and may please the court p patterson for the appellant rahimi the district court's decision in this case must be reversed for two independent reasons st there was no public disclosure of the fraud underlying re music complaint and nd even if there were rahimi was an original source of the information and his complaint i'll start with the public disclosure there are two and only two ways that the government may put be put on notice of fraud for purposes of public disclosure bar st there's either a public disclosure with allegations of fraud against the defendant  or nd there is a public disclosure included that describes transactions that reveal both the state of facts as they are alleged to be and the true state of facts from which fraud can be neither is present here st there were zero allegations of fraud against rite aid in the public domain before this case was filed that distinguishes this what about the the press release provide the connecticut medicaid with its usual and customary prices it in fact and contrasting that with the press release concerning c v s which was at issue in the w an case in the st circuit which itself is an outlier decision the press release against c v s expressly stated that c v s in the connecticut attorney general's view was required to pass along its club discount prices to connecticut medicaid even before the change in law explicitly requiring that the absence of such an allegation against rite aid and the connecticut attorney general's press release leads to the end fronts if one were looking at those two next to each other that there was no similar concern about right age behavior before the change in law and in fact finding fraud based on that press release would contravene this court's decision in poteat which at footnote six expressly stated that numerous media reports of a government investigation d of the very fraud that was at issue in that case did not suffice to amount to a public disclosure the much less explicit public disclosure here necessarily cannot amount to fraud indeed as i've said the public disclosure here did not even purport to allege that rite aid was not in full compliance with its requirements under connecticut law much less the law across the rest of the nation and it is clear also from this court's precedent in holloway that allegations of fraud against a particular member of an industry cannot be used to infer fraud against other members of the industry absent allegations of industry wide fraud and there were no allegations of industry wide fraud here indeed the connecticut attorney general's press release concerning c v s at page id three thousand one hundred and fifteen expressly recognize that other pharmacies were passing along their discount program prices to connecticut medicaid the same goes for other materials that rite aid relies upon the article about walgreens in minnesota specifically states that other other pharmacies were passing along their prices and the same goes for the garbage complaint concerning kmart so there was no to paulson and explain a little bit about the language that was in the connecticut announcement about that ride a and why you believe you cannot see in fact an accusation of unfair pricing mr patterson particularly paragraph two of the press release for right it says the law requires pharmacies to provide medicaid and other state programs the same prescription drug discounts they offer consumers apparently in response write eight increased prices i mean there there is st izzy not that you're not complying with the law that right right it was not complying with the law well they're not he's not your honor  and no explained both the state of connecticut law before that press release and after before that press release the law was that the usual and customary price in connecticut was the price given to the largest number of  non medicaid non rd party payer prescriptions so essentially the largest number of cash customers and there is nothing in the public domain that indicates that the largest number of right aids cash customers were in the arctic savings program that was not a foregone conclusion the safeway case that right eight sites here indicates that safeway only had about a twenty percent take up on its discount program in the phoenix area and that company wide only about twenty six nine percent of prescriptions were at discount prices so none of that was in the public domain and then this press release states that in response to the new law which expressly stated that rite aid had to extend its and all other pharmacies had to extend its discount pricing to the government that rite aid increased its prices there is no allegation either before or that change or after that change that rite aid is not behaving properly the only improper behavior that is alleged against friday is that it is falsely using this new law as an excuse to increase prices so there are a couple  that could be drawn from that one possibility is that right it is just using the new all as a pretext to increase the prices both that it's providing to connecticut medicaid and to everyone else on its arek savings programs that connecticut a g expressly said right it was falsely pointing to this new law and that leads to an important point with the nd method of having a public disclosure fraud and that is when both the true state of facts and the false state of facts is in the public domain that is termed the x plus y equals the test and what certain point about that is this court's precedent make makes clear that when the x and the y are revealed in public disclosures the fraud can be inferred so you can infer from x and y to z the fraud there is no support for inferring d to x which is what rite aid is asking you to do here you have to make two inferences in order to find a public disclosure here of facts that are nowhere in the public domain one is that a majority of ri excuse paying customers are are paying the are x savings prices and two is that right data is not reporting its r x avis prices as it usual and customary prices to government payers and neither of those facts was in the public record before rahimi filed his complaint here and the absence of either one of them defeats the  public disclosure how do you know if the session to your argument that you added details and details that might be important but better and i know this is kind of in the original source argument but the argument being that these details do not do not show that it was not already in the public domain just color and emphasis and more information what is your response to my ear well our response is that there is nothing in the public domain and so we're not adding details we are putting the scheme in the public for the st time this scheme was not in any way shape or form in the public record  sixteen at note three essentially adopted our assertion that the rockwell decision in the united states supreme court abrogated this court's rule that the to in order to qualify as an original source the relator would have to or the tell me yes the time it issued so the time now the notification must come before the filing of the complaint