evidence or specific important witnesses and need to work warrants of this court in both them i was a six case and the wires were shit case but you point to some specific reason as to why i'm prejudiced that's not the case or effect it's just third credit here is the three people die not that records are available three people died who knew a lot about the events in question well this in and you think i understood your defense apparently they may have argued that it certainly would have helped your case and the evidence from prejudice if you had a lot of documents in the bottom all in no signed papers by some bad guy saying agreeing with your client addressed was the only thing they mentioned they're willing to explore which is the only thing we had the opportunity to respond to was the recommendation letter by professor in the south the second point i would say again you are and it's not to avoid answering this i'm going to get to specifics of the three professors in a minute all of her records and she are here for them she was out on that or they try to show that they in fact did what they are credited with doing but at the clearly you have three witnesses that were involved  and from from from the other side perspective they're going to say i need to take the depositions of those witnesses to see if perhaps she may have all the records in the world and those witnesses may be right through them let me let me speak to the material out of the ability with just that just follow me those aren't they denied the opportunity to question those witnesses to see whether those witnesses seems to me that in a situation where somebody said to dr sabera fixated you in ninety eight when she said the most that somebody could say i don't remember that they can't possibly think they could possibly as a psychological matters are the opposite of what i agree with for the question the question really that this if this is the right way to interpret only a couple complicated fact we you're a vessel that actually is just art what this was some prejudgment before a single word of discovery and for purposes of summary just without a single word discovered the evidence which we in view of what this court is recognized with the trust and various other cases that inventors are prone to convince themselves after a long delay to conceive that important invention is it isn't your best defense here is that these and he made the equitable call we shouldn't disturb them off their blatantly wrong i think that's absolutely right the standard of review is abuse of discretion this is an equitable issue and as this court is treated with latches with an ethical conduct within the discretion of the court of the district court judge to have considered and evaluated the undisputed facts of their deaths and what's eric said that they did you know those are undisputed facts and based on those undisputed facts it was within the the argument versus cheney's case that was a summary judgment case that we're quite familiar with so based on the abuse of discretion standard the prejudice from three witnesses who died were identif  titled conception of my invention there is no dispute it was well within the first discretion to take the undisputed facts of their knowledge and find that there is latches and it's particularly relevant in the said that but i'm not sure that anybody can say anything one way or the other who did double note what the percentage of cases were inventors convince themselves of the through that or something else now like a rhetorical flourish that might have been better left out of an opinion  that's what makes these three witnesses important because these three witnesses are the ones who could have really did any temptation by satiric to believe to convince herself that she's an inventor what they want to i real worried worried about what they might have done to reign in what catholic self delusion you're suggesting years they clearly knew a lot of material fact even by her account of things so they were material end of story why belabor the nitty gritty little detail i think that's absolutely right they had knowledge of material facts their testimony could have been  consistent with cyrix story but we will never know and were not able to obtain that part of the story i'd like to address two other issues relating to prejudice that was raised by counsel for l and first of point was raised in the briefing he just said it wasn't prominent it was mentioned quickly you know near the back or something but he doesn't say he was blindsided so what's left the thats a problem perhaps i should move on t thousand pages of documents if the guys who were involved were dead i don't care what the documents say any you'll never be able to reconstruct what actually happened because documents can lie just like witnesses can a law that's exactly right and  responding to summary judgment so derek came forward with the hate not a single one mentions that error not a single event of the three witnesses and we just don't know what the three witnesses would have said i'm not sure what this mr completely inconsistent with the only on clean hands argument that was raised below at page one three two five of the appendix the sole basis for the un plain hands position is that sudhir agrees before the district court was the allegation that quote defendants caused the delay by severe it and raising her claims and violence you that's a quote from page one three two five and that was  specifically identified why it would be an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the actual books and the one issue that was identified was that defendant supposedly caused the delay and that clearly is not a time but i think it's reasonable to ask you to limit any remarks you might make to anywhere where you disagree with anything mr jinnah says or or perhaps if he made some major omission you can fill in the gaffe or otherwise i'm not what years between two thousand and two and two thousand