on the license in a way that conflicts with its ordinary meaning with the rest of the contract and with the intent of the parts and not infringement binding russian part on a similar failure to give the ordinary meaning to ordinary limited by your own choice of language i mean if you're that big a company with sophisticated counsel why you didn't put the word acquisition in there you did put merger consolidation why shouldn't you be limited to what those terms are oh well your honor i have a couple of frankly in the sense that division is used in the in the license agreement at a not not a separate corporation but a business unit you know in which certain assets or other units or organized organizational purposes and what you had to do you have a factual issue of whether there was a merger or consolidation within the meaning of the agreement and we think that that would that would go back to trial on that issue of oh we agree but we thank  determination was correct i think it for purposes of this case if you find not infringement as a matter of law all the claims and the license agreement really is irrelevant because it would be an infringement applied the ordinary meaning of a coin language and when ordinary words are used in a claim limitation and they have don't have a special meaning of the art and they aren't especially defined in the patent you give them their ordinary english meeting and if you have several at figure eight where then those and points exist i believe the dates where they where they contact with the  sure i don't think that's clear because if you look earlier in the provision for example there are specific discussions of what happens if there's an acid acquisition or abbott sold off part of the business i don't think that is so clear i mean there are four or five different provisions in the one we're end but my comment is when you look at the definition of major competitor what has happened here is that abbott itself became a major competitor and what i'm trying to understand is could they possibly have been worried about a merger abbott could have bought and sold sense from anybody in the world including the biggest that manufacturers out there and what j j was purportedly concerned about would come to pass so he did a very very poor job up and down i remember this is what it was really about i think what they were more concerned about at least the way i read that entire provision that added self would be acquired so boston scientific ought apples and then the intricacies would have clear this is not currently rising or falling what they'd like to do is to turn your head and that's really important because every single client at issue in this case has  the dictionary the dictionary paper turn back was folded back on itself but they didn't propose that the district work of it would like judge robinson found that would be confusing so they paraphrase the dictionary definition to apportion that expense back in the general direction from are some drawings in the in the brief that just can't be laser like that that are entirely hypothetical but we do acknowledge that if you had some great portion but then that underlay shamil that that could all else being equal everything else  know thank you thank you very much that under delaware law that says you can't have a merger consolidation of other business units perfectly competent talk about merging or consolidating offices or divisions or any other sort of business so this is not idle over a lot of problem there's nothing inconsistent with well that may well be around but the party you know contracted this way and added didn't do it that way have it another way and we think that's exactly what and who knows what the reasons are we don't we don't have enough experience evidence under the proper clear and convincing evidence and or it's not something that short circuits are going construction very much