is right it wasn't on the table nobody suggested that the claim of loud long term storage of any sort and your written description argument depends on the disparity between a long term in other words that those two requirements and were two requirements that were stated in the patent about think she's the invention being i don't have any or even intermediate storage and i don't require user laughton the court and i believe this is appendix a three seventy eight as my recollection in the market and said those were two distinct things and there was no reason why you had to claim all those things in any particular claim and therefore i'm not reading a storage limitation that where the came in your honor was in the written description because motorola vend the way judge robinson does her proceedings as the summary judgment motions are filed at the same time as the market so in the alternative the argument was made if you don't have the stor limitation in there that motorola saw during claim construction then you violate the written description the argument made by i v was no we have written description for no storage limitation because we describe using the internet as an intermediary device and our expert through a declaration says that there is transients storage subsidy that goes on temporary storage and there so that that was the claim construction issue now given that claimed construction at trial is what the court said it written description i'm not going to decide summary judgment of written description because i believe there's a factual issue as to whether there's disclosure of this transience story through the use of the internet close still wouldn't be enough because the claim construction actually allows this any period of storage you know that wasn't at the summary judgment that was not the position was not present that confirms that this question of long term storage was was because of the claim construction position was taken in summary judgment and judge robinson's procedures that she would consider summary judgment in connection with the claim construction so the position was taken then you have there is a stor limitation storage and intermediate devices is and then the alternative position in the written description summary judgment motion the time was if you don't have that right in other words if that limitation is not part of claim forty one in this case then it's invalid for written description but there's no question long term storage that continues after the transfer takes place and that well apart from whether the issue was raised the judge robinson was quite correct that the that the claims here don't include long term storage is not part of the transfer it know that the written description issue is that the claims allow long term storage as part of the transfer process so in other words that i don't understand what that means is but it is i understand  some storage that continues after the transfer is complete and i don't see that the claims addressed what are covered so when i would need when you say that device are you talking about the tos devices or talk about that those undesirable we don't want to do that so why wouldn't one just construe the claim not to reach that one but that that was an obvious position ivy's position was any type of storage is a lot they didn't take the position in response to claim construction said we want and negative limitation on the high end their argument and the district court's conclusion which is the appendix of three seventy eight that's the market opinion is there's no limitations storage at all your honor and so the device just to address your says that the written description refers to internet transmission internet even for devices that are often temporarily stores things that routers are somewhere along the way and so i asked a lot had that that wasn't that was the response a written internet presents transience storage during transfer so rather than argue that factual dispute the decision was made well let's just focus on the long term storage fees which there was no argument that that was allowed by the claim and other words long term storage during transfer everybody agreed the market opinion said there is no limitation on storage during transferred all of their expert agreed repeatedly that yes long term storage during transfer long term storage is bad it's talking about one term storage after the transfer is completed that would occur for example in a well not long term storage as it isn't just after there's no distinction that's being made right because you could have an e mail system and there are plenty of those that when it's popped in other words it's damo that that's the end of the message doesn't retain a copy but you do have for security issues the fact is it exists there exists and in some interim devices that are outside the control of receiving party and that creates a security risk that's what the patent says there is an obvious function made in the patent between long term storage after transfer versus long term storage during transfer and your honor you know you'll never have the second long term storage during transfer not just the disparagement issue that's there but in terms of the way the invention described so in concertina the patent at wind sixty it says in the present invention so when the president mentioned broad language to send that file from want to enter connected p c to another each p c must be able to detect communication responses from other p c s so in other words there's already a ping that's being received by the sender as opposed to being stored by the carrier somewhere yes if that's correct the authentication message would be received by the sender as well as then a delivery port and shelly where where in the generates a delivery report right and that's obviously goes to the obviousness argument as to the importance of that and having a third party earth an educator so that there's no dispute between parties