and a couple of other points about three hundred and fourteen and three hundred and twelve your honor the this court is focused on the decision the preliminary decision by the director whether there's whether the petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success day and that that is the essence of what's covered by the not appeal of the bill ability of a decision under this section and also it's different from the r p i because as a court is noted ultimately the decision on the merits yes we did argue that it would apply now to an amendment to the date that's why we argued that the petition should be terminated we do not argue that it was not if it is not a case where the ultimate parent n t h i was a party in pearly gates sure but we did argue therefore should be determ too to put the recoil or ott into the raw soup strip or housing which is the parties have always litigator is the security device in the combination security device you know not saying what it is not saying how it functions so now that all the all the claims have been litigated based on wrong based on rock modified by dentists and now well we now are just going to and one prior talks about advantages and disadvantages you don't ignore the advantages but we should note this is a little different situation that this is an interactive situation where into your eyes proposing a combination it fundamentally changes the operation and security device and set up for the islet in the wires between the recorder and the secured device that's how you secure the wire and that now they propose doing away with that and just that is true your honor but there is no there's no evidence of how to be done without without a good changing the functionality is gone which which is going to disclose is a specific way to do a specific way to secure final decision cannot quote be unwound under some minor statutory technicality related to its preliminary decision to institute enter partes review  court would be considering three thousand b in other words was there a party a real party in interest who had been sued more than a year before the filing of the petition that that can't be the case here nobody was sued nobody has known no other entity other than m t i has been sued as i say the patent issued just four months before the filing of the petition on his ma say that as a matter of fact the board did not care that applying the home you know applying this but there is substantial evidence to support the board's fight were in substance the briefs were on the r p i issue were identical in fact the board's most order on the motion to terminate address all and before even the same board and thus that there was only one the situation rendered by the by the board on the motions to terminate and and so this  board allowed discovery they were they took the deposition of the c e o of m p i chris read it with respect to document discovery and that was the same with with not to come back to the board and ask for any additional discovery they didn't ask for any additional discovery after the deposition of mr ram if they thought they needed some additional discovery written discovery they could have asked for it they did not they chose not to can you address your proposing counsel's argument that your experts testimony was entirely the loser so getting it when you say our expert your so we're getting back we're getting to the issue way it out in detail and the board's final written decision including the evidence by the expert the expert applied st of all looked at the teachings of garner looked at the teachings of you cheeta you cheeta the pointed out that you cheated discloses a path and by the way both you cheeta and them disclose a wire they're both security devices they both disclose a wire that goes around that loops around an article of merchandise either an islet or a button and so that what and so the expert pointed out the advantages or the desirability of having a retractor for things such as shoes if you're going to use that you cheated a vice and so it presented the logical reasons why you would combine i'm pointing out the similarity of the prior art references and and rather the combination plus the combination itself is not at issue the combination of you cheetah and garner is not at issue to begin with because claim six was rejected have the you have the claim invention of claim seven so then the so the only other issue is just the board correctly named all real parties in it and interest and the board's decision support is supported by substantial evidence on the the issue to begin with the issue it is not whether these other entities might be pretty is and all of privies is maybe relevant in view seems to be merging a real party and interest issue with pretty issue but in application for internet times the court said that the real party and interest issue is common law terminology and that common law principles apply and common law principles a parent holding company is not a real party and interest to a petitioner merely by virtue of being a parent company so most of the parent company that it has an immediate business that somehow implicates or is implicated by the patent the parent company is not a real party and interest to the ip are in it here the only company the only m p i company that manufactures and sell products of any kind is empty on that petition or none of these related companies manufacture and sell any products force and certainly actually don't know about s with respect to the accused product the only the only company that does that is analysis was conducted and detailed analysis by the board by the board considered all of the evidence and came to the conclusion that the only real party and interes r that none of these other companies are real parties and interest considered all of the evidence submitted by and if you had submitted it considered all the evidence submitted by  i and it and it rejected the argument that in view is making it came to a different conclusion it concluded that the only person who is making the decisions concerning the i p r is whether to charge said we will agree if the board will allow the update of the notice without changing the following day so i could regard the facts i think it's important to the facts and to keep in mind this is a closely held company it's not a i requirement which is a partly intended to protect pattern owners from repeated suits from having meaningful effect because at least closely held companies if they don't have to report a closely hel litigated it came up in the prior suit after the oral hearing had been held we have been allowed only very limited discovery and it was decided on very limited briefing but more importantly as a factor consider recently by the support of the power