excuse me the court clearly erred in concluding that klaus ten had failed to disclose in its infringement contentions any theory for the browser now that conclusion was clear  because in fact the infringement contentions disclosed that the browser was the operating system operating on the mobile device that the disclosure is contained in both the claim charts be two places would be the preamble section which is appendix four for fifty four and then the discussion of element a which appears at four for six for and i'm identifying those pages in the appendix as they relate to the cl chart for android the claim charts for the i o s apple systems include the same language but instead of pointing to android which is google's proprietary operating system it points to i o s which  course apple's proprietary operating system on the mobile device so backing up claim element a requires that there be a website for transmitting a page to a browse and there's no dispute here that klaus tech disclosed that the website was the google play store that the paid each was the at and so then the question is whether or not klaus take sufficiently disclosed that th was transferred to the browser and it did in the preamble section of the claim charter it's specifically discloses that the app is run on android it doesn't use the word operating system but  store on android now that reference to downloading is the suggestion that it's transferred from one system the google play store to another system android the operating system and its  that is not the browser it is the suggestion that the google play store is operating within the android environment so that it's transferred an app that can only go likewise to the android environment and to the extent that there was any ambiguity in what then would be the browser that salt in the preamble which also referenced includes a reference to the browser or description of the browser and it's in that section  identified that the at the page to which the page that is transferred to the browser the app is transferred to and it's on that basis that classic contends that the district court clearly erred in concluding that the infringement to tensions here didn't reference the operating system as the browser or in fact include any theory of what the browser is that is the sole basis upon which the district court struck klaus takes expert report opinions regarding the browser as the operating system and as a result the browser identity limitation was incorrectly construed to be limited to a unique identifier for the browser now the plane an ordering meeting of identity doesn't indicate any inherent requirement that it be unique it simply means that you are referencing who or what a person a thing or a group of people or things are nothing about the word identity in and of itself requires that identify one particular person and only one particular person or one particular in this case instantiation of a browser and no other  it the specification in fact supports the claim that identity is not limited to a unique browser and it does so ways the st is that although it references in some places not exclusively but in some places a unique identifier it does so when it's referring to a embodiment in which the central controller generates transfers and then interrogates for that unique identif i think particular on its own could likewise refer to a particular group of adult browsers rather than an independent unique instantiation but even if particular could be interpreted to mean unique in that instance it's referring simply to one of the ways in which this patent could be used there's nothing in the patent that indicates the specification or the claims that indicates this invention is unique identifiers in the talks about the word non unique identifiers what there is is reference in the specification to identifiers and unique identifiers and it's in claims seven where you can see that the specification portion referring no it adds in fact the type of browser i tend to fire is unique and it's generated in transmitted by the central controller and then it's specifically recites that the whole purpose of having this type of identif this unique identifier is so high that you can uniquely identify the browser that last bragman of claim seven discloses that the other identification the other browser identity references in claim six or in claim twenty and twenty five don't uniquely identify the browser that happens independent claim seven which is different and as a limitation that  not appear in claim six or in claim twenty or twenty five dollars now of course there are references in the abstract and the summary of the invention to this claim  unique identifier and the fact that it can be used to specifically target ads to a particular browser but there's nothing in the patent that disparages the use of non unique identif there's nothing that extols the use of unique over and above non unique identifiers there is nothing in the specification that says this patent requires unique identifiers that it this patent ascend it is essential to this patent that there be unique identifiers and as a result anything in the specification that is discussing the unique identifier does not need to be read into every claim of unless you on us have any further questions on the claim construction i was going to move to the nd error with regard to browser identity the nd error that the court committed with regard to the browser identity limitation i serving its final infringement contention so after i had access to google source code it did three amendments or it made two amendments and then proposed a rd which is equivalent to what google did google in this case also served three amended invalidity contentions so it was a back and forth process of the parties continuing to narrow and crystallize based on the information that was being received as it was being received including the court's claim construction in the rd amended or proposed contentions what to do was to accuse the advertising id as being the browser identity and the reason that the amendment should have been allowed deposition notice was served