theory of proving their case then it remains in state this case should be heard in state court and if that is correct then why i know that we've got a lot of debate about what the complaint covers and what it doesn't cover but at least an aspect of it is the falsity of the statements in the letter so if we conclude at least that one allegation is non happily and under christiansand why doesn't that result the whole question of whether or not  have to be hers a court of the state to actually dismiss is our prejudice under younger he retains for the moment the case under the be available because he has a view that is not part of this case so i'll that's a pretty relevant consideration so he is going forward with the our claim is that are consistent claim in the case of communications that m p h j sent to targets in vermont contains deceptive false and misleading statements and that those statements violate our state consumer protection law and that the first amendment is not a e and and we fully expect that the stakes for will in the context of either trial in america for summary judgment that all of those issues that are her attempting to to to prevent them from enforcing their patent rights we're asking for relief from the state court that would require them to comply with the consumer protection act going forward which would certainly not prevent them from enforcing legitimate patent rights but you're saying that the only way they could exist for some legitimate path right with me to merits there's been no that ing of the issue of what perspective injunctive relief would be in place the state court rules in the states favor and it's quite possible that an injunction could permit certain some indications and  charges of sending letters that threaten patent infringement litigation with no independent evidence that the recipients were infringing its patents that seems to me very much a federal patent question and not a deceptive i understand that some of the allegations could be construed as being the son of a patent but this seems to me requiring an inquiry as to the evidence and you know validity of the evidence with regard to whether or not there's an those statements were false or misleading if there were no independent if in fact in case they did not have the evidence they claim to have so it isn't that sending a letter which merely says is it possible you might be infringing the patent that we act our case is targeted at the specific communications that they sent to vermont which contain very specific statements that represent the some investigation has taken place and that made representations about licenses that have been paid by others in the reasonable price for a license based on that congress if those representations are misleading we believe that the violation of the law those issues are not in the court at this time was before the court here is the second removal which is procedurally flawed in several respects first of all first removal settled the question of whether there was a rising under federal jurisdiction and that if you could not be revisited that the state did was remove a request for relief the amended complaint narrowed the scope of the complaint it did not expand it so this effort to remove the second time is first of all procedurally improper because it's really an effort to really get the first  complaint as a matter of rights until responsibly ding is filed we had when we filed the conditional motion in federal court in that file and that if it was agreement and without the motion being addressed it would remain with the amendment pending and it would take understand that but would you agree that if it were appealable that it would have been both timely and appropriate no your honor was neither time nor appropriate because if m p s they had wanted to assert counter claim they could have done so in ncertainty in the control of the defendant and so the couple of district court cases that we had found at the time of the briefing district court i believe had recognized that it had to be that again the receipt of a pleading that would have prompted  the defendant to ascertain that they had a basis to assert the counter claim and that would be the that would be the result they would be consistent with the purposes of the removal statute which is the federal jurisdiction the questions at the outset and quickly and here of course the congress intended this provision of removal won't have anything to do with patent issues but to begin with sort of the end of the statute first it does require that the underlying litigation affect the validity of federal law and derive title from a federal officer was intended to read and owners but on its face it does doesn't mean your argument that somehow they got their title from someone else because they got their power later that seems a little titles derives from a federal officer and i think it would be really quite unlikely that congress would have used a phrase like that which is so rooted in property law in a real property law and in the statutes history clearly related to the c yance of real property under the color of federal law to apply the intellectual property room and and in addition ownership interests in intellectual property rights are generally a matter of state law so that although the right  if i can make a few points in rebuttal first of all the issue of whether we were timely was really the side of the fact the state court granted their motion and that's sort of the date on which would be triggered we don't agree with what they say about half of the hearing before and we think you can read in