resolution of this ownership issue disposed of unresolved all issues of appeal in march of two thousand and three before the suit was filed both inventors douglas thomas and his father and thomas from inventor alan saunders well were there any documents filed on behalf of the past employer or whatever else to clarify the issue they were arguing about there are three documents in question with the interest of truly packer the does of thomas former employer which defendants argued was a hold or legal title which was the basis for the district court's ruling dismissing the case for lack of standing there is the one hundred ninety two employment which the defendant i understand that that's what's causing the problem but did you know it happened while something where they asked to file something to which they say we understand that we have no interest and no right to this invention so there are two documents that are records treatment in two thousand and three between venture hewlett packard well let me and i have the same questions just human just to to make sure that we're on the same page here hewlett packard did not enter an appearance or otherwise file a document on its own as a participant in this lawsuit everything as i understand it correct everything that that is being said about hewlett packard is visa some kind of follow on document with respect to this particular invention so when it was made and how it might hit city do the employment come so the only documentation from your packer are to be written your principle argument as he'll attack it was never in the picture because there there was an issue that that was never actually the sign but your secondary argument in your brief of course now is that even if they were then the most they had was part ownership at some point as to it and that you had part ownership through one of your two inventors and that as such you had constitutional standing and therefore this becomes a rule nineteen question not a dismissal for conflict of constitutional standing question because in circumstances when you have been asked to coax her soon or call her and i believe that correct you you need to consider the circumstances the present circumstances and district court what our position was that if you attack or have no interest in the case was not a co author and therefore you don't even reach the jointer question so they would make sense for us to bring a motion to join you back to give the judge's legal the contention was made that you can't dismiss the case without considering the two thousand and five agreement for example because we have constitutional standing and therefore the issue becomes a rule nineteen issue whether such proprietary developments are the sole property of age but to get there we still have the issue of whether or not this is one such proprietary development we do not know it was conceded by the patch or in the district  operative act i agree to assign them to wage the other words they hadn't been assigned until and until driven i think on this on this so called standing issue by focus on that but if you divorce the licensing issue for a moment from the question of whether h p is in the case are not since it's h position that they never did have an interest then they presumably in any document in which they are expressing their lack of interest they wouldn't transfer an interest that they don't think they have but they could disclaimed they could say to the extent that anybody thinks that we have an interest it's not so that's what as i read it the two thousand and five agreement at least arguably seems to sec and if that's true and if there is constitutional standing on the part of i p i p venture why isn't the right way for the district court to of looked at this case is to say ip ventures a is a valid plaintiff in this case subject to the question of whether it needs to understand the rules and tell me if i'm misunderstanding them once you have that then the question of whether you join somebody else is a question for rule nineteen so that since it's appears to be undisputed that at least one of the rule nineteen inquiry your eye which then could be resolved by having dug thomas do whatever he needed to do and that's what i'm i mean we've had several cases in which somebody's head constitutional but not prevent of the issues can be addressed from the outset so there can be intervening licensing issues so that all of the issues can be because often it can only be all resolved if all of the others are coming from the start i don't interoperate i do want to raise an the california cases that mr feinberg lose do none of those cases address the federal question of whether legal title passed versus a standard and in fact a close inspection of those cases job and legal title does not but if we do reach i can see again i think if i read between the lines correctly i can see why the parties are focused on this it ultimately the ownership issue at the outset because it may have implications for this licensing question that arose to the substance of the case but for purposes of just standing we don't really need to reach the question do we are r that you have a constitutional standing by virtue of one of your two owners at least you think you've got both but but one at least ok so the court looks at this and says ok i know that you've got constitutional standing and therefore let's see if we need to get to the question of whether h p at any point back in back when least for purposes of the siting standing whether h p was an owner or not why can't the court simply say i don't have to address that question because i've looked at the two thousand and five document and i think whatever h p may or may not have had they gave up and therefore you now have both constitutional and now thanks to the two thousand and five document document complete prudential spending you're in charge go forward now but as i understand it what you don't like about that is it doesn't then solve the problem of whether h p had ownership back when licenses were being given and they're for you may have a license problem with respect to your defendant in a suit but i don't see why it's in the way of the court can string the question of standing and would therefore to come back to the original point why that's a necessary question to be resolved for purposes of the question is before us right now and the the ownership question has been ruled by the district court as a matter of law that does have consequences in terms of defenses or claims that the defendants may raise and that