thank you ron good morning make this a court finding the of an equitable conduct in this case should be reversed at least because the district court committed clear error in its finding of intent to deceive and it did that in multiple respects we know that the district court found by inference that mr obradovich the named inventor had certain information that the court later found to be material of the district court then on top of that found by details of the ninety six our own allegations we don't run and for a few reasons the district court largely relied on certain facts and activities of others at the company and essentially imputed all of that to another person was driving around in the car there is also the driving the car in this or radix for between thirty to sixty minutes to driving the car with two of the co inventors and this is about six months prior to the filing of the application of course there's no evidence that at that time the store ravaged observed every screen and functionality in this car some of the functionality that honda has relied on as material are deep sounds small highlighting portions  new shift of the operation of that car what we do know of that time frame is what mr rabbit's believe his invention to be and we know that by virtue of crop rating documents his own hand written notes from october of one thousand nine hundred six would suggest that in his mind his invention was about a command and control system for a vehicle you know nothing to do with navigation and so we don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that as of the time that he sat in that car that mr ravitch would have observed a court to live with the case for many many years there were numerous proceedings before him and he did make certain credibility determinations now a lot of district court so we looked at to just say people are lying and so some ponce heads in terms of their narrative with regard to credibility it seems to me here that everybody agrees to consensual evidence is what we're left with in most of these cases and it seems to me and so i want you to explain to me lam wrong about this that given a deferential standard there was enough here why wasn't there enough here for the district court to reach the conclusion well in the first instance the only credibility finding that the dischord expressively made is in footnote three of the findings and there the district court supposedly said that it was incredible when mr ravitch testified that she had not seen these photographs before yet but he also i think you credibility can call that what we like he made statements that other parts of the decision reviewing the testimony that he was not being completely candid with regard to having possession of the navigation menu so th i put those under that umbrella of credibility determinations to write well the only problem with respect to those credibility findings your honor those were credibility findings made in an earlier order that was since vacated by the federal circuit and so whether those are even more of the case in point or can be relied on certainly ponder relied on those and it's briefing but the district court in its findings and ultimate conclusion of an equitable conduct that's on appeal never relied on any of those credibility fine the only credibility finding in doing that needed to look at each of the three prongs of the saracens intense analysis right and provide evidence an analysis for each and and he at least in the words of his order did that but the problem is that with respect to these credibility findings at best and this is very similar to the federal circuit's decision last year in the first meeting a case at best what we do then is we take the credibility findings the district court can discredit that testimony to the extent that he believes appropriate but then he must look at the rest of the record you can't simply rely on credibility findings alone that's effectively what he did here he relied on credibility findings in addition to the fact that i got he would tell me few months minutes ago that he didn't make he only made one credibility fine well and what not and now you're telling me that he relied entirely on credibility i'm not clear to say well you're on t v only made one specific credibility finding in that for no but to the extent that if we were to accept that there were implicit credibility findings because he found intent to deceive because he made findings that contradicted mr ravages testimony so we would accept that at most that's what this report did is took those credibility goes implicit credibility findings so so are you conceding that if you opposing counsel can point to something other than simply credibility findings that you loose were not your own because the reality is that when we look at each of these products of the very same steps there needs to be clear and convincing evidence and we just don't think it was there in any respect we think that there were inferences that were improperly drawn they were drawn based on incorrect factual findings that are directly directly contradictory to other facts in the record c understood and i think misunderstood what the theory of your case was so i just want you to clarify because when i first saw that i i took that to be he's got a disclosure here it was up to the examiner other people to run him to let his defense is that what do you mean i was hiding it i had an intent to deceive i specifically referenced an education system in this space it seems to me that's not at all what your argument is your argument is almost the reverse of which is when he inventive system would be built and all of that is corroborated but if your view was that that therefore he should be off the hook because he couldn't possibly intended to deceive because he pretty much you know pointed people in the direction that maybe ought to look at the s that's not the theory no it's not that alone does not get mr abramovich off the hook but the point is that if that alone is all we have that's not enough to make a clear and convincing standard that he believed that information to be material or quite frankly that he even had some of this information first place if the district court didn't rely exclusively on the fact that he cited it step as a basis for determining that he knew it was material no you're right on the just report a lot of other circumstantial evidence the problem is and if we start with  that starting point this question of what information is around a chance you don't have at the time and that is that it is that evidence which is hey these are exactly the same words or is that purely circumstantial or is that direct ev regardless of which it may be wrong and it may be that you can argue that that is is more than circumstantial evidence but it's not evidence that mr obradovich had these materials and that's the problem this factual background is such that mr pratt of itch with the president of  system the first time inventor thought that he met his disclosure obligations he thought that he disclosed the thing that was prior art and he thought that he disclosed his invention as being something different from that and so we agree that that's evidence in the first instance the problem is that heart of makes the argument that well there are certain other information about that car that mr bradford either knew or should have known about a they say it was in the owner's manual so he should have given the patent office entire owner's manual that but in with respect to the materiality issue you know you are but i don't think that's what we're saying i think what we're saying is the way that it's disclosed in described in the patent application tells us what was in the mind because it's important to understand what was in mr  things based on the the supposed credibility findings that that's but there's no other evidence and that was the first media case which said that even if we have a information that's in the hands of the inventor information that the inventor believed it to be material there must be separate evidence and proof of that third prong that there was a deliberate decision made to withhold evidence withholding information we just don't have any of that in this case