one is the intersection between patent law and nevada state contract law and the second is the question of the conflict between two orders of the law court one which found quite clearly that they're worth as to the construction of the contract that's required for a jury resolved this issue the second of which said in effect well even if there are issues of fact i have now determined that grew lot is still sweeping in its application that is their trial to resolve these contractual issues becomes in this determination of the conflict whether or not the granting of summary judgment on the issue there that there was no material fact is to be used and or that even though there were issues of fact not in dispute that grew odd is overriding is the key issue in the case there's one extremely significant find that appears in both orders six pack in this is the one nine hundred eighty one patent that was applied for one nine hundred seventy eight never provided patent monopoly protection for products sold by inventors only has application where there is a product that was bought back in this case had there never been a doctor to help would be receiving to this day loyalties on not only the original liquid solution that would be mixed in his laboratory but he would be receiving royalties on his i lacked in products because it was very clear by all three of the founders of this and all three signatories that the intent was for him to receive royalties on all products the time that that agreement was entered into and we're looking back twenty six years now and the district court was looking back more than twenty years after that agreement was founded it was the  riginal intent that he would receive these royalties on products that were sold that he invented and that was the first part and then the second product that was actually marketed and that was the appear in in the one nine hundred eighty agreement it does not appear in a section discussing royalties and the reason for that is because it was understood that he would receive royalties according to all three of the people who signed on anything that was sold it never occurred to them they didn't even discuss contemplate that patents would affect patent law came into play in this case in two thousand twenty years is palmolive case that was filed in one thousand nine hundred four when questioned by counsel for colgate he admitted that he told dr to now you will receive royalties on this of litigation that was resolved by settlement in one thousand nine hundred five there may have been a con because they filed a patent infringement case against colgate in arizona over this and that matter matter was battled out for a year or two years respectfully there's another concept of contract law that is very important in nevada if not in all states and that is and this was established through the testimony and case it's not just what the intent of the parties was it's also was never incorporated into a product that sells i don't know royalties were paid on anything except the product that became patented art but the product was an invention that that did or did not a doctor to know named it until later plan until the two thousand and nine your essential anything and if i can revise what i understood you to say earlier that the only relevant pattern is really the second one litigation the board of directors meeting in one thousand eight hundred nine when the board sat down and dr to know abstained and they agreed to pay him five percent royalties on sales of the product worldwide and that was this product that was under contract is clear and unambiguous on its face and under nevada law you have to give effect to the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract that was a wrinkle case we cited for you and what is the contract say the one nine hundred eighty agreement say the one nine hundred eighty agreement tells incorporated in a separate patented your honor if i could that's that's partially true it's partially not true they have consistently told you want to appeal that he was never paid any royalties on the invention that is not true he received royalties starting in one thousand nine hundred eighty two and continuing forward xylo did the right thing when they did come up with his i lacked in product they continued to pay him and this guy liked a product because that product incorporated the invention if for instance they had invention what what's wrong with him having that position under fairly right under the agreement and saying that this is a this patent which hasn't run yet is still part of the invention but that was contrary to what he asserted below and i realize it was what we're dealing with directly for us on on or on a summary judgment motion and whether or not there's a question of fact that for the district court to resolve the stand his position is under the contract  what in the agreement rules out that look at the agreement and that way and i will try my one of the the agreement does not provide for that but to if you look at the agreement the agreement parcels out various items of intellectual property throughout mind you the record demonstrates the doctor to now was the one that dictated the basic terms of this agreement and he was the founder of this company he owned the majority of the shares he dictated the terms of this agreement to his co promoters his co promoters and isn't terribly useful to be entirely purist to them what the intent was of the parties because they thought if you almost surely their actual intent was that he was to be paid for ever as long as the doing but that does so you're not talking with you know someone doesn't know what they're doing you're dealing with a commercial case here you pay your you're trying to rule it rule out any other meaning to this agreement and he sixty one you have to read that contract as it's written but my point is i don't understand how that can be applied to a contract which is not being read as written because of an overriding legal  written i would say well of course he's supposed to get paid for the invention invention still incorporated in the product he gets paid predator forever forever so i can't really this is written so you can't mean that into the underlying patent hasn't expired so yes he would be able to ok so what's the difference between that and upgrading it with a new i don't think there is a discernable difference because the reason he was paid royalties was because the product i lacked in contained the three acid solution that was the subject of the patent that entitle him to royalties and it's still so ultimately our all the other cases in applying for a lot dolby what you had was an agreement a license agreement or as time of you know what have you specifically said what the patents for that were being incorporated into the invention then the last pat that maybe there's an invalid the problem sits back doesn't do anything and waits to see what happens and then lo and behold later they say oh the pattern was declared invalid even though they had those suspicions then was to take a bite of the absentia and forcible against on on the contract on the application of we would be going to the jury on the contract which would allow us the royalties through two thousand and nine we don't contain we can't contain but the royalties had  walk properly applied and used to make this argument the text below this we don't need to try using title to his royalties through the expiration of the nineteen ninety two pattern which will expire in january two thousand and