court sort of thought that in the long run it was going to be a loser she may have thought that it was not proper for her to vacate her own findings and reach judgment on infringement without making findings were that judgment i don't understand she she certainly can bake a her own findings if she concludes that they're wrong under the law right she may if she actually does conclude her actual findings were clearly erroneous that didn't happen here what happened here was that she found disagreed with what are we supposed to do what i mean we're back i don't understand why the district court did anything wrong here because i think she's the saw the writing on the wall and that you know even if she didn't really consider say you're misinterpreting watson wine and watson one we need to clarify that that at that loophole or that different analysis was not available well the exam wants to is a clarification i believe it's presidential opinion it's a clarification that and restated components in the context of consisting of language must be unrelated to the invention predicate to that would be a finding of literal violation of either claim did not make that finding and there was no need to consider whether underside of components would be unrelated invention at the district court specifically found that that whatever findings of fact she had made don't change the analysis in fact that even with those findings of facts that she made before that after watson to she now realized that the result had to be different she relies on the result being different based on the construction that means and i'm quoting from pending seven of her reconsideration order a made watson's product not infringing it's the fact that there are hydrophilic elements in the life of tillich matrix and vice versa i mean her own opinion when she found infringement said recognized that that was the case but that wasn't sufficient to avoid an infringement by any that's the argument that was made to us and watson to that's the argument we reject it and said that it was a life of phill element in the hydrofoil silly matrix it was not actually related to the invention and therefore cause it to being an infringement are you suggesting that there's some other kind of finding she can make that that would make these still infringing when it's clear that their product has like the philips ingredients in the hydrophilic matrix which should make it not infringed well i think i disagree that her findings show that the outer  district court abused its discretion in reconsidering its decision ok the fundamental precept that i think the plaintiffs are still trying to advocate is that the distribution of the singular exception i so the only two pertinent facts that really that the court consider now i know shire advocates that the district court borrowed from facts in the watson case but that's frankly just not true the two facts that  its interval she took those two facts and she applied them to and i find it interesting that we're still debating in our volume versus matrix which she applied that to the holdings of watson one into the compositions of the inner volume and outer volume i eat in her matrix in outer matrix respectively are further limited by the market and so when she found that there was the presence of these violet except the ents in the respect that was the basis of the reconsideration to conform her decision more in line with this court limitations which we believe was found here and you don't need to further satisfy take anything with respect to a volume because think that the fact i mean there's there's no doubt your friend on the other side just stood up and said there's i think asserted that their product was in the i get mixed up the outer and there are you know forgive me but whatever w g that was your construction i believe that the district worth reconsideration were in judgment and not infringement reach their prime is not supported by findings made in her room so you think that she found she shouldn't just let it which portions of her findings she's relying on if you take her reconsideration order at face book she just set her reconsideration order site suppose she had and we were here all a direct appeal from you prevailing what logic