please the court in deciding summary judgment the lower court overlooked three areas which are there still genuine issues of material fact number one there are no normal business records demonstrating that any actual sales  the accused products let alone the sub products that were subject to the license were conducted number two to the extent wreck to see if any products to help think they are not covered by the license and number three the court overlooked the impact of rector seals failure to mark the licensed product with fire blocks patent number i'm moving to the st issue of the normal business records simply put there are no business records that demonstrate any sales there's no contract naming the product purchase orders there no shipping information there's there's no evidence of payment think about that these are two multinational corporation and there are no documents whatsoever evidence saying that there were any sales between you know the lower court noted the absence of documents and said that that was unusual there are documents that have been provided but what has been provided that makes the matters worse so st we have made up purchase orders and this is appendix seven hundred dollars means a purchase orders that were were created strictly for the purpose of litigation to show what a purchase order would have looked like if it existed and there are only two of them and they're only from two thousand and seventeen there's also a public seven of the accused products but this is annualized to two thousand and seventeen meaning it's only for two thousand and seventy and it's been annualized so we don't know the details of what those sales were moreover we don't know where the  listing all of their purchases for the accused product from rector seal rector seal also provided the counterpart documents their sales of products of data in enclose in those in those documents are identical for example the vendor numbers are the same meaning hilt the refers to record seal by the same vendor number that rector seal refers to healthy in addition in hill fees report the report that lists their purchases from record there's a column for inventory receipt this is the inventory they received from products might have slightly different chemical composition than the products that rector still takes to market in its own name again the license does not allow them to simply choose what they want to sell there were specific requirements of what they were allowed to sell what products would be subject to the license in addition rector c e o has gone ahead and gone ahead and told us it was no longer making the want to were genuine issues of material fact here yes your honor we moving forward to the extent that record seal actually sold product a product or similar representations we believe that that it shows that to the extent that any products were being told they were not necessarily the products that were the sub subject of the license then we get to the license under the li essential turn that rector's seal markets products with fire blocks numbers and we know this because st of all that section negate the fact that this was an essential term of the contract once the reordering of the labels occurred and record sealed failed to mark the product they lost their rights under the agreement and therefore started were information and kept its database of inventory was in a database that you could only permission from but it would be ad hoc we didn't have actual purchase orders that we would provide that no other way for us to have proven guilty to have proven supplier of law that only source this product from now mr burgess says that there were no products or no records showing the five blocks you'll agree where they said where they minute that only they were relying on they weren't aware of until after they file the opening brief and clearly they didn't raise it so we think that it was even if that argument wasn't  is going to be identical because there can be minor differences in the chemical properties of the various products that are within margins of error for when you're producing them or manufacturing them so they're not different penalty of perjury in these declarations so they had no evidence on their side at no point while there was a mountain that is on the other side and although the court saw that there was no evidence of some judgment stage when it came to addressing the but the court disagreed with that the court recognized the part of the law did not have all the information in this said that in view of the in the missing information plus the evidence that part of black acquired during the its rights to not only bring this case but to continue to pursue it turning quickly to the ruhleben issue we're a little confused why and i think the court was lower court was to why  one judge chandler the argument notice that inventor holdings case was woefully weak and then in the opinion it was written as objective plea we hear we have a federal was provided was referred to by the lower court as roast speculation is that putting all those things together you have has been validly case that was undoubtedly weak when it was five and the point about the rule  the pleading or false they had no there was no evidence to support them nor did it ever be evidence to support them and yet we find ourselves here months and months later still litigating still spending resources to try to prevent a negative that there was no other insert that if you got from anybody that wasn't right at some point there's got to be good faith basis for filing there was no such basis here in the case packing is different and details physical and chemical comparison of a single private label insert to a single boxcar it could exhibit a material difference within the bounds of typical manufacturing tolerance she goes on