california have a lot of tools with which to try to address its concern with the high cost of prescription drugs and it can impose price caps it can require all drugs to be sold to everyone in the state our confidential film and i know that they don't think they could surely say without describing any specific settlement we've used this tool in the past but they do not say that today that's correct this court though respect knowledge i'm not asking about the legal test i want you you can argue the legal terms i just want to make sure i know what they say nor do they say that we have any specific plan to enter into such an agreement in the future must agree to forgo research development manufacturing marketing or sales of the product and i posited a case where the license allows you to sell your generic in california is there any problem under the statu says you must agree that your client to generic to forgo research development manufacturing or work at it or sales of the product for a period of time and i'm positing a settlement where the baton holder says i'll charge you ten dollars for the license rather than the one million dollars i i wanted to charge you with it to get it i'll give you the license on favorable terms there's all kinds of settlements of cases that don't involve agreements that violate the  exclusive licensing agreement violates the statute i can't fight any way it violates some b of the century because you're quite hasn't agreed to do any of the things that set b for  just i meant to point to activism to the extent that the patents are not immune from antitrust he was holding from activist i'd like to begin with a threshold question about standing and injury and here has not demonstrated concrete and particular harm that actual or imminent as your honor pointed out their declarations are woefully inadequate in terms of identifying a single settlement agreement a single  type of ongoing negotiation that's been impacted by eight thousand eight hundred and twenty four i think the district court got it right your lead and what it said this would be a completely different case had they made any type of those allegation and the state agreed important challenge that are that do not can contain specific facts showing concrete and particularized harm that eminent new haunts as these some day and tension are without a description of a concrete plan it is simply not imminent injury and companies and to the extent the court's interested in extra record evidence it would demonstrate that no i'm not no i'm not and the problem is we don't know because there is no have it that's what the problem so that's why i think it's likely that somebody if we say we have been with the state if only the affidavit said i have a player of entering into this kind of settlement but it's been aborted because of the california statute you say that's probably enough to give them standing and raise the issue put forth the facts that you all are talking about and satisfy this or both that injury in fact part of the analysis and the rightness part of the analysis is well it's just based on the current record that's before the court they haven't done so statute is very clear that it's tied to sales of a pharmaceutical product and that in or india a i would have this court read that language out of the statute and we were not asking i'm not asking you for their position on the law or description of the century i'm asking you whether or not the attorney general can tell us whether or not he intends to inforce this law with respect or agreements made outside the borders california consistent with standing antitrust principle that california attorney general will enforce a statute that is tied to in state sales that are made that are wrong paul charges of monopolistic prices now as this court held in national guard the conduct complained of that antitrust behavior is not just those depress prices or monopolistic prices in california but it's where those bad actors in that behave so your answer to my illustrates that the california legislature when it even though at that you may not have a geographic limitation that's certainly how the court has interpreted statute the very st line of the chinatown hate describes the california statute as the does that in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical products close quote and i'm saying that it's with regard to in california and greater than i disagree with the characterization because i think what happened there and it's reflected on page ninety dollars ninety one cents of the decision is the court concluded that the actual rigging of the prices so the bad actors and the bad behavior was actually in west boston with the cheese makers but the conduct in terms of the sales with in california and so this court held the cart right act applied not just to the sales in california but apply to that conduct  law well but i read the seven circuit opinion he didn't say it applied to act wholly outside the state if he said it said it can apply to acts outside the state if they are actually in the state my question is what is sam francis to your argument there's broad language in sam francis quoting the supreme court that says say lacks the ability under the commerce clause to regulate conduct that occurs entirely outside of state why why isn't the conduct you're regulating here the entering into the agreement not the subsequent sales there's nothing in the statute about sales it's only about entering into the agreement think we won't use the statute if there isn't a sale but that doesn't matter you have to look at what is the object of the regulation the object of the regulation is the entering into a if i enter into a settlement