j wonder for twenty to thirty two iran or i think what we we're not contesting that because i think the rulings that that the judge made not not dependent on those facts we have the the n d a or the nondisclosure agreement ruling were based on his view that there was an onion bigger was interpreted ation of the agreement and that's a matter of law it's not a matter of fact and with respect to the preemption argument we did contest that at the time we contested it in the summary judgment opinion preemption our argument is now that's not the case and the judge subsequently found that in fact him as a gasp erratically of was not the prior art was not something that was there and therefore there is an error in that and i that was better and something that was known i'm not i don't not sure i remember saying that exactly something that was there unknown to coca cola and so human unknown it if i said known it was known to dark and came up with the idea cola had not sat down they hadn't broken bread they hadn't talked about what was going to happen at that point and only thing that agreement could cover was the one thing that was in the contemplation of the parties which was a protection being offered for coca cola information passing through and this was they knew what they at if accident they knew was chemical that was it and so when we look at what the judge did the judge said well the scope is very broad and it covers everything and effectively somehow now relates to activities that are going to go beyond that related to chemical structures research and development other things none of which are caught they can already see the cases that we've cited to page forty four forty five are brief or clear on the inventor ship issue but assuming just for purposes of argument there was an affirmative on the inventor ship to ship what happens to this point i don't think you're right and we still would be seeking on just a rich man the lord and that's what was the  looking royalty on whatever plan is whatever happens with cam worldwide because when we look at what happened the net effect is if ops lost control of the technology and whatever rights it should have had it doesn't have something much more but i think they believe that there was a confidential communication undertaken with coca cola that they were working in collaboration that going to do something together that they were co inventors eventually when these things came for work they weren't given that agreements are not ambiguous the language is clear there's an attempt to sort of get around the language and say that there has been repudiation or that there was an unstated confidentiality obligation in the two thousand and nine agreement that that flowed both ways not only with respect to coca cola company's confidential information but also information the efforts alleges was confidential that provisions are clear they're not ambiguous and there is no basis to try to go enter into a commercial relationship there is an integration clause paragraph and this is page six thirty four panic six thirty four of the two thousand and nine agreement it says that this is the entire agreement in writing there is no other understandings you can only modify this in writing so that the parties expressly agree in writing that there is now understanding apart from what's in the certainly are on paragraph so what page are you on and yes i'm at that appendix page six thirty three benefit to any other party b take or refrain from taking any action except as expressly set forth here again or see disclose any information and one paragraph another paragraph is at page six thirty four of the joint appendix paragraph ten of the agreement it states this agreement represents the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior communications agreements and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter here off the agreement may not be modified amended or waived except by a written agreement signe representatives of the parties signing below and there is still the two provisions you ally of those are the primary a provision is also the purpose the purpose expressly states in the first paragraph of the letter an income that encompasses this agreement it's joint panix page six thirty two it's about four or five lines down it says the purpose of these disclosures will be to determine whether our company and your companies may enter into a commercial and then paragraph twelve talks about some of the pair of the provisions that we just discussed including paragraph seven on payment in paragraph ten on being the entire agreement of the parties you know will survive coca cola company here is a molecule probably won't work our way the reason if i may i don't know if you're honest i mean the questions about the agreements and repeat preemption the same briefly on the on the preemption issue we believe that the favorite of the n t p case with respect to the part of the damages no accounting or attempt to restrict coca cola company from freeway exercising with respect to inventor ship very briefly the issue that we have is there is no evidence to support the crop aeration warming under the correct standard the and just very briefly running down  that he got from the coca cola company his patent application copy with respect to that portion of the evidence everything that was in the coca cola companies prior patent application  molecule was known and are absolutely we've conceded that that was part of the trial evidence that was before the judge and the judge found that in that getting back to the preemption argument that was the mistake the had informed the judge the time that's not the appropriate thing to look at it's the market as a gasper at it and i think there's ample proof the judge did it magnificent fact finding very thorough it starting at age twenty of the  appendix and going through a real look to each and one of the each and every one of these elements and he found that there was collaboration that there was conception that there were that there was corroboration that there was claims claim eleven goes the use in the circumstance where you have a product is made up of compounds and i think you would you have a case that tells us which where we go on this one i think when we look at what standard we're using for inventor ship you're looking at just a general inventor i think that the answer here is that when you have the significant contribution the doctor can or add to claim a while then to what is that what is claimed in the two sixty five to sixty five patent you can find a he's an inventor and that's really the important thing back into the record but that really relates to i don't have to pay you for showing me information you don't have to pay me for seeing and holding the information that's it that's that's how contextually those provisions return the subject matter and his point  scrutiny just images of like a walk into a bear trap it could be considered that way i would say that what they're doing is trying to work collaboratively with coca cola and confidential coca cola to get to an end result and the fact is unjust enrichment related to there are cases like with your bilateral contract the second year where you've clearly got some lights it's their ordinary lives we didn't steal from you because you gave us what we took that with respect to the n d s and that reaction the judge committed legal error and the judge should be reversed on that harshly with the finding that there is an error on finding that and was in our art and with respect to inventor ship we believe the judge got it absolutely right that the two sixty five patent which is the only claim that dr tanner search that he is a cohen founder of incorporates claim why because it's dependent from that claim and there are a number of elements that there is a container  compound case that is directly on point but i believe that the now are trying cases is on point and is not limited only to non chemical inventions in that case there was an adjuster for a long bar support extender that was provided as the sole allegedly standard because i think that the principle that is that is and kind of applied in our tron about whether or not somebody made a significant contribution to the invention is something that does need to be assessed on a case by case basis i don't know that this corroboration that they came up with which is the molecule and the method of making it which were in the prior art and or under the formula two preexisting claim of coca cola's claim one in the prior application specific targeted purpose well i saying they're saying taylor came up with and our position is that there is no evidence in the record that corroborates that that is what he came up with he came up with molecule he came up with the method of making it i