one relating to the word since number limitation and one relating to the dictionary database claims or i'd like to begin today with what if we see is the simplest and most straightforward issue of the district court of use discretion in contentions be and aren't these kind of things things that we give deference to the district attorney you're right you're out of there or there is significant deference provided to the district courts and their application of the local pattern rules that's what if i just took courage i think the district written this case had at least two decisions that he had written where he indicated that for him the rule was one operate that when he's measuring prejudice it's going to be from the time that the  issued his decision that he would determine whether which of the tools to apply on a case by case basis and he decided in this case that it was appropriate to apply the time of disclosure b party instead of the time of the reports claim contracture so it was not this particular situation as if that particular district court judge had a consistent ruling that the only appropriate time for a disclosure was the time that the opposing party for proposed then why isn't that a fact down inquiry where that within the tolerable limits of reasonable this for him to say on interpretation that either of those two times could be used or both inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous language of rule three actually say but didn't even go on to that and say look it's not as if you had to find a cla included in the district court's order denying the motion for leave to amend although that was after obviously after the fact of the motion and the circumstances which preceded that which was led to filing a motion that wasn't a consistent rule that had been adopted by the district court that says you know if a party intends to file a motion for leave to amend its contentions that it should let the district court know what the hearing so wasn't something that was resting that means we were surprised he had a specific interpretation conception of that local rule so you probably should have known about that right you are correct charlie is a vet just that specific district court judge had issued prior language and that's not altered by the fact that the district court may have erred in other cases prior to that fact by ensuring that the local rule in a different manner in m repeated the repeated prior case so i guess the judge was looking for some form of diligence from your side right now in order to justify a good cause here and the judge did seem to go out of his way to provide a tentative ruling on the eve of the marketing hearing giving a lot of information to both parties the what the court was thinking about these various claim terms and so in a way he was putting in and devoting a lot of effort to giving all of you a head start thinking about what you need to do in terms of contingencies in case you get a claim construction ruling you did not like and so i guess what i'm wondering is if the judge is giving you all this information why isn't the court likewise entitled to expect a little bit more proactive activity from the parties as well a few points in by the party seeking amendment now certainly under f r c p eighty three the district court could have adopted a different local rule the district court could have adopted a local rule says that good cause may be when a party  conventions would have to be done within that twenty eight day period for electing claims yes you are in that so in a way that the judges providing notice to everybody on what he was thinking and expecting when it came to the amendments of contention and your honor the judge did not find that violated that deadline the judge found that  notwithstanding that it was untimely based on his interpretation of rule three to actually say so this was not a decision based on the district court setting an additional rule sixteen deadline whether in an order or verbal yet the hearing and therefore five not filing binding compliance with rule sixteen it was an issue of the district court interpret ng rule three to actually say acknowledging that there was a dispute in the interpretation of a rule among district court judges for making a legal interpretation of that will and we think it's a especially important to parties that are going to be litigating catting cases both in the northern district and in other districts where there are similar languages using tangibles we have a resolution about whether that is the appropriate interpretation of th rule and that only this court can can provide that because otherwise it will be a new district court judges continue to join the norther true california and parties will not know whether the appropriate interpretation of the rules read actually say the one that that this just reported adopted or defendant doesn't this what does discourage district courts from adopting low dose i mean if they can interpret their own block rules and maybe even have a different practice amongst themselves or apply their local rules to different pieces in different ways depending on the crux of them's cases why would any of the district courts want to have local rules i thought that you know really is just a way to provide more guidance to deadlines themselves set interpretations and provide something that's equivalent of local pastoral one of the purposes of local panels however is to provide uniformity to the bar in understanding when deadlines are supposed to happen and what the propre standards for them are breathers decisions including the two from this particular judge where he's made his view known about what that means as i mentioned earlier are we don't believe that the district court judge in the states have to even before this particular district court judge will have to analyze whether they think it is likely that the district court judge will apply even the specific issue for a judge to apply the time of  cause cannot be found untimely if the good cause could not exist yet the good cause did not exist until the district court adopted its claim traction that you're emphasizing the fact that this is a claim construction that was not proposed by either of the the judge's interpretation that says different rule should apply if the district court judge adopts a construction proposed by neither party or if the district court adopts the construction proposed by the nonmoving party because if that was what the rules were be affirmed unless one of four problems are found a clear and unreasonable or arbitrary application of the rule an erroneous conclusion of law a finding that was  or arbitrary in fact the only case that would have had to set in with a different district court northern district of california have wildly different conceptions of how to apply a particular local rule such that hypothetical situation if it were wildly possible that if you said the word green in front of judge a it would be interpreted as green but if you said green in front of judge b it would be interpreted as purple or something like that your honor would that be arbitrary again i think not it would depend on the fact if the judges had put out opinions that showed how they were interpreted in the rules such that personnel coming in front of those courts would have the ability to understand how that judge is applying the rule then i don't think it would be arbitrary or unreasonable is special if it were supported by the language of the rule we kept hearing that the plain language of rule three six somehow supports any time you want to do anything but the plain language of rules three six in the northern district says amendment of infringement contentions may be made only by order of the court upon a timely showing of good cause non ex examples of circumstances that may abstinent you prejudice to the nonmoving party support the finding includes and then it says the claim construction by a court different from the proposed that proposed by the party seeking amendment here that did not support it and in fact we were very clear both parties this was the second time that patten owner had moved to amend and center its intentions and in fact during the first time that it moved to minutes in front of contentions the court noted at appendix four six one four that patent owner at that point was very close to not having asserted the appropriate amount of diligence in the briefing for those for that motion the france telecom case was raised showing what this court practice was and so that's something that the patent owner did in fact know in the second and during the hearing for that at a scheduling conference i specifically asked the court if there are to be any further amendments they will have to be with good cause right in the court said yes and that was i at appendix twenty six seventy where they admitted themselves yes if i do anything else it will have to be with good cause and knowing that the friend's telecom case and the thought ink case which was the other case by judge or  indicating that the time for diligence starts at the disclosure of a construction those had both been raised both in research by the parties therefore board known at that time there's also no evidence of an iranian think losing of law the simple that there may be a split in the district does not create in the romeos conclusion of law and in fact the decision by judge or falls within the majority opinions in fact there is no single decision coming out of the northern district where a claim construction proposed by the nonmoving party coupled with the timing in the case was ever not used as non diligence i think i just used about a quadruple negative my point is that there aren't any cases that say if your construction doesn't doesn't match that which was proposed and it's not very early in the case there will be no finding of diligence so in fact the majority opinion is supported by judge or ex interpretation there is no dispute on the dates of the facts and no findings are running answer and there is no evidence in this case that refutes the evidence upon which judge or it based his opinion and therefore interpretation of the plain language of rule three i should say the district courts of including this dish upon this case and express limited that they are split about that legal interpretation we are not challenging the particular value you know