perhaps but that's not what the law requires what the wall requires is a construction that takes account of the whole of the regulation and when you look at the two sentences in those two sentences sentence provides that the only way for a contractor to assert restrictions on government rights in technical data is by marking the data subject to restriction that nd sentence that you draw from judge laurie identifies the only for the genes that are authorized to affect those restrictions on the government's rights if you read those two sentences in harmony as the wall requires the nd the two sentence focus only on markings or legends that restrict the government's rights and technical data they simply do not speak to restrictions on rd party usage of technical data the contractors like boeing own and this this construction judge laurie reflect the st sentence of after uses the word marking but the nd uses the word legend's two different words than the two sentences are unrelated and cannot be read together so seven thousand and thirteen dollars af is not limited to research and on the government the only reasonable interpretation of the entirety and that interpretation judge laurie is confirmed if you look at the immediately preceding in the immediately succeeding sections as well as the  know the government the government one of the big arguments is that these are two different words and if the government and if the regulation writers had intended them to be linked together they would have used the same words but what seven th marking as used in the st sentence is a verb describing the act required to assert restrictions on the government's rights legend as used in the nd sentence is a noun referring to language a contract or applies when quote marking tandem because f one uses the verb mark and the noun legend in the exact same sentence it says and i quote the contractor shall conspicuously and legibly mark the appropriate legend on all technical and we're looking at some section b and and there are two points to be made here the st is that overall this entire section seven thousand and thirteen dollars all of this is directed solely towards restrictions on the government's brights the nd point is that the term markings in the term legends when when used as nouns are used interchangeably as demonstrated by their use here so what this what this paragraph says is that the seven thousand and thirteen clause requires a contractor the desires to restrict the government's rights so again we're dealing just with restrictions on the government's rights we have nothing this has nothing to do with restrictions on rd party rights and it says that seven thousand and thirteen that a contractor that desires to restrict the government's rights has to place restrictive markings reasonable interpretation because i think these provisions confirm beyond any question that boeing's you know boeing's interpretation that seven thousand and thirteen f regulates only restrictions on the government's rights and in technical data and identifies the only permissible legends or more kings to effect those restrictions it in no way prohibits markings or legends restricting rd party rights and technical data that a contractor owns and indeed if we step back for a minute the binding cans of construction by failing to read adjacent sentences together what the board did is the board made a false choice between the two sentences of seven thousand and thirteen dollars af instead of harmonizing them and you see that appendix the three dash twelve for non conformity king and that passage and in that regulation makes clear that the authorized markings permitted are identified and seven dollars and that all other markings are non conforming markings and an authorized marking that is not in the form or difference in substance from the marking requirements in clause that many thirteen is also a non conforming marking so can you help me understand what's going on here because it appears to suggest on its face that the only authorized markings that are going to be permitted for these types of itself and the non conforming markings those are those are markings that are not in the format of the rise by the contract the context of both of these provisions is plain these  addressed soley to markings that restrict only the government's rights in technical data they do not speak to restrictions on rd party rights independent of the government and if you look just to subsection for data not it's not concerned with rd party markings and seventy one of three hundred and twelve life wise as you say it begins by talking about by identifying that authorized markings are identified in seven thousand and thirteen that practice martin judge i can judge chen and this is kind of part and parcel of you know the the board had said that there were you know warning signs that the government should have paid attention to and should have negotiated you know especially negotiated with the right place and the bottom line is there were no warning signs because the contracting officer in conjunction with air force council on the on the f fifteen prior contract said the bones markings were permissible and boeing had relied on that position since two thousand and two going all the way back to two thousand and two on the f fifteen contract the it wasn't until two thousand and seventeen in connection with the proceedings to bring this before the circuit today that the air force rejected that position because it was quote from a nother contracting officer on a previous contract because it and they said because it does not also altered or modify the f fifteen contracted issue this hasn't come up because the government has not taken a position this strained that we are whereof and i think that that's made per plainly clear by miki as well the chamber of commerce and the professional services coun this is a an issue that's a vital importance to two contractors who are contracting with the department of defense so that they can protect their ownership rights vs again rd parties aren't thanks and just doesn't this simply is we're talking about regulatory interpretation and contract interpretation which are both matters of wall that this court is plainly enabled and qualified to address and to this doesn't deal with unjustified markings unjustified markings are markings where the contractor is identifying one of the permissible legends or using one of the legends but it's not justified so for example a contractor puts a a a legend that says that it's that it's limited rights and that means that it was it was position was in these contracts with boeing they contracted for unlimited right and one of their arguments is these markings that you are proposing and you're trying to use in fact constrain their own limited rights in terms of how they interact with rd parties and and so in the sense that there is a violation or allegedly contractor mark to the data with limited rights for example which means that it was that the item was developed with private expense but in fact it wasn't it was it was developed with government expense and therefore it's an unjustified marking the issue that you just raised judge chen really goes to the issue that the board the board rejected this is the issue where the board basically projected the government's position and said that boeing's legend clearly states that the government has unlimited rights and that the government can grant authority to others so it's not clear what sort of quote downstream confusion this might cause and you know the this is this is an area where the court you know the courts without authority to affirm a board decision on a basis not addressed by the board because a board decision has to be held up if it upheld if at all on the basis articulated by the board and that's clear from the circuits agility decision