the italian application uses the term semi liquid oh which can also be translated as semi liquid which is a well known and commonly understood term and to be clear ours is a perfect one  to understand what the inventors meant by half their corresponding use of a well known term semi like when and their original application is a natural place to look in a highly helpful source yet the district court declined to gave the document no weight whatsoever and the courts reasons for doing so simply don't hold up st the district court professed to be quite sure the documents written in a foreign language are irrelevant to claim construction now the district court cited no precedent for that finding and that's because there is no your honor there's no precedent whatsoever for discounting evidence because it's written in a foreign language not in  construction not in indefiniteness not in any other patent infringement or validity analysis and in fact this court and many others around the country regularly consider foreign language documents and constrain cl here considering the inventor's original application written in their native tongue undeniably helps own them in a the inventors understand of their invention and this court is emphasized time and again that that's an important aim of claim construction but that's one that the district court missed altogether not the district court nd reason for discounting the italian application was that the district court focused on some differences in word choice and phrasing between translation of the italian application and the three hundred and ninety dollars pattern and according to the district court those differences conclusively establish that the inventors deliberately used a different word in the united states that is half like wit to convey actually considered this important context how did it it could not have concluded that the inventor's intended to convey some deference but undisclosed meaning by using the term catholic with your honor's in the end there's no evidence whatsoever in the record showing that the inventors intended those terms to have some different meaning or scope and that's totally consistent with this court's precedents explaining the two different words can in fact mean the same thing in other words they can be s just one moment to now dr schild described he described liquids as free flowing there are things that do not have a thick consistency and that's in the appendix at seven  twenty two that's page eighty four of his transcript lines eleven through eighty two and then he described that semi liquids and half liquids they have that consistency's between a liquid and a solid they respond to gravity and they will explain the parameters of the liquid well it's interesting your honor because dr shah was asked what are the range of consistency that are associated with a half liquid versus something else of the numerical values and what he said was that's not necessary to determine whether something is a half like wit versus a solid he said persons under skilled understand without some quantification or some kind of  court never mentioned the most relevant information the examples of half liquids given within the three hundred and ninety patents specification and that's a list in column a line forty three through forty five these are the types of chemicals that can be used to create liquids and have liquid filling your honor and the patent says that persons of ordinary skill in the art can use these chemicals or others that are quote commonly used in the pharmaceutical field to create c e c soft elastic capsules with liquid or half liquid content so the inventors are referencing commonly used catholic words and that's an incompatible with the suggestion that this might be some obscure  of the court's opinion but the court will literally never addressed it nor did address any of this guidance in the specification on this point clear on of the well let me just ask you about the standard there because there's a little bit of interphase after considering all of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence including the expert declarations and testimony from both sides the district court found that the term half liquid is ambiguous and th half liquid which is the only term we care about as the senate them of semi liquid but it's worth pointing out that absolutely nothing in the intrinsic evidence or even in their translation equates the draw an inference about the meaning of one term based on a postcard litigation inspired translation of a different term from the italian party document and what the what the district court said and the translator regularly interpret words and phrases differently the inconsistency between the two translations is likely because translation requires the translator to use judgement so he says i'm i'm confronted with these two competing translations and i credit not late comer litigation inspired translation that's being offered to me i credit the one given by the inventors to the tatton office at the relevant time and i find that that's the best evidence of what they intended the word to be rendered as in english and based on vats i don't give any weight to either you or your late  mr johnston and his argument sort of assumes that the word semi liquid in english appears in the italian from a priority document that's just not the case the only evidence we have of family court is in the form of translations which are both extrinsic evidence a has a spouse to other words in those in those sections we come up with with a problem so for example the court said that  if you look at the prior art section and compare it to the past specification you find that the translators are part of the words differently from from the application and one example of that is in the title of the section itself because don't know if that's a disagreement in the translation of the italian original or is that it represents a decision by the applicant to use different words in the application than they used in the in the italian document but either way it's just not a sound reason to change the meaning of state of the art and treat it as if the words were prior art which is essentially what it is asking the court to do it deposition get answers that you find unhelpful and then simply ignore any answers that you don't like they're the ones who brought that information into the record not and now they're stuck with it the nd problem is that they didn't ask the district court to do anything about that issue they didn't they didn't object to the testimony they didn't ask for suffer mental briefing they didn't suggest that the court off not to consider those opinions in fact after the  depositions were taken after the claim construction briefing was largely completed and so there was a supplemental round of letters submitted specifically on the contents of the depositions and  clear relation those and he was unable to explain how it is that one can tell eleven dollars has a semi liquid as opposed or a half liquid as opposed to something that is not a half liquid bill and so i think that even without relying on dr kong it would be it would be possible for the for the courts were firm although this isn't an instance where there were there were were all definitions of the term semi like wit and not and not happily those sort of general purpose dictionaries don't all say that that it means a viscous liquid for example  dictionary says that it means having the qualities of both a liquid and a solid and the example that's given is semi liquid manure which st of all calls to mind something more like a flurry that has chunks in it than  a viscous liquid and nd of all is a reminder of how far these dictionaries are from the pharmaceutical contacts that ought to be the focus of the of the claims so  mr rosenthal comment that that we're relying on this post hoc litigation inspired translation which is something that he referenced a few times here on tell us never contested that translation but there's no evidence whatsoever that up for the st time during a deposition bringing them on the other side and thereby depriving the other side of an opportunity to cross them fairly or offer their own expert testimony in response