exist and should not be part of the record and if we read this record there's a number of issues that could be confrontational and very much out of water and with respect to the treatment of the attorneys with each other i think you can represent your clients to the best of your abilities and be very very presented in a fashion that is very difficult issues but you don't have to have difficulties among yourselves i think it is very very important to maintain civility in all of our practices especially since lawyers are office of the court application of the terms of the claims there really isn't anything the requires a great deal of construction for instance in the burgh taking example because the elements of the first claim in the first patent one thirty six and require that you have an order that you have  used to try and thing to happen was that when the characters are called into existence in the program they are spelled out  scribe realizing are able to accomplish the same thing and have no other or you would simply have real presentation have exactly the same situation and i ask you to remember that you have  hands of the defendants and in the initial paper mistral word wizard in this phrase was prominently used written by wars of words come alive that was taken even though the purported separation agreement which we think is beautiful were accurate or that it's supposed to be signed back to morris and yet it is taken and used throughout all of them were world presentations valid claim could be created certainly for the vast majority of the claims and we would ask that if you find a federal question jurisdiction fail it is a federal claims do not stand that it please the court i'd like to begin by picking up on the point that mr philip just left off i'm going to address primarily the state court cause of action in particular the judge or a cost mis application of the equipment tolling doctor to those claims one of the things we would like to request is in the event that the federal the decision is not reversed on any of the federal claims that the recall to decide whether or not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and if he does not to allow us to replay it in state court within thirty days accordance with section thirteen sixty seven of title twenty  to begin with this is important to remember i think that this was a motion to dismiss my summary judgment motion so we're operating under the the tumbly and i think about standards although it was decided after a judge or a tough decision in this case will require the court to look to the factual allegations it's not about how well organized they are or how well written they are or whether under the right headings in fact even says that the court is not a complete cannot be that well he bases that judge rape of bases dismissal on the wrong rule of law first of all and on facts that were beyond the complaint and upon he he stated in one point for example he said that there are no allegations in the complaint that he says there are many complaints fails to allege that the morris parties were unaware of certain highly public activities that it refers to s needs to be based on the allegations in the complaint and if there's a factual allegation made that is not merely conclusory he did need to be assumed to be true here the judge said not only did he not assume them to be true he said on four facts that he specifies which are excited on page twenty one of our reply brief that either were not in the amended complaint based on matters outside of any complaint or  specifically alleging that many complaints as having been hit and i note the chambers vs time warner case two eighty two of thirty one forty seven and cortex nine forty nine of second forty two that says that in order for a doctrine to be considered of a motion when that pilot episode which is when they said they discovered these actions what is essentially as a matter of law defeated the point equitable tolling doctrine but under new york law so a practice law section two or three specifically states that for equitable tolling the period is two years and the courts have said it including the first american title case of the southern district of new york two thousand and eight westlaw two eighty two zero nine one and the other cases cited in our brief and asked them about it and they were giving two rounds of briefing to explain the delay and they weren't able to hear that the court dismissed on those grounds he gave them every opportunity with two rounds a briefing to a large minutes and two full complaints where they could allege things and it's not good things as the more cars go through them that caused the discord of the parties and led to their breakup and separation agreement and the allegations are specifically we had a disagreement about this the more that morris was angry about this in two thousand must show that there was no way no diligence that would have shown that they could have found out about their act there are facts and they allege that they not only knew them but there were world was open to tourists giving national news did not sign that's that's right there was no because there was no mistake there was no relationship there's no mistake no it's not there was no relationship to each other because there wasn't a relationship between reid speaking parts he specifically dismissed one account because he said there's actually so there is something that was on behalf of greed speak against two of the defendants that friedman and hsu that they said that they should have filed their produce sherry duties but there was no complaint there was no facts  so the read speak claims were against two of the defense specifically but they gave no in the amended complaint they gave new allegations of what the fiduciary duty was or how it was violated and the separation agreement was signed between morris and the defen that would be a mistake if there was the specific separation yes i would be a mistake but i would i would obviously say that that would not be a difference that made a difference and the judge gave many different reasons for his various dismissals if i could go written word needs to come up every time someone speaks and follows the mouth as they speak and you can see it so you can associate each word god to rinse with the written word is nowhere to be found in the world and it's simply night and it points to the world at the so is itself to say look at this here what they presented all of the world episodes and they said this is an infringement and the judge was able to judge straight up was able to properly look at and a reader imagine what a perp abject would look like and literally wrote the letter is b u r p informed them into the shape of a perk and that's it that's the entire thing of what they're saying now page eighteen of our brief hears an utterance he or she can see only the corresponding word symbol and no other word symbol which they say all pictograms of the dog in the cloud except or are these word things the words so on this is very different from a typical motion dismiss an as you pointed out this is one single frame in the entirety of deaths i want to also say that the you know this is a little different from a typical implausibility argument because usually it's a they didn't give enough to put depend on notice here's the reverse seventy seven page forty seven exhibits they gave the court absolutely everything it needed to decide impossibility on the face of the complaint to make an analogy to copyright law there are tons of examples of cases where plain copyrighted work and the election for enjoyment and clerks the side of twelve the six motion dismissed stage that there's no substantial similarity because you can look at the work look at the legend printer and say there's no infringement here i have a couple things i wanted to say tomorrow is another day in a line to show this evening it could it would never be considered a copyright infringement or registered as copyright by itself short phrases or simply not copyright or any idea that they have in their brief that in teaching methodology or because they're pilot was about learning to share and there are a couple where world episodes are also about sharing premises those things are completely not copyrightable ideas mr peter said on trade own let me start by just by saying i think the court is exactly right about the structure of limitations questions i just want to point out that in response to the argument that the scientists never equitable tolling was always asserted as to in response to the statue of limitations argument next with respect to separation agreement i just would like to point out counsel stated that well step exclusively on the release of separation agreement he did not find as counsel suggested that there were no allegations in the complaint about her relationship with the opinion doesn't say that she was not it's not a basis for his decision and i submit that it's not that would suspect a separation agreement i would also like to point out that the they release it says that the defense nothing in the agreement prevents the defendants from selling products that incorporate words into physical structures re physical structures are not the same thing as animation and an animated character like a cat or dog and it's in the shape of the word cat or dog it's not a physical