without any markman or rather clean construction proceed in it conducted a bench trial on the issue of infringement rather than an inquiry into whether the defendant had met their bur confusion initially i think by counsel about whether the patent rules in the know the panel has in mind maryland being one of the thirteen model districts to run went through what it was going to do but then there was the boilerplate in the scheduling order that it's roman rule six the court will require compliance with the local rules of course the local rules would include that in this instance though include an exception that normally we do act but we don't have to do that that's certainly true your honor absolutely it was the court's right to counsel why do i say that on this issue that is because there was a motion a joint motion to clarify to have the court clarify whether the local patten rules as tory order and c claim construction will come later specifically had entered that were in response to a joint motion for clarification court and see your own teles does eight o five claim construction applied to this we're not able let's get to the summary judgment motion in response to the summary judgment motion did you say that with respect to the issues being addressed by the summary judgment claim construction will impact the court's analysis of those issues what we said and i believe it was implicit in response identifier it could be and posited using the language of the patent could be such things as manual input in that was court did you get from the comparison that occurred or manual and we understood that claim construction pursuant to the judge's motion for clarification was to come late so there was not which was completely is everyone recognises the court at the cart i should say before the horse because clinton struction is the st big of course that has to be addressed in a summary judgment infringement scheduling order the case went off the rails in terms of the summary judgment that is before your honor's went up the rails because the court was in his mind to consider a summary judgment of infringement without addressing the claim construction st and that led to the issues the as to the other issues the fact disputes as to the things that the court did address the st point i would make is we come to the matter st of declaration of an employee who didn't start an employment until june of two thousand and fifteen and spoke to not having knowledge before that spoke to  he understood things or he i think understood was the word that he used when he i would submit and we said it in their brief cases where they had control of the witnesses they had control of the of the device to not present any evidence and the burden of course in st instance was a them for not infringement of course  the arguments started and that was that they claim construction would come later and i don't really understand that argument because of course in the clink and in the summary judgment context you have to construe the court  as the court noted the there was no requirement that the patent local rules be applied there was a initial schedule order where the judge made it very clear after we told him we think there's a misunderstanding of the operation w product that we want to file an early summary judgment motion the court granted it gave but i mean there was to some extent a conclusion that that the patent did not cover manual operation right  by who your honor you say it doesn't it doesn't r t m system you say in the summary judgment motion is that rather than the zito approach the r p m system required an operator to select the appropriate parameters routines and then input that's exactly what we do is ito their amended complaint indicated a couple of different versions one of which said talked about manual operation so we address that we address that w as part of that contention zito have said that the keyboard or could be the reader that's in the claims of all the power of all the claims of all the of the both patents and we speeded that then in their opposition summary judgment that was just dropped it was never raised again in fact when it came to the argument section of the of their summary judgment motions ito mentioned only the r f id bracelet and or if i d read read or so he just abandoned any suggestion that he was trying to read it on manual input and that's what the court found is that there is no claim constructions of the district court decision no claim to destruction and found there is no general issue is a material fact he found as the court noted that we do it very differently in the claims we have been acquiring that's what i'm trying to understand is and the conclusion alternately on infringement is that you do it differently than the claims doesn't the court at least have to analyze the cla to some extent to say do a good well as the court noted in the decision there were no claim to speak it's we laid out exactly the requirements of the claims in our motion and the court concluded there was no claim construction issues no disputes we specifically said that all the claims of the of both patents require that there be a process or executing coal based on read in user information and based on that read  requires is an operator manual input the different parameters and the difference a bit more accurate then to say that that is happening because if you saying you're not covered by the claims and that the other side is saying you are covered by the claims is clearly a claim dispute ultimately what the pork included is that there wasn't a genuine issue of material fact because there it was never fleshed out as it relates to what the words of the cl and that conception exclude experimental operation such a system and so in that sense you were putting forward a certain understanding of what those claims and and the judge accepted that understanding of the claims and concluded that your q system doesn't match that understanding of the claims and in essence though this is all chemist on a certain conception of what the claims mean they argue the configuration where they are if id bracelet and there are reader are used exclusively just doesn't talk about manual at all there's some passing reference to manual as counsel noted but when it came to actually argue there was r the amended complaint if you look at those three different versions that they claim they're they're really just two configurations the configuration where there isn't or if id bracelet an ar fifteen reader and those cases where the user information isn't simply input directly into the system without this are if i do the communication that's it that's the only versions and both of those versions were i wouldn't call them versions of the same r p m system just fourteen but mr besides they are r p a manual there is the walkthrough specification which also confirms that all the documents that have been in this case confirmed that there is just one way that the system works they are to their a judgment motion when you when you read it and you come away you understand the big argument of non infringement is the fact that no we don't have a processor with code executing and struction to figure out this read in user information we manually input never used user information to configure this system it's just completely different things we use it to her to take the results that come out of the system and we parent with with the players to give for example