use names types and heritage relationships are classics however with the district court said was it has to include object classes and inherent relationships among classes and there's simply no support in the itself unable to determine whether an object model must necessarily include clients of the court then in the face of unambiguous and clearer plain language this did not require the inclusion of those things went to just models including behaviors really result of your agreeing to a definition of classes that incorporated behaviors no your honor the act because that was a  a class as it appeared in the claims in a different place as including behaviors an object model the idea of putting class into object model was not being that s a p t encouraged the court to do in that  accord didn't do that there was no basis for that inclusion and and it created more confusion because they disagreed then had to explain and it's opinion why even though she was requiring out to classes in inheritance relationships have substance to your honor we think that there is no i don't that create an interface object there was no prosecution just reduced disclaimer of the preferred in body and configured seven  description of how a plane term is read just plainly on its face then it's not going amount to a disclaimer lest there is something in the claim language that gives you a hook to include objects there were users in texas who were suing because they used business objects and incorporated it into their own identity methods and procedures and that was the basis on which those cases went forward and again we believe there was at the time the suit was filed there was no jurisdiction with the conditional counter claim when our motion to dismiss was thrown out we turned it into an account objects so we think that was an overreaching summary judgment a true contact in reaction to if i may turn for just a couple of minutes to run time engine turn this is another turn where  the district court added a bunch of requirements properly speaking the runtime engine which is software it's not directly part of the object oriented application but it's used by the object get the data that makes it just records that are that good one time engine has to be understood to mean software that  must be running to execute it uses demand and that's processing and is not part of the object oriented application none of these requirements are supported by the plain language or the origin specification or the prosecution history and in fact what i say he did here was make another prosecution history disclaimer argument with without really identifying it as such by these for additional requirements are inconsistent in themselves kind of like doing the splits how can the object oriented application need the runtime engine day to actually execute of that yet not have it be part of the of the other story an application that it simply makes no sense work but of course the object oriented application can execute him once and do everything to his heart's desire without the runtime engine of this invention it's only when it is going to access data from a relational database that you would   mr eisner a software expert who claimed the difference between runtime engine which is a specific block of functionality and zap is used in this method to be the object oriented application in to distinguish over the change of reference the examiner accepted the distinction allowed the plan to did not require any amendment and so this plane was issued as we see them today  says the examiner this supports mr eisner statement that there is a distinction between runtime engine and runtime environment so that was the that was the extent of it he never relied upon it he never  his we took a lot of mr belts time and very little of yours you put me in a hard place as to whether i should restore your rebuttal time i'm going to do it but next time you watch the line that you're wryness  accusation of contributory infringement directly to interest during the course of a protracted negotiation process so there was things going on between terrorists and b if i go to some district of texas with their traditions and styles they're going to move to talk to replace first and put this on the back burner and when they want what these companies want to do what i think is the only rational thing we may disagree about that but that doesn't have this dispute decided whether the use of adam dot net amounted to direct infringement right because they received a request demand for three hundred valid looked at the time and energy that the chambers have to play to understand that anyone listening to this argument knows how difficult you you made the case to you you painted them as a nuisance value seeking troll quite clearly in your brief in five different places you alleged as much with the condo we did with the settlements or forms you know you actually said they're seeking nuisance value those were your why would microsoft think it had legally at her interest you clearly are a litigator the death sort of company so why would you be worried that data turned coming after you when you did such a brilliant job of  establishing your own grave the model for their litigation behavior which is completely inconsistent with the microsoft rot and you put your finger on it being smart as you are that the issue is the distinction between a form of immunity after marriage the idea that there is a legal interest infringement claim in error and as just taking place in his opinion he went through all the facts of every element and showed how there was some degree of plausibility such that it demonstrated there really were legal my concern is i feel like all microsoft are in this case sh t hat is their product when used by a customer is accused of direct infringement and i feel like i'm such a far cry from what's necessary to be proven for inducement or contributory that i feel like just because your customer is this is accused of direct infringement doesn't mean they have a case against you for indirect or contributory and my problem is i don't see anything else in this record to support all the other elements and acceptable mine looked at this and said that's not to imply a statement that it's specially adapted or that any leader technically what you just read is designated confidential in my head and so i'd like to be able to address it is there a reason that i cannot it's now out of the establish that there is a legally adverse interest fees to be in direct infringement contributory or induced infringement as opposed to just use of this is one of the elements for direct so the way i read i would say that the only way to use this system is to use the object model which implies to me that a specially adapted compiler in that way it's no different from ours is not the capability just that and i'm not there is saying that to use business objects you need the object model to meet the claim of harm that's the way the system works it doesn't imply that there's any other way it works or does anything nothing like what you just said is in the record and i don't know if that's true technological standpoint you know me i know i know for a fact that the net has lots of non infringing potential uses it doesn't just retrieve database data and not just oriented to real open door to walk into any court you want to file a d j you're going to drive look you may think they're told that you're going to drag you know patent these good bad you know whatever into court on just some action by an third party customer of the supplier being second or so i think should do it i don't know every back pattern i would i've been told they suggested that the reason they couldn't sue microsoft or as a fee is because these are infringed in so many different ways why should we force them to litigate against the supplier when that requires them to establish elements of intent and knowledge and essentiality and non stable article and all of these other things arguments where you speak that way but if that's what i was looking at i think incentivizing time drafters to draft a claim that would cover the actual source of the technology so that there's a direct infringement claim against companies rather than encouraging them to draft it for the customers where they can engage in the mass customer litigation and benefit from the cost of litigation defense against each of the many different customers is a very healthy incentive for this is so the first thing they did that healthy instead of the second thing is if the claim drafting the right way is not a what's happening and it's destroying public trust not healthy i don't know i don't think making a small quantity go up i'm up against a sort of huge company who has a much harder and where they have a much harder burden inventions one of them the five or two as a he said this is one of the ten most important patents in the world they said that in two thousand and one they tried to get it right hundred that didn't work eight in turn put out a product it got swamped by sent your claim charts lists them in every instance well your honor it's because of the the technology here the software is extremely complicated and  chart mentions s a p t or microsoft software why don't you even talk to them right or i think are you avoiding them why are you avoiding this is this is a situation where the devil is why do you bring all the cases from the eastern district of texas rather than spreading them to more convenient locales because of the speedy procedures down there  last count six hundred eighty two cases on his docket patent case that judging sherman i think around a dozen why didn't you go to sherman i wasn't involved in that decision you're honest but think we all know what's going on here you're we're talking about a former shopping but isn't there some specific form shopping going on in the filing stage  know i wouldn't agree with that your honor and i believe that what what you have to do in one of these cases is you have to make an eternal prove of contentions and then prove an infringement is based not only on the underlying product business objects or video dynamics but also on the way that particular company and as mr belts of these are large companies they have their own ip departments they're implementing these products