in the instance of when there's a lack of trust so to speak in terms of the direct infringement issue there's there was absolutely no evidence so let's just focus on the delivery port because under this until you can chase what's required is that i salute the me just ask you this x about three sentences ago with the current place where right does the user the center the customer not benefit from the anti fraudulent claim benefit that you just mentioned that the authentic third party authenticator provides well because you're not talking about the delivery confirmation message there's two separate apartments there's also the report as well and it's the report that we focused on which would be generated by it was q s was it in these what's called the m m s cities which means something in the networks of the service providers somebody like rising for example there was a point or pointed to a lot that was generated it's a you said that it was a benefit to do this to have a third party authenticator why is that not a benefit that under your reading of centurion is a benefit to the user of the system two different benefits and we're talking about so the benefit in terms of the motivation to combine was that in the reference that was direct where the sender of the would receive or sees me would send the delivery confirmation message  to have a party back with the recipient would send a delivery confirmation to the sender and then there would be a delivery report that we degenerate that the reference itself which the primary reference is the over and reference that the part of the reason why you do that is because parties may not trust and generate contemporaneous records of that the mcauley reference further recognizes having a third party in there it transmits the messages as well feature you're talking about certain very the third party authenticators receiving information that it's been received and generating a report ok so it's that last piece the generating a report so in that it was that not part of your obviousness case you didn't say that there was a motivation to generate a report night if there are no there absolutely yes that is part of the honest and i thought that the obviousness testimony was that there was a benefit to the sender in being able to and that it was sent but that with respect to three with respect to right infringement with respect to three of the carriers there that opportunity does not exist that the sender cannot secure that benefit of  being able to secure confirmation work that's correct that is correct that is correct so those are and that's the distinction that i'm trying to draw so with respect to the motivation to combine the question was w be a motivation of somebody that already recognizes a problem when there are these there was no dispute that there was a delivery confirmation message from sender to me from recipient to sender as well as the direct delivery report with respect to that particular issue if that were the argument would be a damages i understand that you are right and which we haven't raised it but that isn't that isn't the here there was no evidence that was met right and no evidence that was substitute in the position of the sender generating the messages in the report the the third party authenticator so didn't there was no dispute as to whether there would be a motivation to generate a delivery report whatsoever the court i think it's important if the written description argument to you also let's stick with the the direction of arrangement clinton's we were discussing it just now if i understand correctly you don't dispute that with respect to three of the it but they can't get what we have with respect to the other one is that it read that there's no evidence that the report was that there would be no there a capability a certain certainly there was there evidence that people that the carriers were actually doing this no but the capability is there and it but it doesn't matter to the claim because the claim only requires that the authentication device generate the delimiter where it doesn't require it to go back and you still benefit from that being there because you can call the carrier or you can look at your bell and see what messages you send to one carrier but tell us what really is any carrier because it's going to be recorded at the authentication device it's off the record it was pretty clear that this to the three you couldn't get the message that it wouldn't be sent back doesn't mean that he's i didn't get it through alternative means it doesn't mean that it's not there for you to call the carrier or get it on your fil i think the point with direct infringement is that you benefit from each of the limitations even essentially it doesn't require that you literally benefit on a element b this does seem awfully important was there evidence as to three of the carriers that there was no way for the sender for example to get the information about that their message had been received it's not that there was no way to get that information because by definition of it being retained at the m s c there is a way to get it's that it wasn't actually sent back to them that would be part of the system you could get the information you'd have to go outside the system to get them from a fair that would be fair but again and again the claim what the claim requires is only that  by the third so third party i found to cater that the message was received and you're benefiting from it regardless of whether you see it because there is a saying that then would you really benefit from it if you never could get it you don't have to know that requirement free for use you don't have to all you do is put into service even in but the problem is how many how do you benefit from that if you don't know that the future insists well i'll give you an example your hon mean there could be a thousand inventions in a cell phone that you don't know exist but you're benefiting from all the