saying somebody built this r v on this date this guy saw it there it absolutely infringes according to the complaint whether true or not that's the complaint somebody went into a room these people ledge your employees were in that room participating in that process of building that lego tower eating those cookies the fact that it happened in your room behind a closed door and they're not positive exactly what aspects your employee did or didn't do seems perfectly reasonable right if you're going to sell them seals it seems perfectly perfectly reasonable to think you would go out and demonstrate to them how to put them on the vehicle for purposes of using them and selling them it's a perfectly reasonable assumption  it doesn't require a probability requirement it doesn't even require that you say who all the individual does work it's simply were it simply requires that with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the complainant that that there is a that it's plausible that infringement occurred i mean they have a lot of allegations in these complaints against the judge kept making them go back and do it over and and over and so i mean i don't even understand your argument well that that didn't show up in the first complaint so the fact that it came later must mean that it was implausible i mean that that doesn't i don't buy that because my why do you give someone an opportunity to replete was a different story is my while because of the fact that influenced force river i mean what what exactly is that and this is we're talking about a case here the allegation is that these were never made before and then all of a sudden they're being made and they're being sold to someone for this precise purpose and that they are inducing them to use these seals and stead of some other seals for this precise purpose and that they have knowledge to have a trial of discovery as is the way that this event occurred but really what we're talking about here this case is a competitor selling these seals and usually in these types of cases you would find all kinds of washers materials instructions very specific things that would be inducing a contributing that's not here to be that and so yes you might be able to convince the judge in summary judgment that there is not enough for it to prove the intent but it's certainly a less well you do you dispute that there's no nine ranging use yes i do but you don't dispute that they allege no not infringing i dispute the fact that you could sell something and have the intent analogy and precision that it has and not infringing use for example if you wanted to repair or in our view that originally had one of their seals you could probably do that because of the you look at the actual pleading the fact that if you look at the actual pleading that the vagueness and the qualification of the fact this employees are represent for agents without being saying what they did since the installation director stations are directly installed that use product that they did not go far enough to make out the directed for instant case for something that is a product that is not infringing determine what happened at that river r v place that's probably what that's going to happen if the court wants to do that but i will tell you that this is a case where our client is accused of selling these yes and they have an allegation that this forest river installation is selling that exact product so even if your client ends up not to be a direct infringer it seems like at least as play they still clearly have a case of contributory induced infringement but the fact that there is no specific facts that they have receded which go to this inducing or contributing other than the fact that they found seals and you're going to sell the seal to replace it then there's been an exhaustion of that sale so it can be done but more importantly under inducing and contributing if our client had opinion the council and believe dreamlike said there was no brochure we believe they didn't have time to make a brochure this is a relatively new product shortly after they got the former l t i employees so the fact that we can't produce a brochure that would be something later to but one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence is instructing and infringing use and we have stated in the second amended complaint that trim like employees went in there and instructed infringing use that is the intent additionally say that they've tried to actively conceal the parts they put in there by hiding the scraps this is the largest r v manufacturer in the country they would have had to walk by trash  floor yet they didn't they purposely remove those parts and we believe largely because they didn't want as we'll legend a second minute complaint one of the l t i life time employees to come in there and discover what had happened let's a moment go for a moment talk to the plausibility of it while twelve am and sure the court understands it but if we go to it paul what was implausible about that was the acts of the attorney general at the time there is no vicarious liability in that case in other words it was a prisoner would have had to allege the attorney general himself had a direct hand in the abuse of him that isn't even plausible on its face i can't imagine any instance where the attorney general would be directly in the prison abusing the prisoners if we go to the twamley case that case simply made allegations that all these telkom characters cared carriers are out there colluding and there was no reason other than well the prices are a lot the same while there are a lot of other explanations and it's too tenuous common economic circumstances of the situation at hand common cause would reasonably explain it they couldn't make a more concrete connection the difference between those cases in this case is we absolutely make the concrete direct connections these employees shortly after their arrival on the market appeared product as photographed in color look nearly identical in many aspects to the patented products we sold before their arrival and if there are no further questions your honor i would end it at that