no not infringing substantial not infringing leaves it can i just hope that you will focus on what's in my mind tell you a little bit about what's in my mind and maybe it will fit with what you're trying to say or or not i was focused on kind of two arguments that i take you to be making one of them is a claim construction argument about subjective structure and that all that means is that it is a brain structure that the user of this method chooses to subject to the process of scanning etc and that it plainly does not require that one knows the either the of it's the specific location or the orientation of the selected structure just it means identifying the structure that you are subjecting this  that the district court was simply wrong about the claim construction to the extent it went beyond that and the nd is a procedural point which is that you could not be faulted for not putting on in response to the summary judgment motion a whole lot of evidence about what users of the what's the software as you call paramount hearthrug what's that my retract fiber tracking because that was not actually the argument that they made a summary judgment motion of they never said if all you ready need is identifying a structure that you are going to subject you know put through this process that nobody does that and therefore it it completely doesn't matter whether you have didn't submit a whole lot of evidence yes those are two arguments at the core front i have to say so to f for the purpose of determining the shape and position of a structure it would be very odd to interpret claim language in here that says you have to know that in advance before you run the process absolutely because in fact even it's a great great image but it sweeps across all of our science right into this patent because they tell us that they have used functional m r i caff mariah different method of saying these are materials that were in fact attached to your opposition to summary judgment or no you have a real problem is that you are relying on the proposition as much of your brief does but not all of it that the district court the m t o district court busy erred in declining to consider a lot of articles a lot of evidence that you attached to your proposed amended complaint but did not cite in the summary judgment and i that's that's a tough thing that's not what i want to but i think that the order for the court to agreed with you about that and then what it came down to was some notion of what exactly a selected structure is and it seems to me the opinion is not all that clear about that but the argument that they made on that point was that you actually needed to know in one of their declaration is the location and the other was i think the aurion there was three declarations i forget what the names what mostly sang and somebody  else and they all talked about assuming that you knew the location the position and orientation and if you're fighting that claim construction saying no no you don't need to know that that's a legal argument that's available to you which it's completely wrong he's just eric completely because he goes through it all and then and then i'm just stern's comes through and says but there must be something i know here this is very much like saying well we don't know the exact margins of someone's that claim there was no contributory infringement claim for which substantial and infringing use is relevant well it's because he uses that argument to say that it's it that it's that you need to have you need to put direct evidence the opposition but i thought your your i guess in the arg i think you say a bunch of different things in your brief in response to that the one that i guess i'm focusing on which doesn't depend on that  right that doesn't depend is simply when you look at the arguments that the other side made in its summary judgment argument you had no arguments to answer that  require you to show the downstream users the technology the technicians or the neurosurgeons or the interventional radiologists or whoever had to be actually doing this their argument was it is impossible to use their brain tracking brain tracking fiber tracking the fiber tracking software to do this now that you don't have evidence that anybody does you got it so we didn't have to answer that because it wasn't  answer because it because he would have had to attack the individual the evidence that we have to require us that's my claims that are going to deficient most or some judgment because he doesn't attack the sensitive evidence he tries to do the attack by knocking the whole thing you know there's kind of us finding the signal in the noise here problem in the briefing that's that's presented some challenges and appreciate that but that's you know certainly the key piece of it is  because then i would then go on to say an argument that if the court found no there is a i that because the court's right on that were because there is a substantial our producers were required argues that therefore we were required to bring at the time of mission order that we're going to have to respond to something that the moving party hasn't hasn't asserted do you happen to remember it as the joint appendix contain the actual motion for reconsideration if you don't remember graphics claim construction there was an issue as to what selective structure meant but it wasn't really a claim construction issue ones like to structure it was whether according to your graph which you couldn't target the word are a wine region of interest or software cannot do what is says because it actually maps everything out just like thing and the claim is not a pick out one and do only what his lot is you've got one you can be mapping everything under the way they claim none of our customers use it to select structure whether it be in advance no matter what kind of structure it is whether it be a purple nerve or a a nerve in the brain or a white matter of the joan scene advance because we're brain lab uses that is we've got a neurosurgeon and he wants to perform some kind of surgery around gray matter typically matter that doesn't have an isotropic anisotropic and he wants to see or she if there is a fire or a white matter fiber near that so he doesn't know where she doesn't know in advance the whole purpose of doing fiber tracking is brain that markets everybody knows that there's this pyramid all structure in the brain right what more do you need to i want to do this to find the damn thing well if you wanted to do to find the paramus structure you could or maybe you want to find something else you want to find it right you know you want to find something else but the key i'm about to do some surgery in the filing area the break i really want a precise map of a bunch of things that i would like to stay away from why isn't that selecting a structure and tracked is and so now i'm going to run five projects selected is just this is one of the things i am looking for when i do this process that's not is the parties interpret the parties into a group looking for a structure advertisements and manual were in their opposition to summary judgment and if you could use it to find the price generous and you really it's a it's a contestable proposition that people were using this without having in their says we're looking for the shape and position of structure are the leaders there the suspicion is based on all of the peripheral evidence that there may very well  put it together then the claims are quite broad in some fashion that in some fashion it is but it's not because it does say selected structure it says that throughout as nerve graphics we do they just eliminate that completely they say you can select any area of