patent on behalf of the company so the company was the beneficiary right there but the company never sued to enforce our employment agreement in other words to require her to make the yes i am and she promised  in the future you know you promised sometime in the future to assign you know if you could have any form of agreement or the assignment in the media camera that wasn't the case here well that's the problem but the case here as  all that different question i mean and she could have sued the company anyway because the company would have had a shop right and for inventions it was done during the course and scope of her finding that there's a different question of whether or not she needs to be that their employment agreement starts off with you sign the employment agreement you could claim the right to ever sue for and for enjoyment of anything you ever develop while you work here then you start to work there you can't hold anything in trust that you haven't invented and you come up with a conception you haven't you haven't dealt with in any house or as i can tell you have air application in that anything yet so now you're holding it in trust on behalf of the company and rights and equitable rights the legal rights maintain themselves with the trustee act of all rights are meeting with the beneficiary here it's not enough to simply say well the beneficiary ha voluntarily join a co owner you might be able to involuntarily join a trust to assign as of the regents brought suit to enforce the assignment and the board and there the court did hold that in fact employment agreement it say that they had an obligation to assign and found that they had been only thing that like to point out is here we know they didn't sue and in fact it's unopposed that they didn't sue we don't know why there may be another agreement out there somewhere that hasn't been produced that says that there's no ability for them to if for instance as we did have an occasion where the trust was dissolved the rights of go back to him he has the inventor rights that's what the inventor so i don't think there's any opportunity that even if the trust were to dissolve that doesn't mean that i written a sign it can be made presently chose not to use present language in the contract that they had with her for whatever reason they said will the saudis and then the fact that they did not in force an agreement with her means that their rights based on the record as we know way she may have had an obligation to assign this out there was a contract that ad language it says that there is an obligation to us on we know that there was no infortunate of that agreement we don't know all worked out well that's my statute actually and i think the reasoning for that is so that everyone knows who needs to be a party she says so that it only happens one time and here under the clear record there my experience quit claim deed is a very difficult to get out of this language here this last language to me is just not entirely clear i mean it i can work for a company and i give up all rights on pens at the company acquires that under an assignment with another company and the company has just to make sure that there is no problem answer is i don't know but if you look at the last page of the agreement it's actually countersigned mr wu who actually is one of the other investors who then took attempted to break mr into the prosecution couldn't get ours and had to bring her into the prosecution there are two boxes that you can actually shack on the form of whether or not you are issued and the assignment didn't occur until later because our case that that it's at the point of the assignment that that the rights of the employer could end so dip therefore she could be quit claiming anything that occurred prior to the actual date of the is your hypothetical that she signed the assignment after the patent issues and this is some intervening period i mean you would have loved it if she as i did at any point in time right after the and that's what our case this opinion you can't say shit just gave it the back of her hand she very carefully walk through every single one of your arguments and in some instances when it's convenient for her and when she's talking about the trust and she's talking about  have with regard to the trust the trust is the trust and it and the court acknowledges the trust and you know when in the world a panel of you have an exclusive license if you get an exclusive license the patent he doesn't have to be joint so if if you think the trust of this you could rights and rare no matter how you look at it no one else can file suit we have all that the developer and i don't risk of getting sued by anyone else we have all of the substantial right and that's what the case law consistently dance about if you're dealing with rights and here they're a court found that the transfer had actually yet occurred and there are a lot of cases that say if you have all of the rights to sue for pan infringement you have all the rights she quickly in her rights