se of course we are speaking about the say the same patents and in this instance i want to part point out a number of ways that  reacting to what the court did was a fly a different and more stringent claim construction when it in the core without a map and you have an extensive listing substance into its formulation so all this discussion about whether to help with this claim whether it is an ordinary except be it is in some way or diversion from addressing the real it issue well and the court decided this fact the court did decide this one but two would assess this one you don't really need to look at that much testimony there's a couple of things that they're pretty closely on whether manufacture now those results did show that there was no calcium carbonate in the formulation what it showed was that the calcium carbonate was not detectable there was a two percent that's the wrong stat well at best the evidence properly weight showed that there was at a minimum small amounts less than two percent of calcium carbonate in the top we believe that it was legal error for the court to apply a inconclusive stand seize on the word inconclusive and say aha this is a different standard is this really ignoring the fact that she made very clear that she understood the standard applied throughout i said that seems to be a nonstart it was not our ted to see these are that statement but looking at that statement in connection with the evidence the facts that were presented on this  towel it was identified chemically by dr davies using very sophisticated techniques and the only contrary evidence was that it was not detectable by a test that only would the tat or the two percent of tile in the material so that's the only evidence which which it is it is clearly erroneous for the court to other evidence that milans top contains comments including the specification that milan gets from its supplier it require don't know how the judge you know in weight this evidence but when she used that term in connection with the way this evidence and came to this conclusion i believe it was reasonable  that we also think the court was led to in part because of her focus on this carbonate being a impurity in the to met its burden to show the presence of an element reacting compound simply by the showing that they added an outlet material and that material resulted in a prove presumably through some comparative testing that the a r c this formulation with or without the outland reacting compound it's more staying with it than only for milan that the court require proof of separate stability in the final formulation and did not credit the showing of micro ph as satisfying the stability example one of they have various formulations with different corners to show which kinds of parts are affected and which ones aren't the interesting part of that example is core number one is a control which they have said repeatedly around the world does not contain an arc but guess what is in the active ingredient  one reacting in combat she said precisely the opposite she said that is an open possibility and she examined the evidence with that contention in mind and here's here's the thing you're under the of carbonates but then she took it one step further she said that whatever may be in the bag of top what's required we're talking about a formulation claim we're talking about just as mr taylor said in the situation with the in situ separating layer we're talking about what is in the final product it is interesting in judge jones th instruments of ill living things i'd never heard of before this case one of my called the super sniffer as it can detect things down to parts per fraction of a billion they offered no evidence as to whether these case you cannot infer the presence of an arc from ph testing alone you have to prove that the ark is in the active core layer they did not offer that evidence complete the failure proof on the micro ph testing of the two things that should be considered here judge jones with chiseling off twenty or thirty or forty different pellets that will amplify and distort the result and that's not a valid it's test to measure that well we do have agreement between the parties that there is a test that the court should look at as far as the ph of what's in the final product the if you look on page fourteen of our  core is that in two thousand and two when we realised that they were relying on that test and they relied on of this lead is there briefing in the spoke to circuit that we looked at the ingredients that were going specification of the h b m c and say we're not going to use bags of h b m c which have a ph more than six point three and so that was the manufacturing spec that was adopted that's what was used for the commercial product actual newly defined in two thousand and two product that was going to be sold commercially and certainly it's not clear are to say that judge jones following the task of the product that is actually being sold in the market after ten years of litigation so as i say doctor stuff that made up these test pellets where they deliberately withheld the cock from the active ingredient core to see plant but most significantly and if you did you look on page fourteen of our brief we have side by side for you the so called european public and the mylan pellet sometimes difficult product to get bioequivalence on and they put in an extra layer judge jones pointed out most of the vatican that the data on the experimental pab pellets that s crew was relying on were the three layer european well it's never been sold in the united states not subject to this lawsuit again they're relying on data for something that is not subject to a lawsuit but judge jones additionally pointed out if you look at that european data correct totality of the data on the commercial plans it does show that the taking the telco out doesn't the act negatively on the preservation of the product but more importantly well it's well course because there are litigations in the u k and germany and other places where they actually saw those problems but dr judge jones looked at the data the doctor stuff it did for the french went into the building with me now or milan presented no evidence with regard to its process say or anything else that it did it presented no evidence to suggest that the carbon would be removed from its tel in its process and there's evidence that the towel with the carbonates remain in its final product and what is that evidence ph testing of every other defended that has been in both the first and second wave cases and finally iran and you know up a totally disagree with the characterization of these stability test and that say that somewhere that in the neighborhood of sixteen hundred or more grams of taupe is added into each batch of their product and you can go to record page a eight one seven three batch mix that and formulated it we wouldn't be arguing about ability test done overseas we wouldn't be arguing about many of the things that the judge considered