the brain in any erisa structure but that's not true you have to have a selected and isotropic structure which basically is what you  your summary judgment motion and if so where no user there is no evidence that any user of fiber tracking undertakes to use fiber tracking with the idea in mind of trying to map a and isotropic structure no we say that we don't do it trying to find any known isotropic structure and that interpret the claim language of selected to require forget whether his is orientation or location he is orientation location of position between sun legion and they all assume something that the term selected structure does not properly construed assume well no they all assume that that means you're selecting something and you're going to try and in two but the rakyat mostly for example does not say no user of this preposterous to me i've been not an expert but what else are they using this for their use it to see if there is a structure it doesn't have to be proven a structure can be any structure any white matter anisotropic structure that is passing and then loops and that there is no anybody if you say in the summary judgment motion that if you assume that selective structure simply means a structure that a user wants to subject to this process and get a precise map of that there is they are building on the assumption that if you that the way they use brain lamp system is you don't look for anything in specific you're not looking for for example pram structure not you're not looking for any known structure  pre selected structure you just want to find out what is around that tumor that's what they're concerned about because there may be fibers that go from that tumor to another part of the brain and they don't want to intersect them  use of the word selected and in fact you just you just set right you're scanning this area because there are structures you know you don't want to forget where you're very you don't know no you don't know you don't know what's cases it's not it's nowhere near it they have a tumour and they want to know what's around and that's why they run it they don't know there's a primal structure right next to it they're trying to see how close they don't know that there's any white matter structures significant ones next to it all they do is and this is what the expert said you know there was no testimony from any expert whatsoever or any testimony that noura graphic submitted saying is t you to let me finish i'm sad i'm haulage i'm sure there were i think two advertising make sure is and one in the manual which referred to a terrific benefit of this is you can identify the location of the pyram tract why is that not sufficient evidence that it's if you were advertising it and telling people you could use it that way i'd bet there were doctors out there that were using it for that purpose saying i'd like to know where this tract is so that i don't do harm or that i intervene well there may be doctors who do that but that's not sufficient to prove infringement they have to do that now it's just the claim was about is that he's a moron sorry why is that decision is there was no proof that anybody was directly infringing true right there is no proof that anybody was directly infringing and that's where it ends there was no proof and in fact neural graphics admits that there was no proof they admit that they introduced absolutely no proof and no argument of direct infringement that should end it there and in fact there is no evidence there are two advertisements which mention print structure but it doesn't say that you have to do that you could do five or tracking to find any of the other structures that aren't the preamble structure and in fact the testimony or experts is that's how they do it they're not looking specifically for the pyramidal structure where a wh why if some of your summary judgment brief and i get some of your brief here suggests that for for there to be a selected structure the result of the process has to be limited to mapping that line and not mapping anything else yes we argue that as well right because you're not there's nothing in the claim about that right this is well this this is all the fact that you select a structure doesn't mean that you're not interested in or even getting the information about everything else surrounding it all this says is that you have to scan i'm using scan as a writer expose us exposing a region that contains a selected structure it the structure and other structure is right the region the region you scan must or is supposed to include the selected structures and other structures but still it says just not and as it doesn't say the region it st to look for a structure and then run it again when with really is that is the whole issue that you run it you don't run it just for fun just to see what different colors are going to turn up in you're looking for something whose presence you then verify when you conduct the procedure and why doesn't that apply to the way this brain this claim is written as a selected structure well because it requires i guess selected structure it doesn't say any structure that exhibits the diffusion and i saw trapeze and isotropic structures it says a selected structure so you have to have some structure that you know something of advance you believe it's there may be a parameter you believe that there's a structure here and that's what you're selecting that's what you're looking for to advance when brain that uses its device it just draws a region of interest around a no evidence of anybody using fiber tracking in any manner in any manner whatsoever and especially not in the manner in which they argue they're hypothetically used which is essentially to always find the pram of the structure never did your graphics introduce any evidence that anybody uses brain lamps of mice in any way in any fashion whether it be the you know some infringing net that defines a primal structure or does anything that was injured people can all of understand each now ten years later they found that connecting the two motor speech and receptive speech was a tract which they called the parts with the sickness and that's with the super images about because this patient to find out exactly where they are careful seculars has been pushed to by the tumour and where the edges are this is exactly exactly laid out they're doing something that appears in the past  absolutely evidence before the jury will include this user of brain lab and wanting to avoid injury to this track exactly as you've just been disputing they set out to do this they know the tumor is near the to medical opinion the other issue that he raises about selecting a structure is to suggest that somehow that means that you have to select the entire structure but the method in the patent the claim thirty six dollars is is really at a single box so you just have to select a structure because that's the level at which it determines the orientation it doesn't box of my box so again i won't use up all my that we just say you always in french whenever you do these things you're infringing because there's no non infringing you stocks walk that's our response they're saying we don't have to attack the evidence because we never infringe we come back and say you always infringe the court decided by saying ah there's unknownst tissue and we don't i don't think the patent covers are known to shoot one hundred percent wrong that needs to change reverses the whole thing they have it  deficient motion and that it didn't cite individual infringement but if we take it as a valid motion it is sufficient it argues one thing you can't infringe the answer is the judge got it wrong that always in french and that's why