time phones get faster you don't know how it's getting faster you don't know  inner workings of it but nevertheless you're benefiting from it from from the future you don't know what's going on it's a situation in which somebody is doing something for you that benefits you so the question here is  terms of the ability of the user to secure verification easier doesn't know about the bill you're perfect and so it's a little bit difficult to see how that's a benefit to the us now in terms of any fraud that something which arguably benefits the user even though the user doesn't know about but it seems to me that if the if the claim benefit is being able to get the report and the user doesn't know about the ability or it's a little difficult to see how the users benefit w benefiting from someone making sure that message was delivered and you are benefiting on that basis once they're so there's a device out there that's confirming this for you you benefit by having someone confirm something for you if you had a banker confirming all your all your transactions for you that's a benefits you whether you know the bank is confirming them for you or not someone is confirming delivery of these messages for these users and that's a benefit that they're receiving whether they get that report on the jury instruction which was the m m s hardware and software was what was pointed to as the as the the the piece that we were pointing to if you don't have a  tax with the picture you don't have multimedia and not having multimedia you can't be the same as having multimedia well it's secure here's my confusion about that it seems to me that what you just sat which i think is the argument you made and your brief is a multimedia master i guess i'm truly seeing her as like one hundred eighty degrees backwards and i did so if you can need to explain it seems to me it's one thing to say it's not infringing it's another thing to say forget about what the when they have the same functionality when aside you also we also have advertisements and what was called moto care which is on their website which tells you how highlights this feature and tells you how to use it across mops what care there's also literally no counter evidence and tat it was struck there was no witness no one got up from motorola and said we didn't have intent to for this jury the jury never heard anything about scintilla so scintilla is not a basis to negate intent that they have nothing that negates intent on their side of the scale and then on our side of the scale we have manuals we have all the products w yup and you have the fact that they didn't change i never change their behavior afterwards so when you stack all these things on our side and the dearth of evidence for that there's more than substantial evidence to infer intent  then again saying that only two manuals having it when you have evidence that cuts across that can't negate intent for evidence that cuts across all models and you can't not saying we have no intent because that can't be articulated through the mouth of an attorney because it needs to come from a witness you need to come from motorola and that's what judge robinson recognized when she six thirty nine six three every right and that's the trial record three ninety nine eleven to thirteen and then it's page forty nine and fifty of our brief arm and the other  in any way available correct now that where is that the line he just showed me i'm understanding say something about u so did you i mean that sounds like a an argument for not an infringement not not no benefit just not an infringement as to all of the calls that the lever all carry that carriers other than us cellular i you making that argument well no we're talking about the benefit bees so that you just said something about three of the cat you said this is evidence i can't read it this fast says that three of the carriers don't even generate a report how in the world it's even available as to why and there was no evidence whatsoever provided that that was ever done that it was ever used for any purpose you heard enough of a bunch of speculation by these counsel saying well that could be used for billing again there's no excuse me no automatic receipt and there's no pointing to whether it be in the manuals themselves or and this website that that the user set these up for automatic receipt of these messages so you know if you're lacking that functionality as well and so that what we have here is it isn't broad well i pointed to two of the manuals and in the two of the manuals i can point to picture intact being an example a challenge i can't point to any function now it says set they said do this with automatic delivery of the message and then there's a website statement that isn't particular that any of the phones where there's just a generic statement about sending m m s messages and there's no discussion in there about setting these phones up for automatic delivery you know what that why you would want to do that what the benefits are of doing battle so we haven't you know there's a gaping hole in that and this is their burden to show this you know there was a lot of talk about motorola not having and witness to come up and rebut this but it's their burden to show the intent required for inducement it's not motorola burden to show a lack of intent now there was your honor in addition one other question about and i believe this goes to both the contrib and the inducement point about whether a picture only message would use case that that and that would be there was no dispute that that would be a substantial amount of fringe and use i think you saw that here read the argument was that can't be because it doesn't infringe which i don't quite understand that logic but that was that was the argument that was made so without that i won't go back to address the room description much or honors any question there or we didn't address the obviousness i don't know if there are questions specific