am having a hard time with you or your position that importation can cover actions that occur after an article has entered the united states where do you find that and feel and how can you make that c to the commission's thinking in general to broaden the scope of the thinking for isn't actually an economic monetary consequence in addition you are think of the certainly the we our and up and the public will itself illustrate congress also was concerned about not diminishing any kind of remedy is that the patent holder may help make up for the commission proceedings so that's why congress bobcat subsection two which the storage media claims we've heard a lot about him what's the commission seems like a new definition of importation and we've heard a lot of reliance on the commodities export case which is a bonded warehouse it at what point is the article giving it's an article in you know a position to be sold or news in the labs or in a position to be reacting how do you respond to that well storage media likes of at least some members of the panel i don't understand exactly what a line hopes to get from this because they have many time claims including the forty seven in itself for which which the commission found violation they were part of the group two claims but didn't respond to computer readable storage media so here as a matter of infringement the commission found that what was being imported was not a treatment plan residing on a computer readable storage media and the commission's not infringement determination is reviewed for substantial evidence and you won't see any foreign media there not coming into the country and if are not seen to be digital goods are not articles then the it's my understanding that the proofs three and four tackling this would fall as well there are some issues in the first case which may well relate to this one as i understand the winds theory twenty one c in that case the arguments about a material for years and forming a patent to process would appear to apply to the group for patent claims in this appeal which is something that we tried to explain in our brief  notably one other thing what we're talking about contributory infringement is these groups repackage claims which call for a treatment plan residing on a computer readable storage media i will i never argued contributory infringement by clear credit pakistan for purposes of infringing those claims i'm not sure why that is there doesn't appear to be anything to spot such as such a theory and if a line had presented and preserve such a theory it's likely that we would be talking about this in these  clear correct interveners agree with the commission in its arguments concerning these groups the report claims that line cannot prevail on those claims for two additional reasons stated in our brief one because those claims are invalid in light of prior art and number two because of the covenant not to sue the line get clear correct back in two thousand and eleven earlier i was talking about their planes and how we have the digital models i think of the a little more description the process is to challenge the other patent claims because we incorporated by reference our same argument i think that's an abuse of discretion because the prior art here is just razor thin we're talking about two columns from two patents and a couple of diagrams from one of them so it really added and would add nothing to the debate for us to just cut and paste four times the same prior art the prior art is is space you need to move is too far to do it with one appliance you go back and you make an intermediate positions for additional appliances that people wear in their mouth that was back in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine the only other reference that we have that we're that set those two references cover all of the lines patents here the patent things asserted here because they are so like i said earlier mind numbingly repetitive they're just using these models to make the appliance or not even going that far and just using the models to create the digital data that's all so all of the all of the elements of the three twenty five one are in the keys when can references very straightforward i would ask the court to find that the three twenty five claim one is invalid is obvious and then remand back to the commission for more analysis on the remainder of the pack flames if the waiver finding it is an abuse of discretion which i think it is the next the next item is the covenant not to sue and here again there was a waiver finding but this one kind of like the the invalidity is the height of form over substance the commission found a waiver of the argument concerning the covenant not to sue because we didn't put enough took depositions over the defense drafted a motion for summary determination as did clear correct the parties competed on this issue with the cabinet not to sue a line one a victory on the merits on summary determination and then got a motion in limine the excluding the evidence from the trial the hearing even as to our means reda concerning contributory infringement so there was no argument of surprise no prejudice in adding extra words to the response of pleading in the affirmative defen true but your honor i disagree with you about whether the plane was diverted because there was an unstoppable fence planned and we said there was stop from asserting the patent claims here you know the six the leather that they gave the cover not to sue over is not in this case so insufficiency of the pleading what they did is they just conduct a discovery and they got a documents and they talked to our president about the defense and they peed up a motion for summary determination and they want i submit wrongfully and the reason i submit wrongfully is because read that there was no there could be no liability for pat infringement for a method a claim that is practiced partially outside the united states