on that's correct then distinction what we're saying is we break out the compound very specifically because with respect to the one one five patent that's the original underlying pat that covered compounds forty four after sixty sixty deception or just by the side right so basically with respect to is that a mind a doctor afonso contributed to the discovery of that particular compound so just on his contribution alone and what he had d yes yes we are and so tell us why well with respect to we look at exactly again going back to for example the evidence with dr rose and blooms memos and documents which actually lay out the thought process of the conception of is that in my which actually included four act all right and for all intents for asked it essentially is that in mind they're there they all have the same functional groups and as noted by district court the only different with the only difference with respect to the of as that of mine and in fact it wasn't until very importantly wasn't until after dr farms of synthesize for f was until after it was tested that we did any at any point time did anyone attempt to synthesize that i might in  single day together and so they're working towards the same goal and that is trying to develop synthesize isolate potent compounds and so as they're working together certainly this is the molecular scaffolding of four after which as a co fonzo would be contributed that aspect as well so it's not like it's almost like the judge the difficult to say that if you only have one inventor for one compound when in fact you can have multiple inventors on a single compound contributing to various did not rely on dr rosenblum efforts but there i'm sorry doctor found those efforts but that was totally inconsistent with what the documents set out even dr rosenblum zone documents with respect to the discovery of for at and that's wh that using the flooring adams was was something that was known in the art that was something that when he did it he was based upon information led to that he had known in the prior art looking that at the court's opinion over the site is was as atomized may never have been invented with doctoral fossils first successful yes i see that you're wrong yes and so that that was what the court found but that's where we're where we're challenging that particular finding it was not at all speculative they were working together in fact for half as you're on a noted that there are me deceptive intent some intent to deceive the patent office these are quintessential factual questions if you look at the brief that was filed by mine is the question with respect to the reissue standards that used to  they infringe the patent they conceded that there was the patent was not anticipated or that it was obvious they conceded that it met the one hundred requirements and chemists they had a strong motivation to challenge because it is a multi billion dollar drug a very successful drug and they came up with the inventor should carry that research the love on appeal what they have done it again just in the last fifteen minutes is to try to cherry pick the evidence present bits and pieces of it the kinds of arguments they made to the district court and the district court properly rejected because milan spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the event of my bishop with a good guy that you had opposed disclosed in the past and to make it is not this process that found so called his by physics of allah says process that he used to make for a it's a different process and much closer according to professor route to the method that had been used by rosenblum when he attempted to make forty and four f my lines theory was indirect that somehow for after it contributed or it inspired is that a my and again the district court rejected this is a factual matter and it really fell apart because the sequence of events just didn't hang together the court went through this in considerable detail at pages eight twenty five to twenty seven that portion of the opinion and the basic problem with that is the theory and this was presented in detail a trial is that rosenblum had come up with the structure of his out of my by nov ninth of one nine hundred ninety three conception of zen to my rosenblum set about to do the synthesis directing his assistant to begin to december and the it carried over a long period of time because he was out of the lab and the final synthesis that was that the animal test results before after came too late they came too late to have inspired the structure they were not available until sometime in i believe late february of one thousand nine hundred four and so the whole thing november and had directed his assistant to begin the synthesis of it and during the trial rosenblum went through the lab notebooks page by page carrying it over showing how the synthesis it begun with the starting materials in november and then carried right on through to the final synthesis in march of one thousand nine hundred four so the theory fell apart as a factual matter to say that this is error to say that this is clearly erroneous and my mind just can't get there on the record with respect respect to its atom i now beyond that in order to overturn what the district court did there are multiple independent factual determination that the district court made that we have to be overturned in order to rule in their favor i'm going to leave intent to one side for the moment because the district court had clear findings on the can as well that there was no intent on the part of anyone to deceive the patent trademark office let me speak for just a moment about the other compounds that are at issue here so compounds for even for af as the court noted those are not claimed in the four sixty one patent their theory was because those had been cla earlier patent that perhaps in some infectious on enforceability even more attenuated but again the court concluded that afonso simply was not an inventor