board's challenging claims one through six and a mr stevens i have a few questions for you this is judge wallace on page twenty two of the for that proposition to have any looked at the the fact that there were three parties together challenging the patent and on that basis they were real parties in interest of each other for that purpose and  ok i ask you for authority let me ask another one on page twenty seven of the blu rays you argue that quote as a matter of policy and statutory construction the board's decision to allow that challenge judge i was just going to follow up on counsel's response to judge wallace in this particular instance facebook persists in attacking claims seven it's not attacking claim one it's not by virtue of the scope of those claims it may or may not listed as a claim but i don't believe the statute is limited in that respect if it's with respect to a claim and to change i all the claims except none of the claims except for planned seven before  party here arguing in favor of the board's judgment with respect to claims one through six and eight because she is no longer a party  estimate no longer a case of controversy well there is still the case of controversy around her because the patent i think it's probably mostly just from a practicality standpoint you know lock entered a settlement with l g and l g at that point wouldn't necessarily want to be doing any more do it but if there's really nothing more to it than that well i guess we're certainly not challenging whether or not she could have been joined necessarily a stop here breaching would be appropriate is supposed to make your case a st time before you before you go let's just go ahead and give us a very short answer on what is it that ha k in this i p r so they don't merely have a common interest with facebook they formalize that interest by joining facebook as a co party gaining the ability to control these proceedings as a co answer which is which is that you know that the statute says that the petitioner or its real party in interest or privy of the petitioner may not request meant in a proceeding expect a claim with those of facebook in a formal manner in this proceeding it it's the same as if facebook and l g had gotten together and said let's together challenge this patent there really shouldn't be any difference that l g came around later and you know at request to join her after facebook had already filed this petition either way they would be getting around the statute i mean essentially that are pending in this appeal can you actually address what is the scope what are the boundaries on what you can argue today well as well your honor algy's you know of the arguments about algae being a stop here can you explain why because just to be honest i don't see how you can that would be l g s interest and l yes i understood your honor i understand that we cannot address the merits of claims one through six and eight but with respect to the the arguments that that face and that i can see how it was clearly defined that way throughout the proceeding so why can you argue in defense of g avoiding the topic when this proceeding  well i can argue it as it relates to claim seven certainly and and i'm happy to proceed on that basis your honor i understand your disagreement on claims one through six and eight ok it sounds like we understand the boundaries of awful had was raised within the december for two thousand and seventeen institution decision in the facebook i p o ours uniloc chose not to move forward not to raise any issues of the sofitel as it relates to d that's that's the argument i haven't claimed seven unless you have any other additional questions it's very clear that the board is viewing this in the context of a request for a rehearing is viewing it in with its mistaken understanding that this is the st time the argument has been presented and the arguments and the decision on the request for rehearing and acceptance of facebook while i'm not at all thank you thank you all right we will not need supplemental briefing thank you the case is taken on the submission