earlier in the litigation but the actual deposition didn't current till the end of the facts period and that the district court determined that the finding of action of the source code and that the source code was produced in a run of the mill case where a plaintiff delayed in taking a deposition and that should be stopped and not allowed to amend its contentions are that the produced code doesn't reveal that advertising id is used in a way that implicates the patent google intentionally obscured its code so that it was undiscoverable that advertising id was used and google repeatedly represented that it had produced all relevant information to show the operation of the system and that the source code was the best evidence of the system and it is based on those facts that klaus tech was reasonable in not knowing or not having any reason to know that when they took that there were no decision so the code that was produced was complete the district court considered this and specifically found that google had produced code that was responsive to the initial theory and that had produced more code as close to it came forward and asked that they needed more to understand and what they had initially received the accusation here is against the client side rouser and so in this initial production of code that is what google focused on the ad mob s t k system and the code on the client side that that reflects that operation when close that came forward and said that they needed more from the server side to understand what the servers did with that initially produced client side code google came forward with that and they produced all of the code including how the on the server side they would unpack the codes that were transferred over the internet and of course there is some of the crammers there transferred over the internet which is public that are intentionally obscured so that people can't figure out and  be able to mimic what's going on on their own and so so that some of that is obscured in what's public there what's transferred across in it but on the server side the code that was was  including specifically with respect to advertising id and let's start with the fact that the district court emphasized that advertising id and what it does within the android environment was publicly disclosed including the fact that it's a unique references to it including which of the you stated parameters that are transferred across the internet included the advertising id you would have been able to unpack that including in particular there is  a spreadsheet that includes all of the parameters that are in responsive to an advertising request and that included that particular parameter that was associated in the code with advertising id so all of this was discernible from the code that was provided if there had been any difficulty on the part of tom stating understanding that they clear that it is the burden of the party seeking to amend late in the game to prove their diligence it's not our job to prove absence of diligence is their job to prove diligence and the court went through in its specifically considered and rejected that and the argument that they could it was reasonable for them to delay taking the deposition because they had no idea that they they didn't have access to this the court said it is routine in the northern district of california to find an absence of diligence when the party fails to take heed depositions until the end of discovery care this is a case of been going on for seven years now mind you only two years of active litigation but have you noticed that deposition in january haven't been provided the code in february and march of two thousand and fifteen the interactive process providing more code has more is requested and then the fact that once the deposition taken immediately understand because that the potent say well this is what it is and this is where it is they thought they had found a smoking gun because one the st opponents said well there's a spreadsheet that shows these parameters they said get that same disguised parameter that you would have understand from the server code included advertising id so the judges determination member to micro says that enforcement of the local patent rules will be affirmed if unless there is no evidence to support of there's ample evidence to support this so if i could go back now to the st ground which is the absence of any accusation identifying what in the accused system operates is the browser now i think it's important to start here and again the district court did this is well with the fact that their own expert admits that at the time of this invention a traditional browser was something like internet explorer  program that works on an underlying operating system that browser going out and retrieving pages from websites and that was what was the understanding at the time this invention  contentions the mobile app contains at least one page along with lines to install a non scrolling banner ad frame and this pages but then twenty eight has a thirds of element if you're downloading that to a browser now we have course knew our system doesn't operate in that traditional way of a web browser so it was not surprising to us that that is absent there now they now later on two years later said no no we meant that here it's implicit somewhere that when it's transmitted it's transmitted to the operating system now there was always an operating system even a traditional browser system but that's not what the browser was in the invention so that didn't tell us that they are saying in this instance it's actually the operating system itself that is the browser that was never informed us of course had whole environment is android we know that no one's confused about that the question is what operates as that program in between in the operating system and the page on which the page is being disclosed now i'd really like to draw the court's attention to page sixteen of the blue brief which was where in their opening brief they tried to identify where it was that they had to let google know put google on notice of this accusation that it's the