scientists he's not a lawyer his american lawyers to be a duty law firm had sole discretion in deciding whether or not to pursue litigation under the terms of their engagement letter and a t his american lawyers then decided who should be the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and on several occasions they filed complaints without giving either dr lawrence or unit board a copy eleven seventy three and a eleven eighty one undisputed is that he never saw a copy of that so there may be evidence in the record that it went from am asked the offer to delphi but dr long's this testimony is that he never saw a copy of the trial court were to totally disbelieve dr lines of this testimony there's still no evidence that it actually got into its hands you could wipe out his testimony that he never saw it but there's still no treatment documentation of  her conviction that in the state has been committed that's from the stevens case and turning to the second prong it's an abuse of discretion because the result is clearly on reasonable which is from the four slabs case there are two want to s winds have argued on the motion to reconsider ration in his motion for judicial notice if one looks today on the patent office when site there is no assignment scene so i don't think any of the part what they what's of it what's the basis for this thing as a practical matter it stayed pending the outcome in interest case i'm not sure because i'm not counseling that action whether in fact the state express lee says it's pending the resolution but liable because on this record the a duty law firm had sufficient information to put it on notice that there was at least an issue as to whom should be named as players because after all as you know upset dr lawrence did inform his attorneys  that the ninety six patent had been transferred to uniforms on at least two occasions but the district one of the findings that i call by the just airport with the firm did a title did a title but slightly different from the focus of our argument on abuse of discretion on the issue of who had or who should have had the actual assignment that would have shown that i thought twenty nine line seven question so you can read the i b m license agreement and you see that there is a documented evidence saying unifor it's right to license and you don't have the document from that he did to if he continues to say and you know that dr lawrence was represented by a lawyer neighbor and i think that's what the question directed to the lawyer neighbor continuing and you asked delphi to contact byrd correct answer yes question and they told you they did and he didn't have anything correct answer that's correct in that question and you did not contact her yourself to see whether this document evidencing that right answer th attorneys about eight transfers he had told them that the patent was the patent rights own by you a board  given that he had told his attorneys the information that they needed to help him craft the answer to that but i think he answered under oath because been no sharman to the ninety six pack period sign in fact of a documentary or service that there was a sign i did the one thing which is undisputed here is that there was simultaneous with the i b m agreement and a signed well there's also a document that response should be framed he told his lawyers that he thought the interactive tory response should be free to say the duck the company unifor it is the owner of the ninety six patent rights but the pattern is still the registration and mr hawkins my name is amanda mayer and i'm here on behalf of police dell and gateway have you believe the best place to start is the issue that was just troubling the panel and that is the stark inconsistent seeds before the district court the law is made and that are throughout the record as your honor mentioned earlier there is an issue of whether or not a certain credibility on a mission to me by the court and argument just a few minutes ago highlight that this really is just a third bite at the apple for appellant and that the issue before the court is just a rehash of credibility terminations made by the district court for indeed the briefs on appeal go into the evidentiary minutiae that the court dealt with before on a cold record whines affidavits e mails documentary evidence judge pen addressed that type of evidence and found the award of fees was appropriate accounts counsel been moved for reconsideration of that field word and asked that the court not award fees on a cool record like that before this court but instead consider live testimony judge him granted that request and held a two day evidentiary hearing to which counsel for collins referred to earlier that evidentiary hearing took place in march of last year  testimony to live testimony that was before the court in that eventually hearing and the documentary evidence the court again failed that a few words was appropriate we are now on appeal rehashing the very same evidence on this appeal and this argument a few minutes ago transcript portions were read to this court trying to show that there were some below and what is fundamentally a credibility determin believe that the bulk of their briefing and their argument he'll has been on the credibility issues i believe if you see page forty six of the appellant's brief you will see that they say something to the effect of setting aside issues  credibility and then they start to turn to some other things that they characterize as its discretion choose there is no evidence that the district court erred in finding that this case was exceptional on their two eighty five the record years replete with dr lawns litigation misconduct with inconsistent statements that are based there that are the basis for the courts to terminations that the lawsuits were alleged inconsistency that the court has already addressed below the court here has a cold record this court in the united states supreme court have been failing the credibility determination for the province of the trial court who has the ability to judge the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses and that credibility determinations are entitled to great deference further this court in the supreme court has found that it is not clear error cannot be clear error for the fact finder to choose one version one her per cation of competing evidence when two conflicting stories have been presented and that's what we have the decision to have a new board execute that license and executed assignment kena board in connection with that to save himself close to a million dollars in taxes later when he was personally named as a defendant in a one that he didn't remember the assignment you know board and to that he thought it was invalid there are other instances of inconsistency is in the