mean there is no controversy song people do find light because they think they to win without fight that does not mean there is no controversy here for us to scare declined to agree that we don't did they fail to prevail in the servants hall so there exclusively won't begin until they actually march because no court decision possibility for them right now and so if they march their product in two thousand and twelve that's one hundred eighty  reaction seems to me a different case it with the only controversy there was on the form of the dismissal and that seems to me different than here asking the court to grant subject matter of jurisdiction q to night the maricopa case isn't there a difference threat of infringement liability not and yet because of collateral consequences the supreme court said that there was a controversy you can rise to article three jurisdiction that's all that's happening here all forest is doing is  here in the connection with the covenant not to do true but remember what the core of it was the society man you said i'm going to pay my world thinks the threat of a potential loss in the future is non existent because i will keep paying my the question exclusively of infringement and what you're saying you're harming is is not the dispute over whether or not the product is infringed or not infringed the harm is the barrier to the market and there seems to be serve the problem when created in this area is the covenant not to sue in the question is whether if the covenant not to sue is defeating the objective of congress and had waxman act isn't the proper remedy for congress to  circumstances of the case and i i don't i was assuming congress at least could try that you know it's conceivable some court might say that's not good enough that doesn't affect article three that in the court might say well congress has created and it's an action which is required in a court of corporate and a court order and it's over and done with if they took it they saw that i guess you're right they could probably make it simpler but they have already taken steps to do just  this and the cover well i don't know what you mean just books the bottom of the box you know but there are numerous instances where congress doesn't quite get it right on the first try and so you're right i mean it may be it may have turned out that what they aware of these limitations on the constitution that cation this law but in every other implementation of a covenant not to sue there's some cost if the person goes on the market they are not charged with infringement in this instance the covenant not to sue has no such effect it has no effect because by definition the whole infringement is just a word that congress invented and it's not real infringement but  structure meant to do in order to bring market generic products to market and then all of a shutting that ability is removed by cover not to sue it which are which really doesn't mean a thing it does probably announces that it's not going to bring this product to market is there any way falling on that given yet some sort of relief saying in these circumstances the hundred ninety day period s injury yes but not traceable not it's important to clear out because of actually still of not infringement that's all this if you look at count one of the complaint is not a claim to trigger one of the days it's not a claim for anything else infringement in law in the district court but remember who was in the district court to react attempted to resist the entry of summary judgment on the fringe me by arguing that there was no case or controversy they counsel said that our injury speculators are injury is not speculative because we will in fact no doubt about suffer the six month delay in marketing under all circumstances it could be longer it could be out until twenty twenty three or fours settles with x but in a minimum it's six months so our injury is not speculative congress clearly did not intend to allow this situation to occur congress said when we enacted the civil action compact uncertainty statute they said we intend for the courts to exercise article three jurisdiction to the full extent of the law if you were to accept forrest argument here were essentially meaningless covenants not to sue preventing everybody in the first pilot from going forward you would be saying to my client you have no remedy for what is clearly an undeniable loss of their legal