are intertwined in this case because it was in the room who kept bradley the omitted inventor from finding out the truth that bradley's contributions were made a part of the patents issued in this case in order for there to be a delay there had to be some notice to brantley that he is contributions were made a part of these patents at issue he testified that he did not have actual notice until february of two thousand secret recording that happened here ok and explain why that was notice the secret recording has to be looked at looked at in the context of what was going on in broome went to southwest research where bradley worked and he says look i've been fired from p s i i want to compete with them i want to develop my own product he's got a couple of rest catches and they're going back and forth and he's getting ideas and then contributions from bradley bradley doesn't know that everything he's people that you know going to be part of this if you want and on the path and then it goes on if i can get this think pan and time and then it talks about getting the concept and it is of that is it that i noticed i think that's notice that at some point in the future he may be seeking a patent on these ideas but it's not clear if you're going to include bradley's contributions are just going to be on ingram's ideas and the fact that he's actually offering and telling him this makes it seem your friend of mine and get some ideas from you you know there's a patent really working together on this and that in and of itself makes bradley think well why why would he have to assure that i'm thinking the test is the same as as the court the test is whether bradley had actual notice or would have reasonably been expected to inquire about whether ingram used his ideas in a patent that was going to be even met with a patent attorney was unclear what it was going to be and none of this was being written down bradley's point of view if he's sitting in a room and he's just talking about ideas it's not clear that these specific ideas he's sharing are actually going to be memorialized input into some kind of patent application and the fact that ingram is going to as ingram says in the secret recording get him involved in anything that takes place down the road doesn't lead bramley to suspect that his contributions at this point in time are going to be in some patent later on for that and that he's not going to be told about it what are we dealing with here well the conversation it was in the context the conversation ingram's sharing his possible playing and he's saying i want to compete with p s i got all this experience they're sharing ideas about what's going to go into the patent and he does refer to the fact that he's going to go i believe he says he's going to talk to pat attorney to see if there's anything possible about this and the fact is he never follows up there's nothing to indicate that he ever filed and actually been issued by the patent office he testified he didn't know until february two thousand and seven when he knew there was a patent two thousand and he knew that ingram had been issued a patent he didn't know what it was on he never looked at it ingram had had an earlier patent i think it was in one thousand nine hundred ninety ninety six that had been issued in his name the fact that these engineers these people in this industry and some patent issues i don't think necessarily by itself would indicate that must in knowing i'm going to go back to this i don't think there's anything just fact that ingram got a patent in the year two thousand that would lead him to think that patent must have my ideas i must go check it out i must take the time to go look them review and see if he actually took my ideas and this time frame he still communicating with with anger he had the initial meeting in july of one thousand nine hundred seventy with ingram after that initial meeting he did some drawings for him after he retired from southwest research in two thousand and one he went back to work with ingram in two thousand and three there's no nothing in the evidence for and what's been testified to that of the testing that bradley had done and he's pointing out look i did make some contributions here i mean you can't say that the work up and doing is not good when it came up with this design that we're trying to work on here in two thousand and four back in  what the just reported here was take undisputed facts so there's no allegation that the summary judgment standard effects appeal undisputed facts and based on that applied his discretion to find that there was lapses in this case an unreasonable delay and material of the existence of pat well just focusing on inquiry notice you know did he have a reasonable person have inquired about the subject matter in one thousand nine hundred seven is your honor pointed out mr ingram was talking repeatedly and in very specific terms it was not general general remarks what he was saying was i need to be able to invent something different something fundamentally different so that we can patent it we're going to go to a kind attorney but where does judge accused tell us that in his decision you know that's well more than sufficient evidence that in two thousand which is more than six years from the time when the patent very few knew when the claim was brought there was inquiry no it's at that moment and that's a six years the presumption would apply to that and there's been no evidence to rebut that presumption i think judge q then added a final backstop in two thousand and three that the mr bradley was actually working for air go on these patents testing them and ownership because it doesn't does it deserve the funding alleges by the district court negate having to find the force ability of the different agreements that were a play well and that is an issue i was going to raise that that of action that was probably before the district court regardless of all the state court issues and regardless of the remit issue so at the time when the district court ruled on inventor ship under latches i mean there's just no dispute that he had a valid claim in better shape to see in front of and he ruled on the issue i think the fact that he ruled on that issue may move the remand issue in this case but it doesn't not deprive him of jurisdiction or this court of jurisdiction to review the inventor should dispute because there is a valid standalone no dispute on that whatsoever the evidence shows that air goes invested over six million dollars and these patents having to share