resolve whatever issues of their issues relating to the invention who made the invention and then mark if used relating to the contract issues relating to your client's rights under that contract and then depending upon how that how that falls out you're not foreclose to come back to the united states either ed in a district court proceeding or before the patent office to get in better sh i don't believe that's correct or i don't believe there's any case ever saying that in order to have standing you must be able to achieve the financial benefit in this particular person being as opposed to another percy so where as here there are different parts of the dispute that are probably  his name off the patents and inventor the understand my question you need somebody to jail for years i think you represented that arguably at least the fact that we're in district court and that issue hasn't been resolved could arguably be precluding your client from going straight to the patent office and getting the relief that he seeks overall which is just to get his name off of the patent so that strikes me as a little circuitous way of getting what you this is a textbook case for that i don't think there's any dispute here if there wasn't this patent which is the tail wagging the dog here if there wasn't a pattern element the issues between these three parties would all be resolved decide the issue that judge lynas spot it which is it has to decide the condition preceding it to know whether lucian coming into the united states and petitioning to change and censorship that's a question of ownership and the whole the danish courts do to even establish standing so is that the only reason your challenge you're here fighting whether or not they ought to be able to do to kate the event the shipwrights of the u s patent here in the u s courts yes well we have when we first started this case remember this was a case in which the complaint was framed as ownership ownership ownership that's what they were fighting over and that's and that's the nature of the claim they file eastern district of virginia one count the things one of the things is certainly the inventor ship question of the u s pat yes that's what they're asking the court here yes and do you agree that that the danish court doesn't have the authority to make that and you have a part of there's a there is an individual in denmark who was before the danish core and that core has the power to direct anything within the whole story if this was the united states of inventor ship in the u s doesn't that resolve the question it would seem to rule in my mind there are yes you know this is that problematic i mean we don't you know the patent office is being told i mean that all foreign courts could judy assume that just the danish court reaches that question but doesn't apply our press to that at all we're still you're still saying that yes it's ok we don't get to june they don't get to adjudicate it in the united states and then the parties are going to in essence be compelled to act in the united states to change inventor ship whereas that issue has been adjudicated for under principles that are contrary to the ones we apply in our c and make the determination there's no difference in the law they apply in order to do not ok so why does it matter it's not something that we're not going to take your word for it it's something we would it's either something we would have to adjudicate in the first instance here or not you don't need to but you don't need to create a problem that is a hypothetical that you both i appreciate the hypothetical and i understand what is giving you pause but the simple answer here is the question of standing in order our new evolution to challenge the inventor ship it has to show an actual injury it can get if there are if there are standing requirements under article three and the only thing and this yes you have allusion has no rights at the moment as as an owner of the patent unless it decides unless it can demonstrate to the court and mark that patterson was the inventor number one and number two and therefore it fits within the scope of the employment agreement so you see we have these two issues that are going to have to be responsible dishes to be resolved by the danish court one of the misconstru make that determination and if they determine there is some ownership that they have that gives them standing to proceed in the u s courts with respect to the inventor ship question i am and let me just cite the court so you're not saying that therefore close to it that it  not appropriate for the u s courts to determine inventor ship under the patent you're just making the temporal argument there jeff to wait and see about this threshold that should be resolved before they can do that i agree with you that is the practical overlay and then for the for the words of the parties can i'd go to a state court and ask the state court to resolve underlying issues relating to a better ship that's preempted why should it be any different and  the reasoning the rationale for that is to avoid lack of uniformity in application of these someone do want laws relating to inventor why should there be any that danish law applies to the inventor ship of the us so the fact that the invention originated in denmark doesn't make any difference in terms of the question of inventor ships that needs to be hypothetical it's a matter of timing it doesn't make sense here because they have no rights at all to appear in the court and in organized it states if they don't have an interest if no evolution does not have a drink so why couldn't court here is there something that would preclude the court here from determining i mean obviously the case before it's appropriately before the court here on the question and then just ship they have to also determine threshold issues with respect to state and me what's wrong with that because to get to that they have to decide the authorship it issue and that issue is being litigated in denmark between danish parties and will be determined on the application of the danish employment agreement regarding whether the statute of limitations has run and whether or not you have allusion waived its claims to this happened and agreed that it would not challenge the fact that the issue was before the court in denmark and in fact w bring a standalone action under two fifty six is the only path to financial reward under two fifty six that's our change of investor ships that are in this case involves him first succeeding on his state law claims and obtaining reputational a dream because it's a very unusual what we have here with mr rasmussen is a strictly a reputational injury standing position he has no financial interest in the outcome of reputational injury and we have this very odd and somewhat perverse situation of the reputation that he's alleging is i'm wrongly they as something i am and included inventor rather than excluded that's not enough you can just call this it's relevant to standing in the sense that there's an immediacy part that's missing if the only thing new evolution has is a claim and not an absolute right that is now there was no evolution does not possess an assignment from larger case that opposing counsel mention is different because larson wouldn't have a claim to ownership even if you weren't there so that's a factual distinction in that case i do want to turn to this notion that somehow the danish courts can compel