scars or distinguished cross medical on its facts or explain anything about why it's not applicable it fails to treat or cited in any way at all and in fact the district court decision below on making requiring the to claim limitations are at issue i won't quote them verbatim they vary among the claims with all the claims every issue require for a bit of li a communication link between the ultrasound transmitters and the source of the t s i and they all require a system a sort of location code mapping system that be set up so that when the transmitters transmitter location codes the system can map each one uniquely to a location with regard to that last limitation it's very important to note that if you look at pages sixteen thirty two sixteen thirty three of the appendix you'll see that senator asserted an entire non infringement argument on the grounds that the data in their system could not do this unique mapping and therefore they were missing a claim with the taisha and that was disputed fact about whether they could or couldn't but no one disputed it as an affirmative limitation of the claim the last point i'm listed in the cleanings or the one that once taken completes the ascent it's the latter and i think i would say it this way around or they don't dispute that let's assume for a moment they're not responsible for the third party in stocks we dispute district court said that there were several and addressed alternative theories of non infringement i don't i don't recall that one room story i don't recall him saying they were under drugs still trying to blunt infringement and summary and most importantly it didn't happen and that's why when you look at the read brief if you look at pages for example three thirty two thirty six and thirty seven of the read brief you'll see statements to this the expert actually  it they didn't challenge it in their motion so i had no reason to respond any more than i would argue about whether i had standing but their witness to testify that he supervises the standard routine when they're in the field doing an installation and they had very carefully drafted their motion specifically addressing the installing trudge to say we don't install the backbone network so we said here's all the evidence that you installed the rest of it you don't dispute the party seem to be agreeing with that mc and method find case doesn't apply when they came to summary judgment hearing months later then they said well it's not just that we don't install the bank on that work we don't even install the sonnet or sense system itself and if you arguing that you put the rest in and but because you don't get the bank phone network and you don't in french now you're saying you don't put the backbone and some other stuff we simply said our cross medical argument is unaffected by that because w start with one thing and put the other nine things in and or whether you start with one thing a third quarter put say seven more and so you have eight and do the west still which is said to show that you do the less thing so alec ross medical argument that with the sort of from the beginning is unaffected here's the most critical point in recall in response to your question earlier where you say we're was it raised earlier beyond that procedural history that i just described the ol us saying we meet your summary judgment motion with our opposition and then you change it so our same argument applies beyond that everything else in this entire narrative in their bri about joint infringement series and message playing mortgage mess and new evidence being raised on appeal it's all an accurate none of that is supported by the record and before i get into what i think should be done with it i want to just pick off a few key points of the court is not misled by what they're doing with a very simple straightforward procedural history at page thirty nine of the  we did and there was no issue within frenchmen contentions there was no motion brought in fact there was quite the opposite when we responded to the discovery requests as we pointed out at our brief one of their discovery quest request said and a whole bunch of other responses but they accepted that and we served our expert report we served them and we said you're building this it was all this close and so what happened was the only thing that changed at all was when they said in the face of a chore age and an expert report you're installing your system when they said aha but that doesn't include the backbone network we said cross medical that doesn't matter when they came to sell summary judgment or given and they said it doesn't put the bank on network and some other stuff we said that's a realm of dispute that we think the other stuff is yours but we said as long as you do in the end but i can't be expected to respond and offer evidence that they're installing the system when i've choice them with that they haven't disputed that in summary judgment it would be like in a conventional motion if you have five claim limitations and i say give me summary judgment i don't do limitation and wan requires aluminum screws i just feel scripts i might say no here's some factory has some evidence he has aluminum screws i might say no you have my claim wrong it covers all kinds of screws but i wouldn't argue about why you know may please court as i understand it some tracks current infringement theory is that we can figure who location transmitters we  vapid location codes those are the last two steps and judge from to you actually as i said and include the last two steps in time not in the claim and therefore we've become the final assembler in the maker and i have several points i want to make fact to cross to this very theory would cross medical theory under the court scheduling order they were required to give us their infringement contentions infringement contentions are at they started a twenty one thirty three they go on for about fifty pages and what they did was that this actually really matters in the minutes leading out so i'm going to look at thirty eight twenty three all responses are seventeen forty two to forty three and all they did we went back and we said separately for each asserted claim an issue when you're reading from seventeen forty two so that and this is all about products infringing which doesn't go to what activities with respect to a product in france as well it does in the sense that it asks for the theories of infringement after that and the complete fact factual basis for each and where each limitation of the claims are found in the accused product and it goes on and on and all they referred to was back to the infringement contentions that that we had already just that claims the asserted claims on our system they never said anything about installation they never said anything about making and i think most importantly for purposes of this they never said anything about mapping location  the there was never during the entire case of infringement contentions expert reports there was never any reference to mapping location codes which seems to be the key now i suppose installation but even on installation we address installation in the sense that there are parts like the backbone network like like the computer hardware that and like the cisco as access points which are provided usually by cisco which they say are the r f transmitters that that's not part