hung up on is that the district court made a finding or at least said that you didn't present any evidence that patent owner knew or should have known about what they were twelve or forty two or however many prior references that you but we did present that evidence with respect to section one and one and also with respect to section one of two we believe the case is exceptional with respect to section one of one of the section one of two references or just add in additional  answer to my question but leaving that aside for a moment if the one i want is something different right because in that regard you're not talking about prior art references you just say on its face he should've known that this claim out there that established anticipation that's what religious or all how do we know that the pattern over owner knew those so you're saying that any reasonable person conducting an investigation would have come across these pieces of are some cases on one side of the issue and on the others can you tell us a little more about one hundred one i mean you're saying that it was just on its face the judge didn't have to do anything we didn't have to show that the pattern on the new anything but it was i mean we have them in every  one to one case some but the pattern on a will use the cases that have come out in terms of one of one eligibility and the other side will use the other cases so it's why is this something that you look at the claim that it's a slam dunk there's no way no how that this would have passed mustard and argument that was made by ross trial that they had some kind of a solution to a problem that specifically arose in computer based communication networks there is nothing in the limitations of the claim that s transmits receives and stores data that's it the communication module only has one function it receives data and this court is made clear that that type of conventional computer activity in function several do it cases and don't remember which one this was but in that case the what the court didn't we rely on the fact that they had at least in one case the amazon case pursued the case at least to trial or pursued the case you're familiar with i'm talking about you in this case i that you're speaking of your honor there was a trial it went all the way the trial and the case lasted for quite some time and you at last on summary judgment here there was not a summary judgment but we presented arguments we believe  let me ask about them in this case involves kind of an interesting question about the intersection of little eleven and will talk to eighty five or the absence of an intersection between the two and we know the supreme court has referred to one of the components or one of the elements  conclusion that the references rendered out so you did the chief judge asked some questions one of the two questions you did review those those other prior and not the use fourteen references or the other thirteen of the fourteen references that were raised up to the players file one of the problems i have with both your affidavit and your clients is that either included no evidence to corroborate any of your assertions meaning that the statements in your after the black foundation you are telling me did these things i don't see it in your answer david does the record contain don't have that in there maybe i'm missing misunderstood so you're saying you knew about the private references priest we knew about one priest is that one of the fourteen we've been talking in we were talking  believe it so how come the district court at appendix twenty says instead defendant's contention seems to be that a reasonable piece investigation should have been brought references to pointers attention the defendant presents no evidence the plaintiff knew or s to eighty five the suggestion that two eighty five should be applied in a manner that contravenes game support with left and right you're familiar with what i'm talking about if we conclude that that's just not right and that's just not correct as a matter of law that even though we'll eleven says we're trying to determine that somehow application of two eighty five under these circumstances would be in tension with rule eleven is there a reason why we wouldn't have to vacate this opinion or  why isn't the evidence in this case with respect to your company your clients conduct and bring other suits and the settlements and gauge the numbers in the pockets of all the stuff that's part of this record why isn't that overwhelming evidence we'll find are and still don't believe in all the district court i believe that there was anything exceptional or unusual about the way those cases handle but i found it ironic that  cite state understatement of related cases you cited a number of cases that and the last children in the texas what's the status of those cases are they still ongoing i believe  he should be awarded but this record has to look at the reasons for that from us and i'm in this case when you look at the reasons for compliance with i think that you'll find that this is a case that stands out from others because of the we of the argument made by ross trial with respect to the email i would just like to point out that that was an e mail that was by no means a model like larry but it's a message as judge some cases when somebody even the patent owner pursued pursues this for years and uses everything there's more of a compelling argument for two eighty five b but the problem is that looks like the case may have had some merit because it went along just as long as it did in your case we there's something sympathy or should that should there be some sympathy for the district court judge that the parties having pulled back very very early on which is something that the system would want to see happen particularly with claims that are at least weak that we then we have a counter purpose of we award attorneys fees doesn't that incentivize the other stuff the other side to keep pursuing the claims just because they're go that and had rushed out withdrawn their complaint in compliance with rule and stated we have done so because we did not see these were one argument prior to filing this case we have done so because we did not know about