with its competitor in this technology area would undoubtedly cause great prejudice that's never really been disputed in th appeal based on the undisputed facts on the latches issue there's simply no way to say that the district courts latches judgment was unreasonable you know one point worth making i think because a lot of times when you get in these cases you have a certain claim of unfairness that a party might be an inventor and it's going to cause some unfairness but there is absolutely no such claim that could be made in this case where you actually had was a party that went and known about the  airco knew about these patents for years knew before it got this assignment that they were consulting agreements between air going brantley and what it did is it then went out and got a quick claim deed from the party for tw five hundred dollars as judge hughes put it showing the value that there was really behind it when you know even bradley would stand up and say i have rights in these paths so there's no claim of unfairness in this case i'll address the unclean hands issue as well  i think it's important to point out that all of the kind of innuendo and argument about mr ingram having you know left t s i and competing with p s y and you know violating in a responsibility he had that's already been litigated that was litigated in the oklahoma action and that was resolved in a string of favor that he didn't violate any responsibilities he had this was legitimate competition and there's never really any question about that none of that's really relevant to this appeal the only issue on the unclean unclean hands exception to the latches with it which has been argued is whether mr ingram had particularly egregious misconduct that somehow caused bradley to delay in his invention claim and the facts proved completely the opposite of that the evidence shows as yours and pointed out that interim told bradley repeatedly in their taped conversation that he was going to go patent decision is his concept it then show that they worked together for months including mr bradley doing drawings and you know being paid for it and then finally ingram and heir go employed bradley for a full year in two thousand and three in two thousand and four to work on on issues related six forty five patent there's simply no way to say based on those facts that m concealing from mr bradley any claim to invent or ship or the patents themselves and certainly can't say on this record that the distributive use discretion finding that there was no unclean hands supporting some extreme exception from the last  requirement the other is the only other the only other issue the court has to resolve and it was an argue before but i want to address because it is an issue the judge did the district court found that he had to address because it kind of runs a different track than the last his argument is interpretation of the southwest research then the assignment occurred in one thousand nine hundred seven or two thousand and whenever you know whenever they were because the rights were created and so p s i would have had those rights back then and then the last argument with with p s i since since they referring to is page eight ten of the record where the district court said that because a consulting contract if it automatically assigned inventor ship interest to systems which is c s i last would not apply because p s i did not know that bradley double crossed it until the secret recording was revealed in the oklahoma litigation if the court reaches that issue though it's a it's a very strict or legal issue firmly settled by this court case law about you know agreements to agree versus present assignments the ip venture case that judge newman authored talked about when the language says agree to assign that's a future agreement agree that's not a present time in this case and you can clear it talks about shall we do agree shall take certain actions even says that at the client's request which is p s i the parties will take these actions and there is no way to argue i think that that is a automatic and present assignment and also the work that mr bradley was doing was outside the scope of that and we've briefed that also you know that in the fifth circuit also relied on another amount motive analysis which is that you know if that in the district or made some comment that the eventually she was collaterally stopped in the court said well if if that isn't true then we would have to address it and so inventor ship is that when ingram was fired from p s i i and he was going to bradley for help in july ninety ninety seven he was in a catch twenty two situation catch twenty two was he needed bradley's help on the one hand but he also there had been an earlier invention by bradley that had all of the process of being invented being assigned from southwest research over to p s time so the only way that ingrid could achieve his goals of competing with p s i in this industry of automatic tire inflation system was if he was able to get these ideas but keep it secret from everybody including bradley because otherwise he'd have to share part ownership of these ideas the person is trying to compete with and so that's evidence of a motive to want to keep this information secret from bradley to get information from him to keep it secret even couldn't make it work the still needed bradley's help and he still wasn't telling bradley by the way this this is all these ideas were you know your ideas are in this in this product he's not telling them that they've been isn't know that he testified he didn't know until february two thousand and seven he didn't know that the conversation back ten years earlier than reported he didn't know that there were and this also ties into the the material prejudice aspect of the latches where if ingram is keeping this from bradley then it's just not fair to come back and say well even though  ingram was keeping all this secret from bradley we're going to we're going to let him profit from that because he spent a lot of time and money if he always knew that bradley should get some credit for these patents in that there was an obligation  anything that bradley comes up with should go to pieces he can't come back later and say well i knew all that but you can't take it away from me because of her and so for the latches it's our position  never have been granted that it was an abuse of discretion that there's no evidence to support that that bradley had notice actual or should have known and that there was no material prejudice