aside from potentially credibility and i don't repeat myself  there's certain information about that car short of driving the car down to the patent office and giving it to the examiner he didn't disclose everything about that car and i must concede that he certainly disclosed the facts of the car and also its in understand to be your theory is a had no clue at least in his mind that it was that we gratian ship between the navigation system and anything was going on in his specifications so it's your argument is kind of the opposite that judge newman correct your morning on i'd like to just touch on two points that were raised in requests during your conference one is this issue that he did disclose preexistence of the car and talked about the faceplate and so forth that he wasn't pursuing it just sort of hiding in plain sight kind of thing takes a tremendous amount of sinister sort of intent to suggest if that's what you're suggesting that he kind of knew there was a relationship knew it was material and figured by kind of embracing a piece of it he would steer people clipping the examiner away from looking at it anymore that seems to me a little far  conceal but then he described the three status system and he described the search system in there in language and drawings that were as the court found remarkably similar to what he found in the manual and yet he never told the examiner that he'd gotten maps from the ninety six r l so you have the juxtaposition of saying he is an abscessed and that interacts with satellites and i'm going to make an improvement on it and my improvement is this three status system and this search system which he knew he got out of the manual today i have to say just as an aside i don't want to interrupt your thought but i want to make sure i get to this question before time runs out with his with regard to the but on the other two patents the jury found they were not involved and you didn't appeal that stop now the judge kind of in his analysis on materiality kind of says those those are so again what was what was missing in the disclosure was all them information that mattered and yes i suppose the examiner could have gone out him and gone to a dealership and looked at the ninety six  that mr abramovich wrote the specification and that finding is it's really can't be challenged for that helps to if he actually said this is an improvement on the ninety six are ok if you put it in the specification that he wrote how can he have concealed it ok but the judge also found that there was overwhelming evidence that mr abramovich used the manual in writing the patent application  you can see i'm having trouble with finding clear and convincing evidence of concealment of something that was in this specific unsure of what we have here your honor is a man there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever conceived of this that was used for the three statuses he copied the search system into his into his patent he claimed both of those as his own as his improvement when in fact he knew that he a copy those out of the manual and he'd never thought of them before he got the manual so to me that's very different than a situation where somebody makes an invention on their own and then they happen to come across a piece of our art that's not the most reasonable inference how does that play if at all in your view how we supposed to evaluate the single most reasonable inference issue in connection with credibility for are they you know the guy told a lie about something but it wasn't a lie about the central issue in the case then there'd be a question you know how do you relate those two but here the credibility problem was as to the specific issue knows that he copied from that prior art and actually got his idea from the prior art i had never thought of it until he saw the prior art and he didn't make an improvement he took the prior art itself put it into his application  based on his disclosure and the family you know there's a limited disclosure in the spec is that your position that there's no way that any reasonable examiner would say oh he cited the navigation system we ought to ask him more about that or or is it your view that to dick's whatever he said about the navigation system was so discreet and so disassociated from what was invented here that it wouldn't it wasn't the disclosure that would prompt the examiner in any copied from that piece a prior art and if your understanding of the other side's argument that they're their argument is not that different from what i've articulated and they are saying too is that your understanding that the reference that he made with statuses of different colors to select options from a screen on the dashboard what has that got to do with satellite communication and i'd like to make one other point if i could change the patents and in fact if you look into the four nine seven patent and look at claim sixteen it claims the application of his copied invention to navigation graham sixteen is that the pendant claim make improvements on the prior art all he did was he saw the prior art and he decided well i'm going to put that in my patent application i won't tell the examiner that i got it from this where art i'll tell him that his car exists but not that that's where i got secure on them to follow up on question that judge post posed on the single most reasonable inference question and important fact about this case is that there was a jury finding of no inequitable conduct it was an advisory perfect and so not binding on the district but if nothing else that jury verdict indicates that eight jurors unanimously concluded that there was no inequitable conduct here and what does that do well that confirms that there must have been another reasonable inference to be drawn from the record here and that's an important part of our arguments also as to this s c l case and the disk the selective disclosure we do think kind of theory is far fetched because it does require such not only sinister activity ten years prior wrong half of this inventor but it requires that he was so adept in patent law issues so adept in the system that he would have known about trying to throw off the examiner he might have known about a way to game the system by disclosing some portions and not others can i ask about your first point though i'm still put the fear that's just is or is it your view kind of as a matter of law as a judge and i not as a matter of law that we could not find an equitable conduct what do you say we should do way it is one of the factors i do think your honor that the district orderly should have considered that when he was considering if there were any other reasonable inference is the fact that the jury here even  lower standard for a nickel obviously he considered it he knew it went down the steps there for the entire time i mean that's a factor of course to consider well you didn't address it anywhere in his analysis yes but of course he knew about it and he considered it right well we think at the minimum based on and all these other facts in the record that there really was another inference that could have been drawn and that therefore it there was one other reasonable inference that could have been drawn from this record that that was clearer to infer intent to deceive and we think that the jury verdict is important evidence of that  there's also the issue of the selective disclosure in the s p l case the inventor who was found to have selectively disclosed portions of the prior art had been the named inventor on fifteen hundred patents of his company and both the district court and the federal circuit in that case and so to attribute that kind of knowledge to him is we think at least farfetched and of course we believe it's pretty farfetched to assume that mr brodrick someone who the evidence doesn't even indicate he had ever seen a patent application before that he picked up and wrote these patents himself is we think far fetched when we have testifying no questions as his credibility that he wrote the path and so the whole analysis falls apart when we replace mr ravitch as the author of the patent with his patent lawyer which which makes more sense we believe on the facts i believe on past my