identification or twitted by practicing the hybrid string technique disclosed in the patent the second issue that i plan to discuss is that the district court erred by excluding testimony from michael landauer about his firsthand can find that in the advertiser implementation guide where epic discloses in the advertiser implementation guide that it will pass along a code functional in the merchant system and what that is specifically is my first point namely that's the hybrid string technique which is found in the patent on the record page forty nine it's called the leaven lines fifteen to twenty the hybrid string technique discusses how a twit can be transmitted through and its own identifier of the self which would be a twit now the only question then is considering that epic admitted it did it transmit a u r l generally u r l containing this hybrid string with respect to  examples to be socially raised that would be speed date dot com ballers and as seen on p c and the answer to that question that it is yes we know this because epic submitted a document called the offer you'll see codes that have both the identifier for epic itself and the sit and when the district court disregarded that the district court disregarded evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that a twig was transmitted it is the one that you're on around me about that specifically the declaration of michael landau the court excluded that saying that it was expert testimony not layman testimony but what mr landau testified about was his firsthand knowledge he had worked with these existing merchant affiliate systems and in fact nobody disputes that speed date for example had an existing merchant fillets system the only question was did epic work with it all the social and michael land testified about that like him testifying i saw a red card he said i worked with philip system and when i did i use a particular u r l syntax speed date dot com i ballers and intent and so when that lower court analyzed the land of exploration it improperly excluded testimony because landau wasn't forming an opinion the main difference between an expert and the uses and this is couched in expert lecture cons your honor is correct but that's because he was qualified as an expert with respect invalidity and the testimony that that issue here and the testimony that the court missing after you compare the sixty parts of africa systems the first time that she held that to unfriend of the six sixty patent it was required to provide virtual affiliates to a target merging standing on the wrong intersection in this case just the district court properly excluded the land our declaration it was chock full of her testimony in it was three months after what sort of response to your promise argument that the declaration was mixed you know personalized ratios relate to the money but it also had some technical and scientific testimony and that the court shou  landau declaration actually follows very closely our proposed findings of fact so there's a lot of stuff in the land declaration but the relevant parts are not infringement are the only citations for the record on that page are to judge crabbe order in to the declaration of the exit report of george edwards sticking with virtual affiliates for a moment the district courthouse that virtual facility affiliates in one system that can send traffic to a different affiliate system the court held that in that terms in the preamble and it's limiting and she held that the i think direct system is not a virtue affiliate system i think system is a hug style system just like the link care hub style silly system described as prior art in the background section of the sixty five i think does not provide virtual affiliates or any other kind of affiliates to a merchant domains the domains themselves when the ease of the system interacted with the date you so see it sent traffic to demain called affiliates dot dot com but when at that traffic in councils argument today so see it says that i think in the mid that it was transmitting ascended into to it we never made any kind of admission like that the reason that the district court the parties actually agreed on the construction of twitter and it was construed to mean a unique identifying code assigned to webmaster in the source a silly fool that is functional  the example transaction starting with a will fifty three followed by a string of characters that string is a combination of four variables the only unique identifier in that  the affiliate id there is no correlated twi at bottom so c n n did not and cannot prove infringement in the case of properly presented case would have taken an example transaction trace through all the various participants in the transaction and providing evidence advertiser but i think did not send traffic to speed a affiliate system but when you click on speed day to sign up action join an a f id ever ideas because it had failed to prove an existing merchant affiliate system and earlier arguments in their briefs we discussed why there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that there was an existing merchant assert system and based upon not the jury ninety two ninety nine and a nineteen zero five to seven and specifically the paragraph in his declaration that contains may testimony as opposed to expert testimony are paragraphs ninety nine to one fort epic disagree with the admissions work with respect to the hybrid strain that ethics chief information officer richard oaken said that ethic transmitted to merchants a code identifying epic itself and as the district court found nobody disputes epic also transmitted the source webmaster identification to the merchant those two pieces of information put together the piece of information the first portion identifying e second piece identifying the sit that is the hybrid string discussed in the patent calm eleven lines fifteen to twenty so that's the configuration and those are the admissions that to contend with didn't practice to hide the strength the evidence shows otherwise but we don't have to prove our case here nor did we have the summary judgment merely had to show that there was a material fact in the case should proceed to trial and so based and grabbing summary judgment when the evidence should have been put before a jury so our jury could conclude that there was infringement or that there wasn't but in any event summary judgment should not even granted in this court should reverse an