operating system that's acting as the browser the choose a browser in the chart therefore specified and then underneath there see also three additional so total of seven places where they said this was disclosed of those seventy five dollars merely say that something is transferred to were displayed on the client device gunner's this is the epitome of broadly generally alleging for even so that we can fill that empty vessel up later on when we figured it out and that's what the local pattern rules in northern district of california are designed to prevent anything you can put anything into the client device is the operating system part of the client device yeah but so is everything else in runners so we didn't know and of course we didn't expect that they would have something to identify because it doesn't operate the way that they're really kind of old technology invention dead with you know internet explorer operating on windows of course there are certain instances where that's still tr operates on an android system internets saffire works on an apple i o s system those are browsers that work on those systems but that's not what they've identified that in that done finally thing and in two micro the court made clear that if you can't present evidence here they cannot because it was properly struck by the judge when it was attempted to be introduced in the expert report d in support of infringement contention that was disclose the operative for an infringement intentions and here there is none this report specifically said there is no browser identified in infringement contentions then they can't succeed on their case that's when j mall is appropriate and that the appropriate here to that would be an independent grounds for a firm and but the court can equally affirm on the alternative grounds of the claim construction which i'd like to reach right now the the uniqueness in the claims they do something differently they don't use unique rouser identifier they just simply say browser right then the identity connotes uniqueness already but we're not relying exclusively on the connotation of identity it's the fact that these claims don't work without that notion what they provide is and this is as claimed in the abstract and in the summary of argument this precision targeting system that allows you to track what ad has already been seen by a browser so that you can send another and it does that through records and those records are recorded from the browser with its rouser identity with that ad identity and the timer timeout now we know and this is a column two on page one hundred and forty eight dollars of the claim twenty of the new claim twenty that each add content having an identity so we know that if he is unique for each ad and we also know that each ad content having an identity and an individual timer for timing out so it also has an individual timer so this record that's being reported to the central server we know that it has individual ad identity as individual timeout information and it has claim twenty is transmitting to the reporting browser and internet address for new add content so you wouldn't have to know which is the browser that has already reported this to me because i'm going to report it i'm going to transmit something back to it she have to know which one has transferred this and you have to know that this browser to which i'm transferring it hasn't yet had this ad because i'm transferring to it new  a new ad all of that is in the claim language and i haven't even got yet to the spec because unique browser identity unique browser identifier it's all over the spec and i think you know you pointed to the abstract because abstract and clearly relevant in understanding what the inventor thought they claimed and they and they reference unique grounds or identifiers throughout as well as maintaining these summary of invention not only does it refer repeatedly including in column three where the district judge relied on to the unique roster identifier that is tracked by the unique by the central system but also to the fact that this enables that very highly tailored targeted advertising which you simply can't have if the world is divided into two browser identities one operated within the ad mob system that is that it was transferred with an advertisement request and ultimately recorded along with the ad content it only found that it disclosed basic use and functionality of the advertising i d meaning that it disclosed it may be used in the ad mob system to uniquely identify but not that it was used in a way implicated by the and that's an important distinction because the code here in fact does not reveal that advertising id is used in the way the patent claims at most it hints that it's used with regard to this proprietary the only evidence revealing that advertising id is transmitted in an advertisement request and recorded with the ad content is the deposition testimony there is nothing in the code that reveals that actually happens and as a result when google represented that it had produced all of the code and that the only code it had produced indicated that at most advertising id was used by google for purposes of monitoring or trade tracking security issues and security has nothing to do with the patent we had no reason to believe that advertising id was used in the way the patent implicates soso ones on two very quick points i think your honor with regard to the claim construction issue that the purpose of targeted advertising isn't claimed in the claims themselves and a number of other benefits or uses of the patent is described in the specification there's no requirement that every claim meet every potential objective of the patent as a boy and my nd point your honor is with regard to the browser identifier the reason that we pointed to the client device portions of the claim charts was precisely your honour's question that when we said google play store on android and when we said that the page was transferred to android we weren't talking in that instance of the generic enjoyed environment we were talking about android on the client device and that is the operating