sora olsen materials number eighteen eleven forty four confidentiality of sources confidential information and products the secrecy declaration required the confidential information in the samples will be used by paulson soli or olsen in turn or internal evaluation for potential use in its own future process this court to reverse the summary judgment below on remand the case for trial the district court misinterpreted the secrecy declaration by holding that article ten and ten articles introductory paragraph article one article two article three articles five six seven eight nine each impose confidentiality obligations on bolton or otherwise among the five exceptions so here as the district court held that text of the secrecy declaration authorized polson to disclose sources trade secrets two things have to be true first of of confidential information but neither of these propositions his correct first of all article ten does not set forth an exception to pull since confidentiality what's the point of article t the point of article ten is that it declares in writing a the scope of patents that olson can pursue and that was an important thing withstanding article six which is a prohibition on disclosure correct correct and so this goes to the my second point back the the language of article t  how it affects the the branching flexibility of the polymer so there were there were several things that were disclosed by my source that went in some declaration of what rights he would have to pursue paths and i can say you know lawyers all right all the time notwithstanding anything to the contrary here in that doesn't mean that everything else were not lawyers involved with this writing and what we do know is that the whole purpose of this document is to protect the confidentiality of this information and remembers well gee polymer  material runners it's a material if he has use you know hundreds of different applications potentially thousands of different applications and the purpose of article ten is to say that colson is of two of them did not have this language the third one did have that language so that language it wasn't material to him didn't matter he was happy to sign it and he did sign i think it was six weeks or more in advance without that  moreover the the the important point is that the if you're going to say that not the n not withstanding the fact that you cannot destroy my car feel free to use my car in your own business now was standing that fact feel free to use my car does that mean that i'm telling you to go ahead and the store in my car when you're using it in your own now this is the question is what did the parties actually intend and if you look at the document they said but let me ask you if i could mr wilson to do if we don't agree with everything unnecessary in one seventy one patent application too much to more than was needed to comply with the written description  the contract language permit and then there's the question of in this particular set of facts to get the one seventy one patent mike my answer is no they would not have needed to do to disclose our confidential information ok yet they did write a did ok does i'm trying to imagine the construction of a contract though that would depend on that sort of assessment of necessity particularly when you're dealing with a patent and trademark office are we supposed to as a jury supposed to second guess whether he provided too much had were to pursue patents over new applications using to polymer he didn't have the right it doesn't declare that he has the right to do anything with our confidential information it doesn't say a word about confidential information it doesn't say notwithstanding article six i understand that but it doesn't say that he has the right to do anything with it to can't disclose or confidential information when he's filing a patent application so i don't know why i guess i still am hung up on my paragraph ten why it wasn't written somewhat along the lines of paragraph and so what you have to do is you have to look to what is the what is the actual substantive rights that were given in article and what they what the rights the rights that were actually given are the right to pursue certain categories of article six in article ten which must be read together judge normal's opinion provides the only reasonable interpretation of those two provisions and it should be affirmed judge normal explained because article ten begins with the phrase notwithstanding article six of the language of article six must be ready conjunction with article ten and i think it's important to look specifically at that language article six says bolton shall not file any application for a patent or other intellectual property using any piece of the confidential information or the results of the evaluation without the prior written consent on what is article ten say notwithstanding article six here of bolton is free to patent protected any new applications using g polymer in the specific area fused deposition method rapid prototyping equipment and methods so as a result judge normal explained that the plain language interpretation of article ten is as follows in spite of the free to patent and protect new applications using g polymer in the specific area fuse deposition method rapid prototyping equipment and methods your honor as this is the only interpretation of the secrecy declaration that harmonizes all the presidents in the agreed that why would a source ever agreed with well because it's because the source was not in the three d printing industry prior to its work with bolton and it wanted to access the industry and in fact that's what the extrinsic evidence explain distributor of so they're saying if we can do this if we can finally get into this market it's worth and we'll make money