you know five cases on account of this morning three will be argued all patent cases two from the p t o one from a district court we have two submitted cases in the ploy case in a veteran's case and they will not be argued on first case first argued case  you know that you go through the transcripts and there's two sentences on those references and two sentences on that reference whatever what are the key references that you want to rely on to be happy to go through that i do write because i think there are three really key issues  the other side didn't testify about it look tell me what transfer of praise is really big to chang because there was so little on it that that i was having a hard time trying to understand i mean you can even understand a trial for just frustration when  there certainly are other references like that and i think the point is not necessarily that the judge didn't deal with one hundred fifty two all reference among many were not it were not insisting that every single reference cited anywhere needs its own discussion  made by the other side it just i guess i know what you're saying basically if you could just have a witness and you could say what's the name of this reference what's the name of that reference what's the name of that reference and that's all you have to do approving your case beyond by clear and convincing evidence well i think that what the point we're trying to put we were trying to prove is that there was an established motivation not just based on subjective testimony by an expert but set out in the r and there were a series of references that we relied on none of these references is x is x is especially long or complex you know the point that we're relying on is stated explicitly in them and i think if the other  side wanted to disagree with the point that we made in any of them i think it could have brought that out what it brought out instead was the idea that and two references in particular and through there are these tables and the absence and that's what i'm trying that's what my problem is that says yes this is chang you move on to the next reference right but the idea dr jacobs certainly did testify that there was a motivation he he went he walked through the answer to judge moore and while that i take the point that you can't go beyond your expert report but i think the point is that in his expert report he says i he said that there is a convenience benefit to having this formulation and to go to that's fine that he's not able to go beyond that but the point is that there is this convenience benefit and that's supported by all of this literature you know through for example  can see that that convenience benefit really isn't there and respectfully a lot of circumstances respectfully no i do what he what he said was that the benefit was marginal compared to the and he was ever being asked about specific  what i'm trying to put myself into the perspective of what it is we're supposed to do here are viewing a trial court judgment and the tribal court made credibility's determinations findings of fact i mean teach in a way is a binding a ct so we'd have to find that to be clearly erroneous not just that if we were looking at it first we might agree with you so i mean so far you've pointed me to very little in the transcript that is as you caught your affirmative case so what else what you say that those two references are key references what are your other key references or is that it so i i think that there are in addition to those two men there are this series of other patents and patent applications that we cited each of which stands for the basic proposition that other pharmaceutical companies saw have thought that pfizer you've had abandoned the application other than doctor with his own opinion that you know the number of the number of years since the it's not just his own opinion it's our law that talks about the fact that if something so it's out there for years and years and years  look at the context of this of this product and i see that i'm into my rebuttal time but i want to make sure to give this answer this is a product where there really is only one big drug on the market i and swagger and the other the other two two thousand and three so pfizer may well have had reasons of its own the lack of competition being the number one reason not to come out with this damn product it doesn't indicate that it wasn't a desirable product or that it couldn't be done surely or that there's no focus instead on motivation to combine because it seems like there are a lot of references that are cited and a lot of references that the expert talked about on motivation and combine and how these references expressly suggest you should take the drugs and put them in no d t formulations or alternatively say people are working on developing exactly that six of the appendix the district court agreed with dr which i after reviewing all of the testimony and all the arguments that danced by watson and the fact that it was after doesn't mean that it was desirable there were very reason you're saying a lot of this but but as i read the district court's opinion this doesn't appeal to me to be the basis of his fact findings if you look at his opinions on page eight and nine he talks about particular some of them say so i don't understand how that fact finding isn't clearly erroneous because that fact finding doesn't seem to be what you suggested which is there isn't a good reason to make the about the drugs i mean that's what i understand and probably say are wrong but how to make he dresses an o g t t how is that claimant composition then nothing well it's almost like you want to prove that it would be commercially good idea to go that way and i feel that the district court's opinion had made him so unfortunately same same trappings where he kept making the comparison to the vittra why would anybody change levitra well that's a commercial in bunnymen and that's not the right  additionally there was nothing in the prior art that would have given the posa a reason to use orbital in addition to me in the title in and o d t it that that statement is absolutely that is what every single commercial environment used and that's what everyone would have used that the priority didn't two thousand but the question is not what was available the question is what would have been desirable watsons only pieces reflect that proposition that cites provides an actual reason that was persuasive to the court in order to find something was obvious maybe the reason is because farmer first was an off the shelf product that was commercially available and in fact houston disc a senate pharma burst was  well known in the art at the time well the fact that it was used in this case can't be used in a valid way to the obviousness of the invention that's what the inventors did but the fact that it was available again doesn't make it desirable it means that someone could have used a form of birth but no one would have district court found not credible and not persuasive it cannot be clear air for the for the district court to have concluded that the discredited expert of watson's the discredited testimony of watson's expert was insufficient to carry a jacobs did testify about it even were that so dr jacobs was found to be not credible but it's not so check the citation eighty four fifty seven and forty eight he's not testifying about the label at all he simply saying low  and we balance all of it is there a motivation combined well there are certainly some at a minimum obstacles or setbacks if we accept the teaching away arguments however if seven or so references actually expressly indicate all goes to whether there is a motivation and you know basically it seems to me these all go to the ultimate question of obviousness where we have to weigh everything to know respectfully i think there are several questions here on this claim is not directed to say that dr jacobs was found not credible but certainly the credibility finding has nothing to do with anything in that testimony there is no deviation from the expert's report there's no allegation that he came without some hindsight  label itself says that livia is safe and effective including for geriatric patients at five milligrams ten milligrams twenty milligrams the only basis for this teacher way argument is that they recommend starting geriatric patients at a lower ultimately that what the what the district were chose to rely on was the what i meant referred to as the sounds of silence argument the absence of erectile dysfunction drugs from these two tables in her b and infirm and that cannot contradict the use the parental role or local or a sublingual formulation the district court did not credit that testimony and it's frankly not credible because the idea of that pattern doesn't even deal with erectile dysfunction use it deals with the