and two thousand and seventeen so you know query whether the court even should be entertaining that argument but the board got it right on that on that issue  court the court should affirm the board's ruling that the contract between boeing and the air force does not authorize boeing to unilaterally apply its own data rights legend to the technical data that boeing delivered to the air force with an unlimited to assert restrictions on the government's rights some contractors didn't want to have to mark the data they wanted to mark using only a simple marking and they were some people were objecting to the government's response d o d disagreed and said you need to mark the data if you want to assert a restriction on the government's right that it wasn't a burden on contractors to do that  it is part of the same paragraph your honor and it corresponds to the de farce provision which states as the board found with slightly more clarity that all other markings are non conforming markings so  to i don't think i got the actual answer to my question and let me repeat it again i'm just trying to understand what independent work under your the paragraph at all and my writing and i was wrong i just want to make sure i understand your interpretation yes i'm sorry your honor i the nd the the st sentence serves the purpose this contract so that seems like a direct order to contractors you want to mark you want to put a legend down you've got to choose one of these four right here and there isn't any not actually doing any work the the st sentence is not affecting which legend a contractor may apply so in that sense your honor if the st sentence didn't didn't appear and seven that but then the nd nd and here are the only things that you can use to mark the data to restrict the government's right i mean why why doesn't  neatly read together and and be the correct reading in the end your honor the language in the nd sentence is not limited to it so it does not say only the contract clause and all other markings are not conforming so that regulation confirms the government's reading of the seven thousand and thirteen s contract clause and that reading is consistent with the regulatory and contractual had been approved in the past that's the only evidence in the record as to what any other contractor has a test attempted to do or sir under the seven thousand and thirteen s contract cla your honor it would be denote a review it's a legal question of the interpretation of the regulation and these are contract clauses as well which would also be a legal question that the court refused to know so i just wanted ambiguous and consistent with the scheme as a whole if d o d contemplated the need for a legend to protect any of the retained like any of the retained rights when there's an unlimited rights license there would be provisions for that the way the d o d approached the government purpose rights license and the limited rights license there are hardly specific terms on which rd parties can obtain access to the government purpose rights and limited rights license they have to sign for example a non disclosure agreement and that's set out in the deep bars two to seven seventy one o three dash seven c and that non disclosure agreement contrary to the argument and boeing's reply brief the non disclosure agreements and the dash seven thousand and twenty five contract clauses are all for the benefit of the government to make sure that the government's restrictive licenses it here too in contrast the m d a actually says the non disclosure agreement actually says that it is for the benefit of the contractor that is boeing and so under the scheme as a whole what you see is a real absence of any contemplation that there would be a marking when there is unlimited rights a license granted to the government you have this express language in the and thirteen s contract clause that says these are the only authorized legend's then you have the similar language in the d c fars and then you look at the clauses dealing with government purpose rights and limited right licenses where it's highly specific and particular rise in language and the absence of any similar language dealing with the unlimited rights license just confirms what the contract clause in the d fars itself  say these are the only arthur ised markings that are permitted under the contract and the board incorrectly concluded that because boeing's one of boeing's legends would allow the government to authorize others to use the unlimited right status that that was not a an impairment or restriction on the government's rights the government's rights are much broader than that the government is entitled to have others use the data without any kind of authorization so what this means is that the government can have another contractor use the data and then have that contractor have have others use it without any kind of particular authorization and the the purpose of that is so that the the government's rights are so broad the government does not want to have to be required to that someone has obtained the data through an authorized means meaning that the air force has and for example if the air force were to decide that the data could be the the proprietary right your honor would do would depend on the the the way someone obtains whatever proprietary rights boeing retains would depend on the way in which that other person  conforming sorry there are only four authorized and so this is this is just a matter of of six the nature of the unlimited rights license and the terms of the contract to which boeing signed up when it into the contract with the government air force contracting officer of a department of defense regulation and that's playing second on the nondisclosure issue the government counsel raised what the government restrict rd party rights when rd parties lack authorization from the government or boeing but boeing does not demand that the that the government exercise those rights in any particular way nor does it require that you know rd parties sign any history to suggest that those words were added to boer contracting contractor markings restricting rd party rights given the intent to expand contractor rights that silence we submit is fatal to their position the d's words impose such a prohibition finally your honour's at the at the end of the day what the government is really arguing is that a grant of an unlimited right to life and is the same as placing technical data in the public domain permitting rd parties to use those data without authorization from anyone that interpretation conflicts facially with seven thousand and thirteen dollars which grants contractors ownership of their technical data even after granting unlimited rights license to the government and the grandmother mckayla a mechanic how do you know how good boeing claim to have a trade secret in the especially if you agree one our interpretation whether animated or not by the regulatory history but in analyzing that issue the board we think mistakenly focused on whether boeing enjoys trade secret rights and boeing believes it does based on the cases that we have cited the basically to basically say that even if there is a disclosure to to a rd party with that confidentiality is long is is long is that is not the sort of disclosure that would be that would generally render the data to be issues to be released to the in the public  the as you suggest a a complex question of state all that was not briefed before the board the question was whether boeing can market electronic warfare technical data to notify rd parties that it owns those data and on that question it is enough that boeing has residual process proprietary rights in those data as quote all rights not granted granted to the government are retained by the contractor under both seventy one o three dash four and seven