label and at the very beginning of the label there is a in bold capitalized letter a warning that says please pay attention read the but up pharmacokinetics of this drug with food which has an unexpected sonar eight to eight to seven that food has conflict effect on savannah being pharmacokinetics which different with the different formulation these differences may result in clinically significant differences when one the first item switching administration of the capsule between the federal fast a and it goes on to say these changes may result in increased adverse events and it goes on to say the prescriber should be thoroughly familiar with the changes and pharmac them in the kinetics and then if you turn back to the information for patients section eight to eight to zero this label goes one step further and the patient should be advised of the change in the absorption profile up to vanity if taken with food the regulation which they got banned on the first drive which is evidence that this is not that difficult and doesn't require an do experimentation the other aspect of their enablement argument had to do with the type that is hiding the food and they had an expert the only evidence they presented was an expert who said it gets a little dicey when you get outside of the preferred embodiment of when to take the drug with what type of food he can feed it that he only expert in part of the dynamics in addition to pharma kinetics he explained that you get further away from the preferred embodiment you'll get a less the fact that you take less food and further away from the time of eating you'll get less effect you still get  will have a clinical benefit in providing a more consistent pharmacological and safety profile this has not been established in the present and yet there is a clear rejection backing of their position that taking this product with food reduce your specificity take this without group and if we look at some of the labeling portions that my colleagues talk about but let's look at those little bit more in depth because mr monroe cut off some of those statements if we look at twenty eight that the standard is now when you get to the end of the testing did you succeed the this standard is whether the testing itself and do and that's why if you look at what mr moore want to talk about the dependent claims the dependent things only fix one of four very he said was that there's not enough food in the stomach if you take it if you take a small meal that proved to be emptied out if you take the drug an hour later which is within the scope of the claim that food going to be gone it's not going to help you reduce on there's a specific example that he also what it accorded do to respond that now mr monroe talked about how they were tasked with the burden of proving this issue not true at all as i show you have tech made a substantial showing very convincing evidence but they had the opportunity to respond and if we look at the or their medical expert when asked on the stand if you took a stack of care you wouldn't expect this to work would you he said again i would not expect it to work that's telling you if you if the if a medical fact the evidence shows from the opinion they were able to present this interchangeability argument but what dr williams their expert failed to do with considered the individual components of the app texas products the powder granulation and the individual component it issued in the rather than instructed how to engage in infringement with the language of the supreme court's decision you must instruct that you must engage in infringement or have to be an affirmative you must do this that's not even quite a mind set encourage encourage but i think together the label that this isn't a puzzle of like a district court discuss this is actually a label from the approved by the f d a directed to doctors they were expected to read it read the parts of it if ashley was a warning at the very beginning telling them to look found that some doctors quote got the message that when they read the label they knew what it meant that finding cuts against the holding that the label doesn't induce one two to act a certain way  definitively with a particular patient how much food would work at the far extreme than french's dr thrower repeatedly testified that this is this is an issue of french's you're trying to prescribe a medication patients take it the way you asked them to  r in the court's opinion at a thirty six and thirty seven in the appendix it's almost a whole page beginning at how one page on to the next page there are discussions about dr thrower that if