record below for example the errata tory answer that he suggested could have been inconsistency were just too great the court below determined that dr long simply was not credible he said in his opinion below that this was an issue the main issue before the court was dr launches draw different conclusions from those documents when an appellate court have the ability to say well they drew the wrong conclusion if it's an emotional hearing as the credibility of the document and what those documents say i don't believe that it would be appropriate to go that far more credibility and documents and think his credibility documents are inconsistent documents what people can read them differently well given that choice than the trier of fact the facts find involves very similar issues of course i would say this that the this counsel has essentially admitted the credibility finding problems that his client that when he submitted response to your honor's question that the clarification agreement we accept the premise that that that was discredited by the court that's the very point here judge head held that evidentiary hearing again after allowing the game as new facts were discovered coming from lines he shifted his story so first he says as he says in the answer to the rocketeers no assignment no assignment in which counsel made reference to i believe it was the e mail that said i have assigned the patent that's correct the document as we know it in our brief it's i've assigned the packet rights and when mr the evidence showed him mr mastroianni testified when he got that e mail he said he called the client he testified to that he said what are you talking about but if you look at the district court he concludes initially based on the facts he draws makes quite enough a number of observations about the firm's conduct all of which are quite negative right in terms of the feel you're to investigate the ownership or whatever so based on the facts his conclusions with respect to the evidence attorney's fees that would've been the september twenty sixth two thousand and one opinion and he said as he evaluated to eighty five which is nineteen twenty seven he said i am troubled i'm troubled by the investigation issue and that's really the only thing i think he was troubled by but that was corrected when the judge i mean sidorov the motion for reconsideration filed by lines with new counsel he then heard the testimony and we filed a motion to intervene because there are not troubled anymore because he saw that the evidence showed that them the deuce he was for interviewed him they went to database they checked things out they certainly checked out if there was an assignment they went back to they looked at the european counterpart patent and they found one she was the owner and then the record shows that they had this touchy agreement that was a year before they were hired which  himself and so what happened was they did everything possible and the court recognized that and the significant point what is the attorney's responsibility at the cool responsibility making a due diligence search of determining ownership of a prat i think an attorney has to evaluate how sophisticated what kind of help legit this client has you know what level of sophistication an attorney  interviews his client and obtains all the information and then goes around to check all publicly available information i don't think saying different at turning i think it's the same standard and they did that they checked everything out and the fact is and of course here they had a swedish counsel everyone checked out everything and once insisted it and moreover so i think that's the responsibility and they carried it out told in fact every time lines raised the question they raised the question back are you sure and he reiterated i am the owner and let's not let's not mistake this mr alonso is in fact a sophisticated better as the record shows and as the judge found he had been involved in patton's ten years a decade before he ever met you to see the offer he dealt with lawyers in this country he dealt with lawyers in europe he was sophisticated enough such that he tra sophisticated client the problem that mr wants us and the problem on this appeal is very simple when the judge allowed there to be another denture here mr lines had his full day in court to process testimony and what for example a five eighty two after the conflict arose must carry on and told the district court that he had been repeatedly informed by mr law and no assignment had been had taken place that's what he told them but it wasn't true there was documentary evidence that he had been told about a transfer in fact look at eight to anyone in his handwritten notes he noted on the very day he received the february nineteenth fax from dr launch his notes say you know board assignments so he knew from the very latest february nineteenth ninety seven that there was an issue as to you know or assignments the whole presumption of the district court was that there was some intentional you know malicious concealment by dr opens but that just wasn't the case there at least two instances in which certainly look at the whole record but look at it through the end lens of clear air does this court looking at the entire record come away with the definite and her conviction that a mistake has been made and we submit that in fact at the end of the day on the stake has been made there's only one reasonable result in this case and that is that the award of attorney's fees must be reversed and the interesting thing i did difficulty that i'm having and maybe it's a similar concern a judge to our side oh no but the difficulty i'm having with your argument is that you you so electively pick and choose little snippets of information from the record various points which if looked at in isolation might suggest an outcome different from the outcome in that case but that's that's not a proper analysis the the the district court quite properly looked at all of the evidence and weighed and evaluated and considered the credibility of the witnesses that testified and came to a conclusion based on the overall record and it's it's very difficult i think to say that the district court's actions in this regard were wrong you know valuing all of this evidence picking and choosing but picking and choosing the evidence that is undisputed or in the case of mr mastro nice testimony of fourteen of it certainly wasn't explained there's no explanation in the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the documentary evidence the facts and the email putting the mosque firm on notice so dr lines of the assignment from his attorneys i think that is clearly erroneous that one assumption which is pivotal to all of the district courts analysis is clearly erroneous this court should