no deference that need to be accorded to judge real in his opinion and while we believe the judge we all got the opinion wrong for all the reasons set forth in our brief i'm not going to repeat all those arguments but i'm happy to just any questions of the court that said before addressing those questions i think that there is a plenary question which is a discussion of the standard of review or the i should say that the pleading standard the ninth circuit has not clearly stated what is the proper pleading standard for a cup or a claim post people intimately prior to those decisions the law was clear in cases like perfect ten this court stated that the complaints and i quote from perfect ten complaints simply alleging present ownership by plaintiff registration in compliance with the applicable statute and infringement by it's entire case basically prove its case at the pleading stage but those cases the cases relied on are clear that that's not required yes prof decision simply sets forth official possibility standard and specifically says that the failure to prove a case of the pleading stage is not grounds for dismissal in addressing that facial possibility ashcroft also applies a specifically notes that the pleading stage is context specific and what context specific means is arguably the open question before this court  the court may ask as in the prior discussion what is the standard to be able to apply and i would submit that the fourth circuit got that standard right in the robertson versus the pines case where it said equal and to leave do not require plaintiff to prove his case in the complaint the requirement of non conclusory factual detail at the pleading stage is tempered i didn't see the l a print text case cited in judge wheels order it was not brought to his attention it was brought to his attention and i don't have the exact if you clear violation or ignoring the only printers decision i also know that defense counsel cites l a printouts for the proposition that the plaintiffs is required to plead specific facts regarding reports on the filing of an action involving copyright is filed along with the initial paperwork and that report includes the registration number so the information in the complicit in the first amended complaint the registration number i believe was in the first  d complaint on the access issue which that is your card also thought was not just over into plausibility the allegations were much more general than what was in l a print text while a print text was a summary judgment decision why was the the allegations which i think was along the lines of hundreds of thousands of yards to numerous parties in the apparel industry yards in a four year period sold to fabric converters in the same los angeles area where the defendant was operating so there wasn't anything close to the afghans l i projects was a summary judgment motion but there wasn't anything also critical and i printed ok and i know well i area again critical at the summary judgment proof of claim stage not a pleading stage no i don't think that's right because we know from the summary judgment cases what you're ultimately go have to prove and what your obligation post twamley nick ball is to show in your complaint that you are going to be able to bring forward facts that at least possibly will get you across the finish line when it comes time to proving up your case so your i mean i i am glad the judge could have focused on paragraph eleven of this complaint because i think on its face it's completely deficient and this is definitely information that's within your control you don't need to sky every to give further detail on this and i guess  what i'm left to wonder because you amended this complaint after you got the dismissal order in the other case this is all you've got i mean actually i think you have more because in other cases you've put forth more but you had an opportunity to amend here to cure the defect that the judge had identified in your other complaint and this is what you came up with why would we say that you were entitled to another shot if we concluded that this wasn't sufficient well noted in the  pleading was quite analogous to the pleading in this case there was not greater specificity in the pleading and there's been no case that i'm aware of that has ever stablished that at the pleading stage greater specificity is required so it's not as if  garments that are out there being sold through stores that are available for purchase for copying etc if there are hundreds of thousands of yards of lace that are being sold to garment manufacturers that is a substantial number of garments made from those that are in the marketplace out there to be copied whether under the facts of this case that is sufficient to establish a chain of access widespread dissemination is ultimately a question of fact but the pleading stage we believe it's not plausible based on what you've given us and paragraph eleven at least for us to infer anything about access of this defendant in the time period that's relevant because you haven't specified where the sales occurred that could have all curtain in china for all you haven't specified when the sales occurred they could have all kinds of fifty years ago for all we know so what you've given here is definitely not enough if we appl i don't think you are entitled to any more notice than that i guess what i'm asking is given that you already took a shot at my amending after being on notice that at least the same thought your complaint was defective in that respect why should you be given another chance yeah  again the complaint at issue in this case the amended complaint and labeling includes appreciably more detail than those complaints that have ultimately resulted in findings of infringement  access forgive me for not recalling that off the top i'm looking at the order maybe i'm looking at the wrong thing but it looks to me like the only thing he quarreled with was malibu elements that are substantially similar i believe that's correct your honor and then he goes on to say you know basically the bangle glock bind