of compound for you and for us they try to present this now is a joint inventor ship case but joint inventor ship is is your honor pointed out to jake is there has to be something that you can trivially and it has to be something that is beyond what is known to people who are already working in the field with respect to compound who are in for elf they fail on multiple levels to get to where they need to be but my reaction was that the district court's findings with the effect of a lack of invent at that time no the process was a process for making it in terms of the efficacy of his act of for half its potency the argument they're making is that because you know the molecular question on the process there's no question that if i know he had a method for making it but that doesn't make someone a co inventor the question the relevant question the as it were the named inventors in possession of methods of making the three and what it claimed if one can visualize this molecule is putting in a way john that's i'd trade that goes out and that was the kind of thing that that gave these compounds much much greater effica disclosed six or seven different methods for making this series of compounds and they disclosed them in the kind of detail you would expect to find in a patent something that would enable people with skill in the art to use  the reason why the disclosure is there and the details floaters are there for each of these methods the testimony of trial from professor route and also from rosenblum was that those methods could be used to make compound and for f and there was no testimony on the other side that there was some reason why these methods wouldn't work route i went through them in some detail on rosenblum what the answer to question one of them is that was one of the methods was the one that rosenblum used we know that is an operative method to make these compounds because rosenblum had used it to make compound for a  only difference that molecule is the same in every other respect there was no question that rosenblum had used it successfully and multiple occasions to make compounds for and for b in large quantities for animal testing the testimony of trial was that that demonstrates that the method could be used to make a compound story and for f there was no testimony from the chemistry expert of milan that as to why the fall of one thousand nine hundred three that rosenblum was trying to make for even for half and that that was considered a a high priority target at the time was not because they were interested in forty four at that time as a possible drug the reason that they had to synthesize it was that for a four six one was in clinical development when the drug is in clinical development you need to have samples of the possible metabolites of it to support your studies for clinical development of a drug the testimony from rosenblum from burnett and others was that was why they were making for eons for f in november of one two three that's why they wanted to find two to make it he was a pair of hands he liked to make compounds in the laboratory it wasn't for purposes of drug discovery at that point rosenblum testimony was that by november of one nine hundred ninety three he had already conceived the idea of putting the florence on the compound it's in his reports from that time that's what he was interested in and so in november of ninety three he made a couple of attempts to make content for ian for us using the very same process he had used successfully to make for a and for  reissued that were certain to be metabolites of four eight four six one we had litigated that for three years against glen mark that was their original front and center of this patent there's an equable conduct you name it there were defenses based on that when we got into this case those issues were raised again by milan once the gun mark case had been settled that was the reason for going in on the reissue with the reason to remove the compounds that were allege them and what sharing did was to give up those claims and the other thing you have to remember your honor is that when you get into the later stages of a patent like this in the early stages with patents abroad they cover a lot of here a lot of ground for believing oh absolutely but the error that was made here and this was not challenge in connection with this case but the error that was made here was in claiming compounds that were asserted to be inherently anticipated it's a classic case of reissue if you have a basis for reissue and of the m p e p one all you need is one ground for doing it and there could hardly be a dispute here that there was one legitimate grounds for doing it namely that there were claims in that patent to cover compound that were certain to be inherently anticipated by the prior  after the testimony by dr rosenblum and others was that that was the most suited and what's why he looked at that first and that process also failed and then he turned to he abandon the four forty and went to alternative methods going to take out the afonso issue altogether this is while the application was pending he was already predicting that the claims will take out the inventor ship issue altogether so when they say they had a legitimate basis perhaps  with respect to metabolite they removed nor metabolite sixteen sixty which we never alleged were metabolites as far as inherent a patient would go and in fact the clear remembrance in the original declaration at least that they were only taking out metabolite claims seven is really that there's a perfect example to look there you have specific compounds that are claimed including the ones that that the attorneys set forth by name for a would be  those were removed but the remaining compounds in the claim were not metabolites they were taken out but is that in my biz left then as i do my biz not a metabolite so obviously there was some discussion or some sort of decision as to what cost to do what didn't constitute