perversion based on one of two conditions precedent occurrence of federal law does not apply in state law governs to determination of ownership in this case the first issue regarding evidence is determinative of the outcome on the second set of address set in detail first the district court confines all of its points on the evidence or issued to page twenty four of its opinion but first i want to point out that all the evidence in this case is consistent with one thing vincent  out refused to sign the assignment an assignment or other document documenting the transfer of ownership of the one six one application to tony or joe came for fourteen years but he did this out of his concern they clearly point would be exposed to some type of liability this is supported by all the evidence in this case for example the peril agreement of july nine hundred ninety three appears didn't some ways to act as an assignment from here point to the peril of the thousand ninety three to a peace plan role which was threatening to sue it at that time based on the agreement that clear point of control had for delivery of the constellation devices that are subject of a p boehner clearly had a motivation to keep the true worship of the one six one application hidden this is well documented throughout the forsworn decorations that work up a brief extensively in this case at trial  police repeatedly refers to the pendle agreement as an assignment of a one six one application this despite the conflicting language it has regarding over the ownership claimed by two in joking the district court apparently confused and since behavior and  oral contracts and also the written assignments now on the evidence issue judge ellis opinion states at page twenty four the plaintiff has not established by preponderance of the evidence the existence of any agreement that would grant a revers interest in the one six one application to tony original came from the district court is clearly in error here as all the evidence plainly supports the existence of this reversion either by direct proof or indirectly there is no evidence in the record that actually contradicts the existence of a reversion agreement for the reversion that occurred in january one thousand nine hundred three when clear point canceled the constellation project and terminated tony jones came from their employment what has been offered by the district court and the claim of the constellation technology that they're recognizing that they have a richer claim and they're agreeing to pay the royalties over and above their salary based on the social climb and  which a clear point acquires rights to take to the technology and intellectual property from tony to appear so it is it is it is setting out that that clear point will be acquired all the rights in technology including the intellectual property their point decided to terminate the project and it also states at the end of the second paragraph that tonsure joking will later own the software in order to sell it to clear point so so if you take a look at that page two it's contemplating that to mean joking again only the software so there has to be some sort of reversion taking place but then subsequently and now nine hundred ninety two there is the assignment which seems to me to which looks to me like just a promise to assign a point future events is in fact operation of law as opposed to just an oral agreement and that seems to me a stretch but what's the basis for your argument that that is a transfer by operation of law is supposed to by contractual agreement well i think that's that's my argument is that it was a transfer by  to transfer property which looked to me like exactly the core of what the writing requirement is intended to prohibit well that is correct and  did what they could in this record to rectify that and satisfy the earlier part requirement they did file a declaratory pattern assignment in two thousand and ten they were for that it was for the first of all these all these circumstances that we're talking about and they came back with with you know their their declarations and that peter said well let's give us something more give us either in a word from a court showing that you own this and give us a memorandum explaining from that was in the record that that according to various showed that they had the right to prosecute and so once this case went to the district court and we examine the records again we thought we had a valid argument that that the rejection of this pathway which for which i have the sundered won't know they have they have no artist referred to you or me because we have absolutely no interest or should interest in this application just like real thoughts so we don't we don't allow anyone to just challenge up your determination regardless of their connection to the south asian they have to they have to show an ownership in their interest in the south asian for them to have standing for them for their of an injury because you're relying on the massachusetts state law yes yes yes you're right and i just you know i just i want to point out the declarations in this case they're highly highly detailed you know they're there they're sworn to wonder section o only names the vincent better that gratian of june thirtieth two thousand and eight and the district court gives one reason for finding that one declaration not credible it says that in savannah refuse for fourteen years to sign a document a sign of that one six one application th time are highly dekel highly documented throughout all four declarations for them furthermore vincent brothers declaration explains the circumstances of the july nine hundred ninety three ten rule agreement he goes into great detail an are associated with the constellations which and because it didn't get proper title it had to pay royalties and then it goes on and on it goes on and section in section four point three the see it talks about the claim that tony