still involved in the case as far as you know i think out of business and bankrupt anyway letters what's going on why is it they're not participating to the extent that you know doing news to t with respect to the pressure means that the pressure means does nothing more than produce a negative pressure to the back foot out of the radiator and then switch to a positive pressure to force the good fluid into the radiator and so that speeds up the process and the and the and it cost so you don't have to put it on a rack to drain it out so it's a it's a much simpler process and a faster process now with respect because of the difference in the structure doing well with they allege that their structure is safer than our structure but that's not the function to whether whether it's easier to the difference is even less that in those cases because we're literally only talking about a piece of metal blocking the flow bare mr trichet can i take my problem with this case is that this material issue disputed i'm having a hard time finding out what you put before the district court if you give nothing and they say that they will so all i could find from the appendix you gave us and i couldn't find the rest of the stuff  elsewhere is the statement that you have in the discussion with the district court and where you seemingly objected to the testimony saying they did have an expert if we had known you were going to treat this as an expert we would put up an expert did you put on anything to do that yes it's a interesting there's an interesting were the case from april sixteenth in which the court said the summary judgment motions schedule and then said expert designations and expert discovery words would be do i believe something like a hundred and twenty days after he ruled on the motion discovery so that it was a but they put the statements for the right they did with those statements or are not from the inventor they're there they're technical statements that are not from when they put this forward in the record i guess attached to their motion for summary judgment did you file any response to that to challenge them is nothing experts can to put on alternatives you can reach attorney argument questioning them before we get to before the district court because what we have in the record is what you said to the district court about that i'm just wondering if before that you felt anything other than challenging the foundation for expert testimony is as rebuttal to or is this the only place that you challenge the foundation for expert testimony just to some substance if so i guess what your argument might come down to it seems is whether we agree with an appeal that suggests he should have been excluded from giving testimony the non expert because if we agree if if we think his testimony was permissible then we've got testimony on one side and no testimony on the other which is a problem for you so it looks like in my right to say we have to reach a decision on the propriety of his testimony in order for you to then be able to prevail we will know because his testimony didn't we necessarily have to be accepted by a jury person who puts on absolutely nothing in response to summary judgment would be able to come up doesn't say summary judgment shouldn't be granted because the jury could always question the credibility of the witnesses on the other side but really can't be the way this works but put the only evidence in the record for the their kids is it is them relying upon their to describe it saying yes the patent corresponds to the device and they don't even have testimony to even say that that's that's their implication but did you did you come up and say no that's not true did somebody did you put on anything i mean you also for summary judgment of infringement did you attempt did your testimony or declaration supporting that the question was whether their device and prayers and that's just as classic there and yet they well did seems like the district court got that but it seems like he grew up made a finding or a conclusion that seems at least when you read it a switch that switches and winds the other is established their defenses on the stuff they don't have evidence for they talk about these extra things that the airflow dad's in other ways that have nothing to do with the negative positive pressure