question of statutory interpretation here now i'd like to begin with the first of the two principle issues which is whether the provision of the up by a similar application and related manufacturing information circumstances under which a person around the country like a traditional generic drug applicant may face ruinous damages exposure of it which is a risk and therefore the statutory regime gives the applicant the ability to posy to see one handy to see two we will see after a comma the words an application and so the structure of the statue does it shall be an act of infringement to submit a b c and then inseam on an application seen something like i think this statute i think we thought was fully written that way and i would suggest your honor that it was done because to deal with the complexities of the patent patenting around biologics that that one of the fundamental comply with the statute are fundamental problem is that what sanders is done in out you is to come in and say we'd like to follow the pieces of the b p ca that we think benefits us but we'd like to not follow the pieces that we don't like an that if we do look at katie six which is the only place where notice of commercial marketing and approval that used to get approximately the statute says those two things one would have her twelve months and one of the eighteen months if you can't read that and it engine is trying to look outside and for remedies the way that the shell provision works is it starts with l two if think a apple can want to engage in the patent exchange process in the back and forth of the l all the legislative session is about previous congresses and very little actual history history about this act that was that so on its terms though this is i think it's very important to focus on the actual infringement into option then there's the online option and i just i don't either through the language or the structure of l where there's a hint by this that it's a choose your own adventure situation for the chaos and it seems much more like power can bring a d j action at that point well so in that sense it does feel like it's mandatory and then if you fail to meet your requirements that are your obligations under the statute  sale when it's not talking about and being a tory obligation that one has not done it's just it's just something that happens when one doesn't do one thing then something else happens when there's a failure to reach agreement and for that pushes you to alcide on the are only substantive rights at issue in this whole scheme are patent that's the title of l patent and it is just a procedure in many different prophecies and all kinds of situations are covered to put the parties into the artificial infringement not it doesn't have anything about any kind of day any kind of hundred eighty days day and clear injunction a notice of commercial marketing the subsection to the applicant shall provide notice to the referenced product sponsor not later than idea when or if that application is going to get approved so it sounds a little nonsensical to say that that is an appropriate form of notice of commercial marketing when you don't have any clue on six months even if this court thought that that was not sufficient citizens of reading notice on the date of approvals and as judge larry mentioned six months from that of the september second that would be the outside date any injunction against mechanisms that you're submitting can can change the point is not but you haven't fixed products right there that is static and for the rest of the pendency of the application it's going to always remain the to and started down the patent exchange process and then obtain approval in the middle of the patent exchange or process there is nothing about that process that would entitle engine to an injunction in its marketing at that point in time they would have had to go to court and showed that there was some chance that they could prove patent infringement they don't want to litigate their patents here they told the world they have no material patents left on this product and that they expect competition in the united states  explain how i think elliot's the works the ellington patterns that are in l a be what's covered by those provisions shifts over time depending on where parties are in the process so here of course we gave them the we didn't provide the application so on day twenty to extend the court doesn't think it's moot the district court made factual findings here on after consideration of substantial evidence that the engine would have no irreparable harm had not proven any reputable harm from stand of his lodgings that in fact would preclude l because as we've been discussing no wonderful action occurs congress knew how to call the l section of violation when it wanted to and i'd like to point the court's attention to l one age where it talks about them reaches of the confidentiality provision and significantly unlike all the other provisions an elf congress provided called a violation of the confidentiality provisions  said if they aren't followed you go immediately to the patent infringement suit and judge to day think to seventy one to see one and two only create an act of infringement when either one of those are fully that it doesn't matter whether you know or not i'm saying this is not in london you can comply are subject to that aspect of the section i'm saying is if one really truly doesn't know that is a problem under either party's interpretation not circumstances or only in the interim condition present solve that problem but there are many reasons why applicants have every incentive as we did here even when we didn't want to engage in the process didn't notice because as you know from the binary thing it's very expensive to market information and time in which to analyze that information exchange detentions and come to court in the orderly fashion and not have to have a fire drill and the argument that is being made on on the other side without much respect is