appeared to be motivated by a desire to just drag the case of aung and keep the defendant in the case as long as possible even though the plain oppose confronted with made by by counsel but but he just viewed those as based on inexperience or or as as actual mistakes in other words he didn't seem to find the intentionality that was absolutely completed and in the in the sense that only one term was up for construction and so the parties had gone through the wasn't that this was an invalid so i i don't understand your saying that there was a factual error by the judge on page eight and the two things in the sentence you cited are that his case is resolved before claim construction which it was he had look at it and they failed to do so and i think that's consistent with the idea that they want to destroy in this case along without spending their resources by the same time making us expand our resources the case is resolved before the taking of significant discovery the only discovery you mentioned is that you disclosed source code that's a matter of a single computer file disclosure there was not there were not even any expert reports you want to district court to assess your  impact of a motion to dismiss you don't need discovery on a motion to dismiss its like a twelve b six standard what we were saying and our original motion for judgment if if you got past the motion for judgment on the pleadings if you went beyond that and for example if they had amended their complaint which they never did they could have maybe gotten around the dividing  delivery and not related to more it related to non infringement but it also related to how the case was litigated by the other side they used their lead  to come up with a an infringement contention and so we we desperately fought with the other side on the fact that they have st of all put their lead counsel in the position as  witness and it clearly showed when he went out and used he use a phone as a phone i'm sorry a message which is outside the road to  district court recognized that there were that there was a failure to grasp meaningful technological and operational distinctions as he said and that mistakes are made by direct even recognizing that he said he didn't find a sufficient nefarious intent and given our standard of review how do we how do we disagree with that even and we would have in the st instance been inclined to award fees how could we do it given our standard of review to the other side who are not doing enough investigation or understanding the technology and that was in the context of a rewarding  was trying to say well that proves that this is a good case and that we have a strong past this court that actually shows you have a bad case you will put on notice that your  and they even where counsel counsel this is just more you said in an innovation's case the judge the same judges in this case said that when the patent office rejects something and then allows it that shows that you ha judge why didn't that work in our favor in this case if it's the same judge and then the only other thing that was relied on its innovation was the argument of the position taken by the court  sue i e the intent to sue on negative claims that that case was was less than a year before your case your case then comes along and he says you know yeah these claims are ineligible but i'm not sure you know what would have come and what the plaintiff would argue don't infringement and he says and i also don't really attribute nefarious intent to them i think they're just inexperienced and ill and for the same judge had these two cases in front of him at almost the identical time and he writes these two aspect of our appeal but i would say the judge didn't explain our give any detail about why he felt so badly about the staff he just gave an opinion that he said all this is a bad case and or two with the on reasonable manner and which the case was litigated in our case with regard to the subject of strength while judge andrews alternately found the claims in this case to be directed to an was right that it was just sloppy lawyering on your part well i might dispute that comment myself but twice in the wrong district right i mean just from the very beginning itself right there was nothing i could do about that so i had to file the nd case and try to consolidate the two so that if you if you look for example ok some years ago well because i was trying to consolidate procedural missteps that occurred in florida before it even got to the court case and the st florida cases we're calling on then the nd floor of the case which is the one that i filed and proceeded on a normal course of activity negotiations had been pending for a long time i'm not quite sure personally i'm not quite sure when they started and i know that there was a press release that for initially it was late november and then later it was changed to the st week of december so since i have not disclosure statements are up to date so why wouldn't you at least ask that question of the m and a attorneys know the fact that you said there were multiple terms that needed to be construed before any resolution could occur and then you turned around and said well it was really only one term i don't know how many meetings for over claim terms and fortunately we resolved to claim terms to the point that we only had one left that was in dispute which was the selection to hold the delivery so my experience has been that sure if you don't list disputed claims terms then they don't become part of the martin process from the very beginning but hopefully through cooperation between opposing counsel you get to the point where you resolve many of the disputes and maybe even all of them  one thing to do your own research but quite another to say that your own research constitutes evidence in the case server when you when you use the app there is no way to contact the driver directly because you don't know his her phone number so you have to use the functionality o driver can use your standard i phone messaging app to communicate i don't understand how that has anything to do with you being inserted yourself into the case as a witness you help me get beyond the conclusion and give me your thoughts about why and a substantive level the claims here were presented a record at all other than the fact that we all have been able to be able we all have been able to pick up the phone and try to call the airline when your luggage is lost and i have made a comment to the fact that you know there's movies made like meet the fockers of all aware of situations you can get into when you try to recover lost luggage from the airline but other than that because in practice picking up the phone and calling the airline company just didn't work very well ok counsel i think your time and stop why don't we go ahead and have for a bottle from say i have to take real issue with the fact that they never filed an updated rule seven corporate disclosure statement and delaware and to this day they have it in the federal i've got a monopoly on this business because my patent and i'm suing people who are infringing my path well it's all of a sudden the patents declared invalid the not that goes right out the window and maybe your valuation goes down so one incentive for them to keep this thing going is to continue to say to the purchaser that hey we have a monopoly we got a great patent there and friends saying we're going to have we're going to put everybody out of business who tries to do w true intent but because it was never disclosed we didn't have an opportunity to seek discovery on that nor did the district court have an opportunity to determine whether or not he had a conflict so that that never i have to say when you look at the totality of circumstances i'd like to think that all the federal rules are important not just the ones that are dispositive but let's not forget that will seven is a federal rule of civil procedure and they to this day have not updated their corporate disclosure in delaware and why would that be i would say that they were trying to sell the company for as much as they could and they did not want an adverse ruling on this path they wanted to keep it going as long as they could that's all i have all right i think st counsel the case is taken under submission that are proceeding hard today