essentially un done the consent or so just the opposite the existence of a consent or weighed against the fear of damages because if we asked for damages we ended what we just got and that's true in the potentially on the hook for what turned out to be quite a lot of money it is at a minimum uncertain what the effect of a district court affirmed final invest in the validity ruling would be on that doesn't that put liability for petitioning the government action of your being liable the question is whether there is a real live dispute in which consequences matter to the participants over whether this patent is sent down all the participants organic see there has to be a real judicial controversy there has to be a set of facts there has to be a concern for violations the one trying to have it both ways the one trying to walk to the district lines of work compliance but there's also a controversy so in terms of speculation if simply fear in validity is a basis to assume that the district court has jurisdiction over everyone within every one of the past has a problem we can a race organic feed we can raise the myriad of activities that were being performed after the end to the consent order you accuse them of that in your petition for enforcement they are infringing by virtue of the actions they take their infringing our three eight zero patents you should go after them for horsemen that is a threat analysis not at all she's just wrong about that absolutely because under our construction we didn't think there was any invalidity issues in fact that was the concern of text entry devices it was defined in adopted by the court of the keypad a virtual keypad capable of entering the detail of text messages the district court then goes on to dismiss our expert details not appearing on construction and therefore his distinguishing between details and pretend messages was for not the district court ignored the own the claim construction that she district court litigation seems to me to be the asserted claim and the asserted claims aren't limited to one to five to twelve seventeen thirty four and thirty five and my wrong about i didn't assume this was meaning this was not with meaning to cover all of the other claims and i thought this with meaning to say that these claims might be invalid herpes alternative reason correctly and i interpret that to be that but it's not your belief that she was intending to invalidate the whole patent do you think the order was simply a mistake on her part the language of the order i don't know what she was thinking at this point your honor certainly but the order does not conform to the motions or to the  and i mean one has to pay some attention to what might be viewed as technicalities here but you are of your claim that started this case applies to all of the claims the summary judgment said said at least ones that have for task either by affirmative statement and or omission seem to accept the idea that although there might be disagreement about the construction of the claims any such disagreement had no bearing on the validity analysis flatware did can you just clarify that for them the district court said that with both with respect to both of the claimed construction argue that it mattered and i bailed them you're saying where they did they never even tried it in our position as they never tried in the district court and they didn't try here to show how any of it made any difference whatsoever and indeed and so in the end the not only did it so it's adopted there but said and prior tech doesn't show me in any of these arguments why it makes any difference whatsoever and the there's nothing to that effect but wait i mean what about discrete can because first of all their proposal which was not on the plane but said that they need to be capable of detail text messaging which we accept it doesn't mean that it only applies to detail text messages because the claims don't actually say that and there's no that i don't think this is for the without some something to ground it or to explain in order to give it some sort of some reason to think that there is something to support it because otherwise all you would ever have to do to defeat an anticipation argument is manual which nobody suggested not to disclose detail text messages actually made render this obvious and that and so that and there's no you know just applying appl keypad not shown that allows composition of text messages while the voter is underway here and that's and if you can pair that is if you can play or compare that disclosure to what was actually and in the past which is just talking about a text entry arguments below was that this was actually invalid section one hundred one as well it really codes and very little and to read is actually provides you in the references just random that you just quoted more detail than is versus their construction of back terms produces a different result of this claim alan that read on this for which is a basis for distinction to tell perhaps a message which is a text entry device had a had that had the construction actually been applied to the court claims it adopted it would have messages so is it common for line eleven so the user can enter a detail text message when able and can send a general category a message was unable to the