under the pre two thousand and ten f recognize that and the important distinction and this gets back to your question judge trance that for the pre two thousand and ten claims in order to be an original source you do not need to materially add to what's in the public domain honor and in fact mark cited to the d c circuits decision in davis which specifically made this point that said before the amendment the law was maybe a little looser than congress would have wished because there was no materiality requirement and they amended the law in two thousand and ten specifically to add a materiality requirement so pre to one thousand and ten if you had if you are an original source  you could bring those claims regardless of if they added to what was already in the in the public domain which changed after we submit we qualify under either test and i see my time is up it's the reserve five minutes b extensions over a long period of time rather than just saying to this plank if you don't have anything we don't need your honor it's unclear i don't believe in a few years in this record certainly the government is entitled to take its time to conduct its own investigation but the government did ultimately decide that these claims were not worth intervening in to protect and that's the reason the public disclosure of our a plus well sometimes and sometimes the government is engaged with real lighters and working and using it from a shot from our lighters to make agreements with the charged party or to collect up further information application of the public disclosure bar in this case explain one explain why there was sufficient information in this this connecticut different state announcement about its own laws why would they at have any st which is i think my friend has stepped away from the complaint in his description of his questions now you heard him talking make a reference to the majority of customers paying a particular price if you look  pharmacies must charge medicate their usual customary prices for the general public taking into account each discounted prices not the customers pay but the quote the pharmacy makes available to the general public you can see this again paragraph twenty seven dollars of the complaint to say across the nation every medicaid program each state requires pharmacies to bill no more than the price that the pharmacy usually in customarily makes available to members of the general public term certainly includes defendants are it savings program i can continue going through the complaint but the point is you won't find anything in complaint that says this price was right he's usually customary price because it was paid by a certain number of customers what you see consistently saying in the complaint in his response to the motion to dismiss that pharmacies have a usual and customary price when they offer it or make it available to their customers just briefly again remains response of this is doctor sixty two dollars the st page of a motion to dismiss the nd amended complaint right it failed to report its artist p price quote even though it offers these discounted prices to other customers and here's a summary when a pharmacy like rite aid offers discounted prices to customers and rolling in membership club those prices become the pharmacies you can see now this is important and there's a reason that my friend isn't tempting to import this number of customers paid requirement because under the allegations in the complaint this connecticut law did not in either way change right its obligations as alleged in the complaint because the rite aid offered and made available  price to members of the public that price became writing's usual and customary price so were he nice theory at least in the district court has consistently been both before connecticut passed its new law and after connecticut passed its new law right it had precisely the same legal obligation that is right it was required to offer its r s p price to connecticut medicaid so when we see in response to connecticut by making changes to its discount program in connecticut to avoid across the board discounts to medicaid and the general public so the idea again if were he needs legal theory is correct and right it had exactly the same obligation pretty connecticut law and goes connecticut law there's absolutely no reason that right he would have had any response to that law whatsoever so the fact that right it is having to respond to this law in connecticut to avoid discounts for medicaid demonstrates that the district work correctly recognized that prior to connecticut passing this law was not charging its or risky price to connecticut medicaid if it had been right it wouldn't have had to  anything in response to new unless what unless what right i was trying to do was to climb on the back of this new law to increase its prices but you can certainly speculate that you can there you could imagine i think about my friend  well maybe this wasn't true maybe the public disclosures were luckless but that's not how the public disclosure of our operates you know public disclosure what's disclosed in the news media is that right it is reacting to the law by changing prices in connecticut to avoid these discounts to medicaid that would otherwise be provided and i don't think a bit later can come in a debate the public disclosure of our by saying well sure that's what the public disclosure says but we think that maybe we shouldn't really believe the public disclosure maybe we can speculate that the public disclosure is false so the district court here recognized that just the same as with c v s the reaction to the new law disclosed that prior to connecticut passing this law right it was doing something different right it was not previously providing it's r s p price to connecticut medicaid and zero point of my friend suggested the disclosures with respect to c v s only said that connecticut was required to pass on it's just kind of price never suggested that only c v s had to charge the lowest price it offered consumers the status insists he said this is a rule that applies to all pharmacies no that's with respect to connecticut you can also go past connecticut and the disclosure in other states as well and again he here is that rahimi is alleging a consistent nationwide scheme by a national company to do factually exactly the same thing in every jurisdiction with respect to a common requirement as the complaint makes clear this usually customary requirement is a consistent requirement across jurisdictions this is a condition of a state obtaining federal reimbursement one of these requirements is that the state must pay no more than the dispensing pharmacies usual and customary charge to the general public and again routinely says in every state that and evade the public disclosure bar simply by saying we think that factually you did exactly the same thing in every jurisdiction with respect to a common requirement and that is not somehow the same allegation or transaction and i think this is where the hallway decision supports right it very nicely all the way it was a case where it had been publicly