hundred eighty day statutory one hundred eighty day and the fact fact number two that on day one eighty one the very day after the entry barrier that was in fact seven generic manufacturers under the market not in the but from a list and i trust economists like to say in the actual work in the real world seven generic manufacturers entered the market on day one in and they gathered the market despite the fact the tecate ahead sued them for contributory infringement of some of their patents they entered the market compelling inference that when there's an entry barrier of a hundred eighty days and in the real world you get generic entry by seven mean you factures on day one eighty one and the natural plausible entry quote resulted from the unlawful patent description ok the other side says well those descriptions never made their way into the orange book but  mark it that's exactly right and that's why we describe the causation then in the complaint the way we did we said it resulted from the unlawful descriptions and it resulted from it in two ways number one the way you just described that is regardless of who knew what the f d a was not allowing was not going to allow anyone to make just section eight states not use a speculation but actually that's what actually occur patent information submitted to f d a that the description how they describe their patents whether or not published in the orange book should be the basis of the applicant's certification so obviously that the plausible inference is there some way to find out because the f d a makes you find out regardless of  and they've they found out things in fact there are commercial entities that do the family requests and that the generic manufacturers subscribe to them they get all the information so  when we get into this new district court about causation that will be one of our theories is that the reason that one of the reasons that tecate it was willing to settle this case they can about what they did they settled with seven generic manufacturers for entry on the day after the entry barrier the automatic entry barrier expired tecate i had no faith whatsoever that they were going to be able to prevent these didn't they didn't use the leverage of those litigations to get delay beyond one day beyond the statutory automatic date so that the fact that generic entry occurred on day one eighty one tells you everything you need to know especially on a motion to do is dismissed the complaint when a faction intensely factual issues such as causation but if the issue to cater acts as if we needed the leader even ultimately to prove that he generics would have overcome that listen we don't need to do in the actual world the generic seven generic manufacturers that entered on day one eating one did not have carved out labels so they did indeed had nothing to do with it since it's just they entered without how did they do that they got a license from to cato and one of the ways we give when we get into this we'll have three or four different at all ways the generics could and in earlier but one of which would be the easiest to simply took what happened in the real world they settled the litigation for day one eighty and say without the unlawful leverage that hundred eighty day interim period gave to cato they would have agreed to day one seventy nine at least and at that point our burden on causation is done but the point is that when there's an entry barrier  and the generic entry in fact occurs in the real world on the day after that entry barrier comes down it's certainly plausible on a motion to dismiss the complaint that entry would forty forty five of forty six that the all the the the other potential causes of the delay are what they call independent causes are separate causes of in the law intervening causes if the others i don't think so because ted received tentative approval without a paragraph or certification in till two thousand and ten the f d a did not require to have a to have affair before sufficient to have a file your raise for any file claim change absolutely or and they never move for lead to amend and they have never argued to this court they've never argued to this court that judge abrams erred in not giving them film so when the port is evaluating all of these theories you have to look at what's actually in play the complaint has none of that nothing is in the complaint about causation and that was the basis for judgment decision and to reverse judge abrams meet the listing stand let's just talk about the listing standard says that a patent point is a patent must be listed the claims the drug any reasonable claim of infringement can be but now the question is how do you interpret that language and we submit the plaint standard for putting a patent the mandatory requirement for putting a patent in the orange book and describing the f d a is whether that would be reasonably infringed by someone trying to sell the branded companies and drug use advantage to them because then they don't have to risk massive damages and the industry treats of this but so all those generic companies who file paragraph or certifications to decatur's patents without the orange book saying those a product why did they do that plaintiffs have no explanation why did they do that they did that because the industry understands the law the way to get it does if a patent claim could be reasonably infringed by someone selling actos it's got to be in the ever more certifications in other words sandoz is reading the law exactly the way to has been reading the plaintiff's reading of the law that says that you only list a claim if i don't they're saying exactly exact formulation of the drug is in the claim of the patent is that they're saying that's not the law everybody knows that's not the law the industry doesn't work that way i can afford many examples we have one example so the court may be familiar with the activist litigation that went to the supreme court cited in the briefs i was involved that i'm involved in the case in that case there's a formulation the whole formula the recipe in our case for example the decatur seven seven seven everyone agrees it should be listed because of course if someone sells actos they're going to infringe that patent so it needs to be listed in the same way anybody trying to sell actors would infringe these two product claims patents that we're disputing about disagrees with the fourth circuit and the d c circuit and sandoz and kate up and how the industry understands the listing statute there's still should not be liability but because i causation even first there's still should not be liability reasonable it wouldn't to follow that law you can't be liability because there is no end to competitive conduct to get its conduct that is not conduct without a legitimate business purpose the fact that to keep it up maybe this court would say got it wrong no case i am aware of in one hundred years of and i trust in which a company has been held liable to treble damages for trying to meet what seems to be a reasonable interpretation of a mandatory government regulation you very quickly counsel identified for the court his version of we are allegations of causation or let me just look at it and if it's just distinguishes this case from what sorts of cases where you have to theorize how somebody would have been able to enter the market we didn't have to do that in this case we had seven generics who in fact entered the to that specific allegation may be read that way but there's i can't find it at the moment it so i didn't quoted nor briefing's a more general allegation that the need for them to make address then again and we incorporate that by reference into our complaint then as they say in their rulin that's what the industry does  not at all and let me make one thing but here they they've changed course here in their brief they acknowledge that absent the patent description that the generics incentives all except didn't do it without actually knowing what was listed it would probably could be because they assumed what was in the soup was listed as because they sin that that's what we think that the certification based on what the actually said they're not going to have a regulation like that and then not have a means for the generics to actually find out but we're of much take a step back we're way in the weeds now beyond distinguishes this case from any other kind of case where you want to try to dream up other intervening causes or whatever let me at the family have one one moment the government exceedingly important on the question of whether they the listing was appeal says it's not really important the details of it but the just is and then they cite the stuff that they rely on the to have a decision that they rely on doesn't address that at all there specifically says that is it that you know not not at all the statute says the opposite the statute says in order to get a list it must claim the drug drug product and be capable of a reasona read reasonable claim of infringement if what they say is true that all that matters is inference no they just read out half of the statute the statute says you have to meet two criteria has to claim the drug product and you have a reasonable