that you're asking us to centrally to clarify to make a clarification no i'm asking you to reverse the judgment did you make this argument below zero absolutely when the when i do remember exactly what our arguments were just what are you think you are arguments below or that the court should not enter the judgment proposed by pacific scientific because the court had determine four in favor of instant and that the proposed judgment that they submitted did not reflect the judgment the court in addition we argued that the court having determined that it could not understand that part because arizona applicable rules you can't move for reconsideration and present an argument you've already presented i presented precisely this argument i don't know what good it would have done to move for reconsideration and simply offer the the form here to reflect what you perceive the substance to be right i've already made precisely that argument i've already argued that you could not enter this judgement because it did not reflect the disposition of so if i'd ask a court is the final determination the court if later kate you if you want to comes up you point out the count or was dismissed without with prejudice at an earlier point and i think that the court's judgment was erroneous tuner judgment in favor of pacific scientific as well and you fear that a later court may be in this day claiming that you have this currently pending that the judge is going to look at that it and make some sort of an adverse ruling i don't see how the quite a court withdrew that i don't see what your problem is and to be frank i've had great difficulty understanding what it is that we're to do because the judgment is the judgment the court will have to look at you but what judgments often come in later she don't we don't go back and restate what we did on the first on that part but the record doesn't really reflect that if you look at page six zero six of the appendix the order was under seal it's not publicly available so the december twenty one order the summer twenty one two district court in original judgment in favor of one party when the actual disposition of the claims was that the only claim that was adjudicated on the merits was adjudicated in favor of the other part of the court never reached the merits of the if he can tell us anything further about so let's just walk through with the counts are there's declaratory judgment of not infringement and invalidity that's what started this in our complaint and that was dismissed as moot so neither side won on that then there was a tortious interference claim we added that the count for that one was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by us they opposed our motion to voluntarily dismiss it and we prevailed on that they didn't win on that it was dismissed voluntarily now as mr leach states and adjudication that a dismissal with prejudice acts as an adjudication on the merits but it's on the merits without a prevailing party there's a lot of case law out there that say that if you because everything that we do is buyer for use of the government because of that and that's what the court said because of that the issues were moot about the carcieri judgement there was no longer a case or controversy it's not that we lost it that became moot because we prevailed on our summary judgement and response of their counter claim so it's not a lot with regard to the tortious interference it's absolutely not a loss by voluntarily dismissing we're saying we don't want to pursue this anymore what if you look at what you just said from the other day yes i mean you're the one that follows suit against the rights seeking different court judge and the judge dismissed them as a salute right the air we're signa declaration that we don't french the district court judge properly found that because we won on the affirmative defense to their patent infringement counter claim that there's no longer a case or controversy but that doesn't mean that they won anything and we didn't win anything on that either we won that we're not going to get sued again don't talk when a judge if i'm sorry wrong one in effect you're saying that it really doesn't matter whether you and that's why that the district judge down right now that we are there we don't doesn't matter because the civic scientific is no longer in jeopardy of being sued in the district court for pat infringement anymore because it's been declared that forty nine hundred eighty applies are you happy with the five line order of that you got from the district absolutely this court looks at orders to assess error not to be a line editor and the issue here is that the slaughter says all that needs to it's worded differently than what we have proposed but it says all they need to because it refers to the only two orders in the case there dispositive the first order with that december twenty first order and it's very clear it's on the first page of the order saying we and your honor they're not appealing that so so about fifteen pages of their briefs about how we allegedly had no basis and so forth and all these things that they want to raise the malicious prosecution case if they want to do that and b so brazen will certainly defend against that but that's not what's at issue for this court what's at issue for this court is who is the prevailing party has to fix scientific with the prevailing party because the only the only claim that was decided on the merits was the fourteen ninety eight issue and we prevailed the issue about d j carcieri judgment was mooted and so that was dismissed without a decision on the merits and the decision with regard to the tortious interference  if we we being pacific scientific one to appeal the decision with regard to tortious interference which we voluntarily dismissed we would not be able to do so because that's not an adverse judgment against the six scientific  voluntary dismissal can never be an adverse judgment so how can an time difference say that there is an error in the final judgment and then it should say that in some deferred has won on it that that just doesn't make sense thank you hundred merely because the district court action is pending in this case when the court entered its judgment it had already found that it had no subject matter to restrict and so underwrote twelve a to the federal so procedure reflectance disposition at the appendix that page a four for one a four for two are the arguments that we offered in opposition to the proposed judgment where we told the court plans propose a judgment