while me and she's a member of our in good standing of the highest court in the state of new york i have knowledge of her credentials and i'm satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications indeed she she's kind of really outstanding law clerk and i'm very happy to see her admitted here and look forward to many years in which she is to appear before this court eventually probably not in the immediate future but hopefully in two or three years and i'm sure you will be as outstanding an advocate as you have in the locker and i thank you for your service thank you for this motion judge type type  for us to ask questions in the right opinions i think for purposes of my argument is more have will be pointing to things specifically confidential however i will be referring to refinance and i think that was more confidential claim correctly under that standard during the martin hearing that just record during the oral proceedings indicated he would interpret the kind of thing plus or minus ten percent but then it is written decision he changed his opinion to approximately and said we could argue about that at trial so we repeated what we did at the martin hearings trial and presented evidence on the plus or minus ten percent variance that to the u s b and our experts testimony on this was agreed to by want to add protect his own thirty six witnesses to agree that under the us p one looks to be in language about an interpretive plus or minus ten percent so that's a legal reason why we believe it fit around to doing this to bruning agree the question being i don't think one well i don't understand it you may not agree that this is a black hole type case but if this is treated as a class or type case and in fact there is no arranging the original end mean that the end is not a different infringing if this is a glaxo type case that stipulation only means even under glaxo case that the stipulation institute seventy one as a applies to infringement under two seventy one  not under two seventy one well i don't see what the difference would be if we have to look for the product under apply perplexities why would there be any difference between looking at the product for purposes of two seventy one and two seventy on the because in glaxo there was there was a focus on the product itself because the a in the a did not address the issue that's why i looked at the product so if we look at the product itself why doesn't the stipulations to know to seventy when infringement given but if we have to look at the actual product you haven't brought in any evidence that the actual product infringes right is they we've only brought in labs a few samples that they provided they selectively chose  commercial product on the market just because we had to rely upon the specific samples they gave us and that's what f e m a tried to do they saw the broad license they gave a very minute samples of one end of that license we stipulated that those products of that variant of that license in one of her image that's correct your honor and that is the basis for argument and there's also are there is also evidence which i didn't mention yet even with respect is arbitrary seventy five cut off there is evidence in the record when the issue was eighty percent that it's not just the dissolution specifications in there in d n a they also have a specification with respect to the amount of traffic damage after they can be in their product and that allows them to have much more than what the label claim says which is six fifty they can have  two point five percent eighty two point five milligrams of the drug in their product and when they do dissolution testing what they're testing is to see how much drug they get forty five minutes or sixty minutes and they compare that amount of drug she what you would expect to see if it only had if you started with only six hundred fifty milligrams when in fact there are allowed to produce products having much higher amounts of an exam again and if you do the math it's not because it covers what his patent does but because it doesn't tell you one way or the other whether recovers what he does that simply talks about an amount as often sixty minutes his time his patent calls for time in the forty five so there's nothing in there either it could be a glaxo case he argues it's an over but more importantly that one doesn't matter anymore before judgment was ever entered in this case that and they got amended again to add this limitation of not less than seventy five that takes an outside the scope of the he thought approximately ten plus or minus ten percent district court slammed him on that and said no way i absolutely disagree with that later on the district court gave exam the disagreement just reported no they never agreed with the district court on that and they still even in present at the martin hearing it varied it was one percentage point it came to a time of plus or minus i think two percent and another when it came to weight loss or minus five percent it was not a universal about equal to ten percent for all times about as you do so it's minus ten percent and so why is the plus or minus ten percent on the us peak in two does not control the or if you look at the patent it does not appear in the pattern that they intend with none of the values given in the examples required plus or minus ten percent when you look at the testimony of the various expert have to say seventy seven percent in the district court rejected them again he said if it said seventy two percent maybe i'll give you something said seventy nine percent no way but i'm not making them go up to seventy seven because i disagree with your experts ten percent vari best they could show was eighty percent dissolution of forty five minutes even outside the scope of their big never hand actually from some sort of black so you'll get a product that we're definitely out we thought that was good enough but just in an abundance of caution to satisfy the exist anymore the only end of that exists now the only end of the epithets markets under is the not infringing and the court heard plenty of evidence on the scope of that claim and decided through trial listening to their expert that seventy four would be outside the scope of the coin so your argument is in a minute and as one assumes it happens right before the judgment that it is done effective to change the original and it should be effective change particularly where as here there was a test week before doesn't or a day before it as long as there's testimony to support what the judge did why that change was made which change here the judge specifically said and ended with greater than seventy five only in french so that's the man that was made the judge surprise on the other parties of their not notified of the a minimum i don't think they were surprised to hear there were discussions with them about the a moment before it was every been submitted they got copies of the stipulation they submitted objections to the stipulation so they seem to say they were just seeing it forty five minutes so what evidence did you want to present that you so you didn't get a chance to present the first we where on the issue of whether that amended in that infringed first we wanted to present evidence with respect to how this was implemented and what that standard deviation was and who how this was actually going to be implemented and with respect to the issue i just raised which was already litigated the issue that even with seventy five percent there and the still separate issue outlined in our brief that discusses the evidence at trial regarding the range of the amount of train examined outside president the tablet says manufacture that's a different issue than why would we look to the tamarins manufactured that one does when one carries it out one only looks to see what percentage of the label claim six fifty is present in the diff of the ssion test at forty five minutes that amount equates to something one point four eighty percent limitation we laid that all out in our trial with respect to the eighty percent limitation and then when the seventy five percent of minutes came up post trial we argued we would be able to make the same argument that we absolutely your honor we rejected multiple times during closing argument when they raised for the first time that we objected during the post trial papers that we just rejected at the march fifth hearing we for that matter for bringing me you did have an opportunity to