from it and we'll be protected because the only person that you can or entity that you can get the product from is us no one else can make it  let me let me turn back to the  you of the language or read read together so opposing counsel mentioned article four as being the sole area in which except the confidentiality provisions are addressed and i want to i want to touch on that a little because i think that that does not follow the plane reading of the contract article four does it list exceptions to to the parties confidentiality including for example if the is another exception which proves that article four isn't the only place in the agreement where exceptions to confidentiality obligations are found moreover if you apply the logic of sources argument here it would require the rejection of  because article six doesn't say notwithstanding articles one two five seven nine it's better and yet there's no challenge article six is realty so the same challenge shouldn't be applied article ten in addition sorest was the drafter of articles he submitted a provisional filing which essentially in layman's terms as a placeholder says this is why we're working on this is what we anticipate following our patent on and and a generally cation to be application include  confidential information i believe source contends that it does it for purposes of summary judgment we've assumed that that's the case but we haven't reached that point yet but nonetheless the the actual financial case was filed a year later after development also claims that article six in article ten don't conflict which is i think again a misreading of the contract article ten says notwithstanding article six here are not notwithstanding part of article six and if they would require in order for the court to conclude otherwise they would have to read language into the stream and it would have to say something about confidential information in article ten but it doesn't and in fact very exact language notwithstanding article six here of must have meant something to source because source was the party that proposed that we've heard a discussion earlier of the facts about the prior versions of the agreement not having notwithstanding what the final version of the actual version of the agreement that  issue here when it was sent to mr dean and it was it was sent with by mr swire to mr heene and he said i've added notwithstanding article six here out to avoid any discrepancy between article six and article ten so clearly meant something  i think also it's worth noting that sources arguments ignore the reality of the patent process and probably more fundamentally render article ten illusory because the reading the source proposes of article ten is simply that it allowed olson to obtain a patent that in fact in their brief they describe it as olson was permitted to mention that it's process work with the polymer but nothing else will both and could already do would essentially mean that source says article ten gave both and nothing no ability nothing he didn't negotiate right thing and that's inconsistent with basic principles of contact contract construction i would also add on the analogy about about what the source offers the analogy that you can use my car including for your work but don't write without my consent that's what they said that's a disagreement but that analogy is incomplete because it ignores the nature of the work that is presley authorized by the agreement the real analogy would be you can use my car including for work and don't destroy it without my consent but your work is a demolition derby of course in some way you're going to have to disclose something about g d polymer in a patent in order to convince the us patent trademark office that you've got a new application a new invention something worthy of a patent and that's particularly true if you look at the definitions used in the agreement the secrecy declaration defines confidential information as need pons proprietary confidential information so everything about g palmer and that's consistent with the testimony that every single fact every single piece of information about g pollin was considered confidential therefore anything that said whatever it was source considered it to be confidential an article ten specifically permitted balsa and to do that to disclose that information if it was seeking a specific kind of patent using it involving g palmer that's what the parties negotiated and the fact that there are  and i think to your honor that we should we should focus a little bit on the arguments about the business case for this i think we've gone over to a little bit but i think it's worth noting that this is the agreement that source made and this is the deposition method three d printing ten he didn't have the know how and had that ability to you modify that product to be used in that field and source all that opportunity and took it so unless the court has any further questions i would just ask that the  with regard to my car analogy your honor counsel says well what if their business was using my car for demolition derby what sense does that make that illustrates very well why the the interpretation of this contract that they are proposing is commercially ridiculous why would i say don't use my car i mean don't destroy my car but but notwithstanding that feel free to use my car in your own business when i know that he is in the no right to or license in any of the trade secrets it doesn't say any of those other things so this is a question true question of contract interpretation full language is not explicit and the question is what is a commercially reasonable implication from the words that were used and the only commercially reasonable implication is that the words of article ten are limited to declaring the categories of