occurs naturally in your nature i didn't see where he did you for so insufficient pleading with respect to access i believe that's correct your honor and now getting a following through on that if you are granted leave to amend could you beef up the the access allegations we could  and while i believe that it's it should be unnecessary should the court find otherwise we certainly could beat up those allegations with one copy and i want to note that as indicated in the fourth the fourth circuit's reasoning which i think you on a plane just obligations to plead need to be tempered by the information available as your honor noted these garments could have been sold in china that said we don't know what malibu's position is us to where it obtained the design if it says a we got this design from one of our vendors in china then it's certainly relevant yeah i know i'm i grew up i'm just saying the information within your control and that there's plenty more that you could have a legit seems to me that you do know about if i was talking about where where they got it just what you put out right that is true there's plenty more we could have alleged but again it is not every case since  interpret it as we don't need to through our entire case to trial to prove where all these like i where all of us how it sells occurred is going to be relevant relative to where the defendant claims they got their design every where they've been operating information we don't know so that's why i think the greater specificity doesn't necessarily address the question because we're going to have defendants still coming into court saying but there's no evidence that we were there in there in the winter time so thank  spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending a claim we're entitled to notice and a copyright kate's were entitled to notice of at least three things we're entitled to know what the plaintiffs copyright register to get of registration is and what their deposit materials are we're entitled to know what their theory of access is whether they eventually prove that theory or not we're entitle to know their theory at that stage and we're entitled to know is standing here today we've never been given a picture of it we tried to confirm what the garment is and to this day we're not sure it could be a dress or shirt so in order for us to mount a defense we need to know what it is and  what's q it is and the pictures people say well looks like these are exactly the same or they're close to being same thing your judgment is one what your eye will see and that's not enough to make a spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands allegations more refined we see in this case with both the h and m case and the labeling cases this is what the one to the third complaint that where we're facing in on these very same facts and we don't care where you are we don't care if you never seen this before we don't care if you've independently created this we have copyright certificates and we put put them before the district courts and the courts don't care they just say oh it's enough i guess i got a summary judgment but could you focus on identical so under the l a print tex standard of selection coordination and arrangement of elements is protectable why isn't that a sufficient allegation to make it a plausible  it determined that the protect ability of the work at issue is governed by sitara because it found that the clock line flower was a natural work that was naturally occurring flour so since it was natural and it was  that case doesn't apply here i'm not saying that the case doesn't apply i would agree that an otherwise unprotected will elements in a combination if those elements are sufficient are numerous enough and original nothing could enough to state a claim under the l a print text and so it's not necessarily going to win but it just has to stay the claim it just has to be plausible that there is similarity well in this case so even if only prin x applied the combination the judge found that the combination of elements not they didn't please that this element is in the center and the other one is to the right of it he found that the spacing and the arrangement and the proportions were also not virtually identical so even if they had some sort of copyright in the arrangement and even depending on whether that's a thin carburetor broad copyright because it's new major work instead of a stylized work but assuming that they have an arrangement  the complaint that they allege that their entire work has protection they didn't say what about that work is entitled to protection and to mount a proper defense we need to say ok what what what how are we going to respond to this thing where we're going to focus on the about the angle you talk amount is it shot up close what's the lighting you know there are ways to tell in a movie we talk about the pace and we talk about the characters there are ways in instead of just saying look here's two pictures you figure it trombley no because as as counsel for pointed out there are very few cases on motions dismissed talking about the proper pleading standards so no and i would echo his  desire for more guidance and what needs to be pled because it's a very challenging thing and at the district court level to know i think my time is almost up it's very challenging to know that just a court what you need to do and we get very inconsistent rulings and the gist of court and what we need to do and i would say at minimum they need to put in the deposit materials at minimum they need to plead the certificate of registration at minimum they need to plead some form of access  direct access or a chain of events or widespread just the nation with sufficient details for the point in time the geographic location or at least something to give any funding and idea of what we need to do and one last point to the the insufficient access pleadings in the insufficient copyright registration allegations in the complaint judge ruled in addressed that in this action but he did address those deficiencies in the h and m action so to answer