granted a summary judgment as a claim nineteen when there were in fact jan genuinely disputed issues fact and claim nineteen were believe the court misconstrued predetermined operating it included turning the system on and off we don't think that's an operating parameter by the very language from the very words in the claim that what you propose i mean if you propose early on th and both sides i believe agreed that it did not include on off switches it was not until the judge sewer sponte construed the patent claim again in connection with a motion for clarification that the matter of well here now on off functionality is that included or not and all of a sudden the court said it was included but wasn't that the subsequent same construction which is the broader one no initially that initially it was unclear initially the judge has not indicated then on off switches were part of an operating parameter language it was only after the pry art if you will forced him to do so reconsideration in light of some evidence that showed that in fact these parameters were not at all send over a network and there only an on off switch was sent over the network at which point the judge said well i'll just expand my definition then of predetermine operating parameters so includes so it includes on off switches as well and having done that in order priority continues to read on to the claimant that's twenty three and it is simply an additional we believe misinterpretation of the claim taking words out of context and i'm not out so your view that is that the correct construction of at least one means something other than was just one it means one that is connect to bowl one that is marginally fits within the system it means one yes but a special one one that can be connected and that is clear from the language of the entire claim when you read this patent relates the at least one of claim twenty three and the rest of the clean language and claim twenty three relates to the if you will the starter cept where you just you start out with one block well that language is  tubes twenty three just means you can have one set yes it but it has to be the the special one that can be expanded into two three four five it's if you will the starter cept as i like to call it one can  the priority is full of generator systems in general this related to a special generator system that could be linked together and so when you have your first generator system it has to be open to connection with others can you it's to load into a network now it talks about we go on each generator set so clearly you don't need water more you can be one or more if each generator said having the ability to start and stop and then  talk about selecting a generator so again the idea is that if there's only one generator say the only elect there's only one to be selected i mean i still don't see how that you get that from the plain language of twenty three and  it has to be capable of being attached more clearly in nineteen it has to be more than one for use where the reality right you could have if you wanted it to be more than one generator set it's twenty three minutes at the same language there every case i've ever tried i could have changed the claim language would have changed likely in language clearly we could have no other order whoever drafted this could have done could have written it differently that we disagree with you on the water war language what does that do to your case we do ask for the court to vacate the invalidity hold and also claim twenty three because of the wrong claim construction as to predetermine operating parameters and or you know and we are just both we are left with the point that a summary judgment was entered when there were generally disputed issues a fact we believe very strongly that there was no one command he never indicated a specific system that he sold he did refer to some systems that apparently went to the university of arkansas he he did that but he never told us what systems a unit a device that was in fact sold and then and then you can patch together a bunch of references that characterize what that system was what it consisted of you cannot patch together a documentary evidence to fill out what that system was the we that's right and the universe of arkansas which is the only customer that was mentioned we have no indication of exactly what system that was was it switchgear was it some controllers whether you know generators have how were they linked together the burden of proof for them to look she said and this is the statement that i personally sole power command systems that included the components and functionality described in the brochures why isn't that enough because we don't know what systems there were and what the properties work when you look for example of the brochure that this witness let me ask you another question if i can  five eight is the first page it says power command paralleling generator set control it's a principle reference that the court the trial court we live upon it does not show and i don't know which if you're under seven in front of you but if you were cite one of the more significant sentences if you look at the paragraph towards the bottom it talks about certain parameters that were central that were that were entered into a generator system and then it says all operator level and service level control system adjustments that's what i was just talking about and the all it underlined was all of them are made through digital raise lower switches from the front of the control panel the front of the control panel is at the generator set it is not sent over the network remember one key feature of this of all of these claims is that these parameters are sent over every step of the way we link the prior art to the terms in the cool way they were discussion was on the table before or after summary judgment that the stop commands were or is not covered by the no wasn't your honor in fact if you read the district court's opinion the district court stated that it took generac interpretation of pre determined operating parameters which it defines which generac defined in the court clear from the record all of the prior art shown including commons own and went much further than merely start and stop commands and because claim twenty three required setting the stop time