larsen and i concluded that misused there had no standing to bring a claim for correction of inventor ship under section two fifty six q do you agree that that in the complaint that the only injury that's a were making the allegation now that is purely reputational harm there may be we have other claims for potential financial compensation misused or with that comes was out of her oral contract with mr goble which is basically a separate issue on the standing issue the correction of the inventor ship under section two fifty six we're saying that reputational interests alone would support that this is are you asking us to basically reach the question and show which we implied was a possible issue but that we never had to reach in other words and show we said it's possible that merely being a mentor on a patent is a valuable right and that that might said was that east and i think it was an increase in troop rotation of larsen face what the court said is that the facts here are more or closer to the facts and larson than they are in trouble and i think that can be i can demonstrate that that say in misunderstanding on the part of the district court there are several factual distinctions between mr larsen and them is used here a principle one is in larsen case fifty six what what he was saying is i want to use to fifty six to kick these other inventors off of my patent it was a reverse correction same people on the patent should be there our position is in mr motion for a more definite statement you say we don't fully understand this can you flesh it out a little bit more she could certainly come in and say why didn't she asked for an opportunity to amend i mean it seems to me that all she would have had to do under shit is put in a sentence saying i'm still working in this field that would have been pretty much the end of the inquiry right again your honor or ask me questions that i can answer or not be in there in hindsight that would make sense why she didn't do what i can answer this and here but i respectfully disagree with that that is the central factual question that the statue of limitations in fact turns out if we agreed that you knew really you know we're all in agreement that sort of for years was the statute of limitations people live their lives which equates she met with lawyers to discuss the application for a path lawyers who have since claim the shoes they were not their lawyers that's the significance of the motion to dismiss that law from a law firm has  if we accept what they say they would not be in a position to share information about a pending secret battened with misuse or now it's true that fattened would be issued along with the eight million other patents that are out there are her position and had a deal and now she claims yes later that she was left off well under those circumstances you really should have been expected to keep track of filing of an invention that  list this is precisely illustrates my point your honor you know question is whether that's reasonable and that's why we're saying that this should be decided after a trial on the merits and should be decided by the jury rather than a district court or at this point by this court you know there are factual questions you're not saying that i can prove at this point that she was defrauded by mr valma what i am seen is because there are questions of this nature and and asking this court to affirm the decision the district court of all of this court's most recent announcements on when you have standing for in this sort of a context is a straightforward application of the of those working in the field that should be about five right well actually i respectfully disagree with that i think sure going a little further the allegations and shook or far more detail than any of the allegations we have here you had direct concrete particularized allegations that he had reputational harm that his prior employer had spread bad information about him in the marketplace and significantly that he had an expert opinion that said his employment prospects had specifically been damaged as a result of the reputational harm that he had there and in this court's non presidential following decision the most recent implication of this in the pepsico case this court said it not just be a concrete particularized refutation of harm but it has to be on the you're correct you did not that's where the pepsico case took that to the next step in a non presidential decision but at the same time what even if that were ok that you could have just this bare bones allegation which again i don't think it was the proper  even in that context if we go back to the third amended complaint here this isn't the first this was a third amended complaint there are no allegations of reputational harm the word reputation it will reputational does not appear in the complaint anywhere she alleges purely economic rely on any of this reputational harm and significantly over once asked for leave to amend and in that decision is reviewed under the eleventh circuit law under us and under the eleventh circuit law and the court's decision whether to dismiss a case with prejudice or without is reviewed under an abuse of discretion there's been no additional step of the fact that eleventh circuit it's pretty clear that certain dismissals are on the merits and certain are not and when it's in the question of standing it's not on the merits so it can't be with prejudice well i believe that if the the the court can make that determination if they do or after a factual attack on jurisdiction where the court does consider evidence and the plaintiff is given a full and complete opportunity to air those issues there would be no reason if they don't even ask interests and at that at least until she pays the forty thousand dollar attorneys fees