disclosed there were allegations in the south carolina complaint against a particular hospice facility and the later suggested well it's not just one hospice facility it's a corporate wide scheme and this court readily concluded in hallway that that was not enough to get past the public disclosure or you can't simply say and i think you did exactly the same thing in other jurisdictions as well it's the same thing here taking the allegations factually about what right he did in connecticut and suggesting we think write a did exactly the same thing in other jurisdictions there's no suggestion that there is any different actions by writing other jurisdictions and no suggestion that there's any legally material difference between the state programs i don't think that my friend is going to concede that ready to active lawfully in any of the states so to the extent there are differences in definition of  across the nation your honor it's not a question of binding relator it's a question of providing notice to the government of giving the government notice on fraud and preventing someone who doesn't have any original information intended to be certain that people have a reason to put out the information and come forward to assist the government the government in collecting money that is improperly taken from it and we know that distinction because of the change that the law made early on and it resulted in almost you know significant drop of recovered monies the government hate the government in collecting what's rightfully it's right yes your honor that's certainly true now keep in mind though if the government believes it's been deprived of something of its own it can certainly intervene and also we have the original source exception so when you have a when you have a related illness truly and original source of your commission this sort of public is longer isn't going to bar the reason it's more here let me turn  direct independent knowledge of the essential elements of the claims and that the two thousand chand liberalized the rights to bring suit and by saying there's a materiality and that's that that's for one thing that's that's absolutely correct that if he cannot qualify as a original source under the liberalized those two thousand and ten original source test he certainly can't qualify under the preview one thousand and ten test one last point with respect to the majority of customers paying a certain price if you look at mr pretty nice preceded disclosures again that's exhibit twenty seven to dr one of  he does not say anything about the price paid by a particular number of customers he's not disclosing information to the government because a particular place price from certain slow decease was about the price offered to consumers for those reasons there's bettors and you're out of time but if you want to just wrap it up thirty seconds or so or have you ever you wrap it up already peter i was just going to say for the the judge batchelder do you have any do you have any questions i don't think so i've got a couple that i have been asked in the answer so thank you all right very good mr patterson you have five minutes rebutt yes thank your honor of a few points i'd like to make st it is simply not true that we have saying for the st time on appeal that the percentage of members in the arc savings program matters at paragraph ninety three of our complaint that's page id one thousand three hundred and sixty one we expressly state that ninety to ninety five percent of cash paying customers were enrolled that's the reason why this is the u n c price everywhere we say in paragraph ninety four dollars that there are unique requirements and each state but it's because it was so prevalent that it was met and we specifically quoted paragraph thirty three in the complaint the language of connecticut's requirement that it's the largest number of non medicaid prescriptions d there's no way we even could have made that allegation given that language in connecticut's law in the bot as law which is also in the complaint has similar language and then our response to the rd motion to dismiss at page  fifty eight we specifically state that quote the essential element elements of right age fraud and quote included that again quoting right aids are x savings prices were charged to approximately ninety percent of cash  customers and quote so we've said that that is an essential element of our claim all along and the reason why i write it is trying to obscure that is because there is absolutely nothing in the public domain that would reveal that fact and that alone defeats right its entire case here opposing counsel cited the gov press release that was along the same lines as the connecticut attorney customer arik savings discount program by eroni asli claiming that the higher prices and reduced benefits were required by state law so it's consistent the across government officials were saying that right it was falsely using this law to increase its prices and opposing counsel i believe admitted that one inference would be that right tek right it was using this as a pretext one inference would be that they were not passing along the laws  when the prices when the law didn't expressively allow it but under the x y plus the equation as i've said the only inference that is allowed is to z to the fraud you cannot infer to the x or the y to the underlying facts which is what rite aid is asking you to do you know underline about the inspector general's announcement in two thousand and ten that he was looking into large chain pharmacy billing potential work plan it doesn't mention right date d it doesn't say that any pharmacy is not properly doing this those were never actually done they're not in the investigations part of that report and again i mention poteat footnote s in my opening that's very important because this court expressly said that numerous media reports of the gun permit investigating the very fraud that was alleged in the complaint did not suffice to trigger the public disclosure bar if that was true in poteat then that knocks out the connecticut disclosure and knocks out the disclosure of the oh i g disclosure your honor just mentioned so under binding a savings program back i think in two thousand and eight its own advertisements and announcements of the prescriptions paper by publicly funded programs which i would assume everyone would agree to include medicaid are eligible for the discounted drug prices the r x discount program was that me your honor it doesn't mean much here righted itself has said that that had nothing to do that statement with what rite aid billed to medicare or medicaid and in fact private insurance companies have had similar complaints against friday just about a week and a half ago the delaware claim saying that those public disclosure should have put this private insurance company on notice that it was not reporting the savings club prices to this private insurer as a choose usual and customary prices and the delaware superior court refused to d confirm right its arguments on a motion to dismiss i see my my time is up i'm happy to answer any additional