in advance and setting a a start time in advance and setting a stop kind of event which the patent itself call an operating one of the areas operating parameters since those were clearly set sent over the network for the prior art shown the judgment when there was some scrambling going on the court stated that start stop not to mention wake up and low demand on on we're operating predetermine operating parameters that the court expressed some surprise that the parties didn't dispute pre determined earlier because of the reason i had mentioned to you that there was no question these were pre determined operating parameters but even the prior art the court had showed pre determined operating parameters in generac new interpretation and it is important to note that the interpretation offered to this court was never offered below start and stop when sent over a network was something contrary to what generac told the patent office the prior art showed which was the sending a two way communication with generator controllers for multiple generators so the court is not was not off base even if its in its broad interpretation because the patentee chose a very broad various operating parameters if there are some independent claims not at issue in this case where it narrowed various operating about coming to long and even in the later argument offered by generac that there were four settings start stop auto were wake up and load demand on and off and load wake up is the system can wake up if there is a signal from an image or interests which or not and low demand on and off is when the load reaches a certain point it will automatically turn on or shut off those were all in generac own motion for clarification parameters they do complain that they were merely binary parameters but the those real time signals sent to the generator controller would is one flips a switch that was flipped was on off one switch that was flipped was put it in auto mode which is absolutely a pre determined operating parameter one is setting it up so that it can rise or fall under lo up this morning i asked a very important question although it now turns that claim twenty three seems to be out of the case that wasn't clear from the briefing but the reason was that i don't think that's i think your friend was saying that well we agree with the district court below that at least one means one or more than one and that's especially clear in a patent where a plurality with was used when a plurality wanted to use accordance with a still further aspect of the present invention a method of managing the distribution of electrical power as provided the method includes the steps of interconnecting at least one generator set to a load and to a network each generator has the ability to be started stuff and the background of the patent makes clear that one of the background was the need if the utility wished additional power from people standby generators it can enter into a a deal with them to remotely start stop your home generator for instance to to go on to the to the grid so the claim that this patent only referred to modular generators is contradicted by the specification itself we also think you don't have to go any further with at least one the reason that was so significant to this case is that it turned out through discovery and the jury correctly found that generac own a prior art which was a single generator system did send exactly the parameters in question here to a remote generator over a network so generous own prior art undisclosed to the patent office was found to be an on sale bar which we believe is why generac was fighting this this issue as hard as it was as to the arguments about the the record on the comm all the arguments we we put into the record album with the witness testimony as it is he doesn't ever specifically identify the features of the system that was sold right he just says a system was sold consistent with some of these procedures well it was more than consistent with the brochure than actually his third declaration which is in the record did say more than real time systems were were sent but what he does say and what this system shows is there are multiple controllers with a generator panel on each individual generator and then there's a system controller which is a serial connection network connection to multiple generat what the documentation shows not only what has been referred to as our prime reference which specifically says that parameters can be sent on a laptop but but also the additional connection so that the user standing for instance in the control room had this master control panel the master control panel control generator one including start stop time and other  and there was no initial dispute in the record missed that there is nothing contradicting mr ron's and that is why the district court we believe correctly found there was no dispute effect of what the company only insist on not only disclosed but did its not a particularly large leap to take one of the leading generator manufacturers in the country and say that  equipment was sold that conformed with not these aren't ads these are technical bulletins to very experienced people in the in the  that term simply says that in between a network and a load is is a generator we don't think that in any way changes the playing definition of what at least one me it was never an application of claim twenty three to two allegedly sold products wrongs are simply says that that there was a direct serial network i'm reading from nine or five free it says it  about these declarations all they describe was a direct link into cancer that was before the patent office the thomson patent had that with a modem you can dial into a generator a single generator not networked together so wanted simply didn't establish the elements of the claim as i said earlier point one point two sadly regrettably there was no briefing on this new clean construction and i think w you know we perhaps learned that maybe we lawyers do serve a function sometimes a court you know we can be very helpful in these claim construction proceedings the judge was in a rush we were a week from trial he didn't want to change the trial date he reaffirmed it and we didn't have there's a big factual issue over what is in the brochure that i referred to earlier thank you very much