judgment to the state of washington she doesn't have an interest in but why is that kind of conditional economic satisfied if it's at if it's ever satisfied right now that's what exactly what i meant by conditional interest it's actually the impression that there would be fine if there was evidence that she's ever going to be able to satisfy the judgment which is now it's a considerably more with the interest and attorney's  and every canonic interest and misuse or has offered no evidence that she'll ever be able to get that company back or take any steps to do that there's no evidence in this record to support that inference alone option situation would be different because at least in a case where the person with the option against yeah willing to exercise yes exactly and here we are there is no evidence in the record to suggest that she will ever be able to do that and that's why again we just keep going back to the  doing this on a blank slate because of the pellets participation and other loss and she's already actually been deposed twice and there was actually a robust factual record to show that she did not have either the reputation or the economic in interest necessary to establish standards and under those facts and of that law record is pretty sad in terms of her success in dealing with lawyers as a net yes it's has been a frustrating experience for many of us for many years here and i mean for her application when she thought they were her lawyers too because she was involved in all of those discussions and then they i'm going to represent mr vote against her i mean it's it you you have a hard time thinking that the profession looks very good by the end of the day well your honor if they hadn't appealed that motion to disqualify but this information's on the record and it's actually the district court weighed a lot of facts and found that she had no reasonable assumption the original lawyers ever had a relationship with her and her lawyer in years prior to filing her complaint that she had meant a fraud that is overly simplistic because it does not incorporate the elements into the ga calling the proper issue before the court on the state law claims is affirmative action which is somehow and i'm no jurist at this level that is somehow different from the lesser of her which concealed the existence of a cause of thousand and thirteen m the reason that is is that's what that's what the problem is asking for the reason they're asking for that is because under georgia law the stockroom station starts to accrue on the day you can once in that case in once in another case there was plenty factual record the judge converted properly from a rule twelve b to a rule fifty six motion and gave reasonable time for the parties to brief were submitted and i think this is a good example because if you don't know there's a problem you're going to remain sucked it did the plaintiffs here in the district court make any arguments that there were different a cool periods for that different at least that she was left off of i i can only speak to my knowledge of the case in my knowledge i don't recall that or in order for any special limitations to start running to only if this is wrong essentially the wrong needs to be complete right that doesn't start until whatever the last element of the ro it to put it in another way your honor that is correct to put it another way you have to be able to file suit right so well i guess two questions one that i keep thinking about the application question which has nothing to do with what mr bobo did or did not say or mislead or anything just when the cause of action actually was one that she could have  why would that be the case for the filing of an application as opposed to the issuance of it and if it's the filing of the application why is that not a series of i don't have any advice or if you have a seven or something i and on that patent on the first that grant right that's one injury related to the fraud if and if a different injury relates to the fraud and injury doesn't entail either the application was filed or the pat to thank your honor and the verge i understand you represent her observations on is used to experience with lawyers i hope that we can fix that but that really brings up you know the key essential here is this case has been you know around quite a lot of paper flying back and forth but the the best way to resolve this if we were simply to take this case develop the evidence presented to a jury you know question one way or the other misused  application files non of those documents shows or even suggests that misused or was not an applicant on those patents number in her frame of mind you got a background she had no experience with  ts no experience with apple or and she did not know that you have to read an application she did not know that you have to sign off on the region this was entirely new to her what she didn't know where she  who was taking care of the matter so that's what she knew she assumed to the extent there was a reference to an application so it was the application the she in fact initiated remember the evidence shows that she was the one who came up with the idea of contacting lawyers and trying to get it happened in the first place she reasonably assumed they were looking after her interests she found out in the course of a deposition in two thousand and ten when someone who's actually been sued on one ever actually been owned by the company misused or was part of the patent was in fact originally owned by a separate corporation mr bobo set up that office solutions l l c so again she would have no reason to know about these and filings as a result of that so you put it all together it smells funny our theory is that there's some fraud going on here but again rationing that those can be submitted