of the song or sense archelaus it's not it's part of the system that they accused when you look i think it's page sixteen of our brief we have the drawing that they use to show the infringement and some of the components are things we supply and some of the components or things that we don't supply that other supply we said very clearly to them we don't supply the backbone network the internet we don't supply the access points which you alleged are the they are of transmitters we don't supply those things so we don't supply the whole system we don't install those things french make contentions and if you look at their at the reply brief on page thirty they say and i'm going to quote it it is true that making and installing were not contained and sent tracts infringement contentions or expert report they never could be making or installing in there not only in their contentious they never put them in their expert report we put in our expert report that our expert was dr happy that i think it's eighty six i thought their contention components that's at eleven eighty seven we then came in with an expert report where at eight sixteen forty two our experts said sonic four doesn't make all of the components he said that clearly their expert didn't come back and say well you installed them what their expert came back and said this is dr mr about this activity at a seven ninety eight to ninety nine he came back and he said well if you don't make all the components then there's induced infringement that's what he said it a seven ninety eight ninety nine never said the installation is an infringement they said that there's induced infringement when we got the summary judgment we thought that there was going to be in a deuced infringement argument based on that and mr kaplan told judge judge anders that that was not in the case that their expert shouldn't  and then he gets back to hunt paragraph five hundred it's my opinion based on this understanding that senator system directly infringes every asserted claim in the alternative induces why does that page seven nine tell you that configuring produces direct inference when we were never told anything about mapping location codes you're on and you will look throughout this record executive and from configuring your i'm sorry is that different configuring that is different than configure configuring the location transmitters it's putting them up where they belong in the system the mapping location code is the data entry they never said a word to us about mapping location codes and that's exactly what it footnote three judge andrew said this is a brand new theory of infringement after summary judgment briefing we have a summary judgment argument where we argued about whether they had evidence of installation gone back and forth about what the evidence was about installation they never came back and said well your people are mapping the location codes and that's what charge andrew said i'm going to give everyone another chance to write me a letter and tell me what that's installation evidence as and they wrote back a letter for the first time in this entire case raising mapping location codes and judge andrew said after we had gone through this over and over it's untimely and it's  unpersuasive i would like to make a point on the merits because i have a feeling we're just getting tied up in the in the procedure of what happened and it's you know going down memory lane can be fun but it's well there there is also you know you make  there is also no evidence in the record that mapping location codes is the last thing that happens they never took discovery on this and when you look at the evidence they have about a basically said he doesn't say it's the last thing that happened he said are people enter data he's ever said that was the last thing that happened and there are enter the data and they are trying to make sure everything's outward that doesn't mean it's the last thing that happened the gateways have to be installed the internet that we're back on has to be connected to the system the tags the personal the personal devices the tags they have to be activated there was no testimony about the order in which things happened and on that on that point we don't know and he was there some testimony that you can't make sure everything is working on the other stuff i don't think there was any law that says if you go in and you map the location codes and someone else has put in other parts of the system that that makes you the infringer of the whole system and he talked about cross medical cross medical was a very different case company was hired to input the location codes that that makes them responsible for the whole system and that's not anything that supported by any law very different to say send chilian which is what we relied on  centralian requires combining all of the claimant patients and saying well you do the last thing and therefore you're responsible for everything that happened for that we don't know of any case it supports a cross doesn't of remember the original motion was we don't supply the backbone network we don't put in all the installation stuff that they did when said the backbone network being supplied by the customer doesn't matter i'm sure the council made a mistake but the location code testimony was in that original opposition as part of the original opposition brief we filed i think it's one twenty eight or one twenty nine you'll see the same testimony cit the only difference between our opposition and the supplemental stuff is simply that the supplemental stuff is a subset because what we filed the opposition we had no notice from their opening brief installation we all agree to do the installation the failure to provide the backbone network is no defense when when they said we're disputing that we do some of the installation three months later at summary judgment we said ok we'll we won't fight you on percent sure that the location code is somewhere in the expert shorts or report i can't locate it right now but it doesn't matter it was our opposition you know our expert told them that it was making it issue and  and and they knew their summary judgment motions said i think seven or eight or nine times we don't make we don't make and the final point i want to make on this procedural thing your honor is that there's a whole story here about how we didn't disclose making but what did they think we were pursuing we didn't disclose selling iraq or for sale and they filed the summary judgment motion and we showed you nothing to support his statement that he's made to the court that the case was always based on the self and in fact there's another blank place where it should be it's a question if you look at footnote eleven of the brief they say well we didn't move for summary judgment on this make inquiry that they sort of agree and they say but we couldn't have been expected to move on something that santrac never asserted as if they were only moving on what we did asserted but they don't tell you what else they think that was because there's nothing inconsistent for the time of the expert report we were telling them it's making and laundry the only other point i want to make because this whole procedural history i mean i've been up for probably ten cases of this court i've never in something like this this entire procedural history if they had any point to any merit