propagate for the better part of sixty to seventy years that traditional mandeville i had a single karoly of petals a crow of petals is basically like a frump that i think of it like that one layer of petals goes around species of plant having a double flowering double cruel amanda villa called monterey they file their application at the pet this is just trying to connect can i just ask i guess it's kind of a record at the time he signed the licensing agreement with the greens it's actually reflected in the licensing agreement with the greens it doesn't apply to the licensed plants as it were and the problem is that this is one of two major errors the district court made here the st one is it says double flowers but if you wanted to drill into it technically which the expert in the case does what unquote double flowers i see no distinction between ma nine on the one hand being one thing and then reading marie green and monterey being a separate this is monrovia's patent it refers to them on the height as having a single flowers with five petals what do i make of that  anything i don't think green makes anything of it maybe it just means it has two of those each one with high flowers with five petals there it uses the language single flowers to refer to them on a night i guess i guess the reason i'm trying to figure this out is it in a way this is a kind of a single issue case that is the expert for the other side did a study in which he said the chances right question because there's the yeah legation from the defendant here is that it actually came from a rd thing namely the mana which is never discussed or not never discussed it is mentioned but is is invention busy that were selected for it show a cluster of pink petal lloyd's within the flower throat appearing as a pink flower within a larger pale pink flower so i mean this was you understand that i mean the basic logic of of the ground of such a clause in there that there's only one piece of evidence on the green side and that evidence doesn't count for anything because it declaration he doesn't even mention them on right now but he does in the expert report and he does it in a way that suggests it too is a double flower which does add to the mystery of why he doesn't do the comparative probability analysis it does and then he goes through and explains why he can't do certain things and so he looked at the likelihood of an independent with more night because the monterey is a light pink like whereas you read every green is reddish purple or dark pink green doesn't have a flower within a flower so you know there was there was really nothing to challenge any of the is has that same structure that that's really mary green does and only knowing that information that's why dr weil gives a range that the chances of that specific mutation showing up in the manner that is said and that into the ways testified to is between one and one hundred and seventy five million and one and one hundred and thirteen which is mathematically almost certain that if those are related plants either the same or genetically related double flower but that assumption he can't hold that because he even acknowledges and admits that it's a double flower so i don't know with the expert structure and that the same valuable structure for which monrovia entered a licensing agreement in the fact the best we can do is probably one of the most well respected well known genesis the world saying hey the best i can tell you is knowing testimony no argument no nothing and so that you know the incorrect standard and the court should reverse that and see if dr we get a finder of fact way dr legals testimony what can and can't be known vs the