you had gotten into it me if this is an oversimplification is that in the eighteen to case since it seems conceded that they aren't infringing that your car is against a or the other i would think wouldn't matter as far as a t n t is concerned since they stopped whatever they were doing that you say they should've been doing before the patent issue made and recorded voice responses and and that eighteen t had to sign off on the contract with paragon dr on his company because it was a  confidentiality how can you have a misappropriation crane when you're really stuck with your patent knowing i gather it's not disputed that my behind you have missed out know the misappropriation took place before that is it a three sixty or so if that's their that's the argument of about that but to really terror thing was that they said we have no interest in this invention and they said that in october of one thousand nine hundred six in fact in august of ninety ninety six they had announced that they were going easy international call back for their services eighteen she was going to use six used to your system concede that it's essence of our time right and that being the case that there was no reason why the statute of limitations didn't run no it was tools just told that we didn't know why we didn't know about it until mr wood said it's exactly the same technology prior to that time they always said we know we don't we don't know anything about it we don't know anything about the international call record nonsense didn't say how it worked it learn that the other systems did not use when did you learn that they did use your system and when they learned said in open court to exactly the same technology that's first we knew about it goes into the record and at that point there was a it was clear that they were using the same invention because mr wood said they were using same engine and you have a toll on the stand she limitations if we had no way of knowing we were going i don't discover w we ever did and with regard to the commission they say that that claim wasn't before the district court how are we supposed to know that well our contract certainly was about your claim or so in the filing that we're going to get here on summary judgment we could also get a clarification of what was before the district court on the in the patent in there and in their system the reference to what sin is which is not what eighteen temperatures after all at that particular time a t m t wasn't doing anything in this area knowledge that they had disclosed their patent application to it t n t in conjunction with the knowledge that a t m t had are already decided to start providing connection callbacks services all known by cigarettes that's all that's required there is no necessity for them to prove their eighteen t was in fact doing it eighteen t at that time could have been doing something quite different but that doesn't mean that they they're sutton and this is a quote because i thought that relying on pap infringement would be an adequate limited and then he goes on to say in response to the court question it's as if we have four different cases here not just two different cases we can't even agree as to what's in the complaint there was no breach of contract claim in the complaint you know they're both there was a that are asserted lee in the may fourth two thousand and seven declaration of your declaration and i'm sorry ok to that well this may not be something you can were attached to that exhibit right and so that that declaration that's because ok now you're representing for example of the gun third two thousand and two declaration was paired attached to about what what i'm really trying to get at right now is is a dispute between the parties as to what was attached to that declaration and i want to make sure that gunther which they've moved to strike was in fact included as  that declaration you say yes i do your honor ok we're going to provide the record so you know i hear us ok then well but this is not something that would be part of the the record of the summary judgment persist i don't think is i declarations i filed opposition to their motion to start well that the declaration and i'm i'm not sure what this declaration was filed in response to because it was a little confusion in the district court as to exactly what your nay two thousand and seven declaration was responding to but to the extent that it was well whenever it was responded to it either did or didn't did according to you didn't according to them contain a number of attachments the whole question as with any of this stuff before the district court and one of them is gunther exhibit for anybody to another is paragraph ten of that and the fourth one was the one one thirty one declaration of aman which was i'm sorry that that is not in  the the just those three those three hundred well it would be it would be helpful to us in responding to the motion to strike to know for sure what was attached to the there happy to provide you with well there may not be any discriminate it's perhaps this would doesn't disagree with you that those three documents were attached to the ne two thousand and seven declaration you know you know what i'm