is the scope of the judge's ruling here on one or one of the claims that were covered so up included in those claims are forty five dollars fourteen cents as far as i can tell from what we have in the record those claims were certainly against maybe some of the other defendants but not against dominoes but i don't know that we have the complete record what is your only claim  the particularly forty five and fourteen because my view of the record is that all the other stuff at least at some point was asserted against the defendant but those claims as far as i can tell were never controversy between you and dominoes about those three points you know there's there's no controversy there never has hasn't been in the context of this case now you are not that i'm aware of will come from that with your colleagues but thank then mooted motion dominoes pointed out to the district court that claim eight was not a rd against dominoes but claimed nine was at that point in that's no longer served at the end there's no subject matter to dictionary because there's no case for controversy so here i don't think that's the law i mean i don't think that's what you want to dance for the proposition that under the circumstances that case the trial loses the ability to assert those ready other three because they should have been brought at the time of the year and the lawyers say is that it is you can't have a controversy except by suing and that's not the law well what i'm saying is that if you try three cases you can't go back and cases don't we in which case or controversy was found because somebody wrote a letter saying you infringed x number of claims of the past and those cases without bringing suit in those cases are on that correct are the claims that you asserted and the pattern owner did not say no i'm limiting my claims to the specific set of claims so where the pan or does not limit the claims to be to be asserted you're absolutely right and the court can invalidate  court determination they should be extracted from this case that's certainly one possible result your honor the only part you conceding my point or are you just saying it's a possibility it's a possibility and i would i would  play they affirmatively asked the district court to find all the claims patent eligible having done that does domino's agree with that absolutely not so we certainly would dispute their stand up well i guess what i'm asking then your honor is to that extent there is a case of controversy because we we filed the declaratory judgment action on the claims and they affirmatively asked the judge to find a claim patentable if the d under fox group in the other cases he said i think it's the same analysis from our perspective that they're there not to serve against us i'm not sure the pretrial order was ever entered it comes down to whether i guess domino different and so to that extent dominoes does have a risk if you will in this present case for those claims that were asserted initially but then not asserted because the rule what happens i mean i know there are a lot of district court judges that make forced you to limit the assertion so what would happen if this case didn't go down in summary judgment so the district court has limited them to follow and let's assume they lose that at the end and there is final judgment is that judgment just with respect to those five but these what happens to the other claims that have never been formally withdrawn well your honor this is a very sort of broad statement and my reaction is that there would not that it that a district judge would not have authority to essentially substantively limit if you will or permanently limit a patent owner's right to i mean that happens all the time and as well that's what i'm asking you i just have never had a case i can help and i don't know i don't know i haven't either you don't know which is why i'm answering in some respects at a theoretical level but i don't see how the district judge has authority to  essentially take away all that five of your pad claims i have but i haven't researched the issue in and it's a very practical issue in the sense that it happens all the time i'm not aware of cases where it was appealed as you are describing where somebody claims are still alive if we get to the end of the day and there's final judgment and we've adjudicated these five claims i mean the answer maybe you just don't know what happens to the others they automatically included or does the judge tell  already to limit this to five just local rule given the authority to limit talk about fiber mia i don't know the answer that question your honor and i can ask my colleague if it was more involved in the pretrial the well either way nothing the district court did not impose the same limitation on your counter claims right that he didn't say ok and here's my order and here you have known or limited these five  infringer alleged infringer of limited of these that's true i mean i suppose that the judge just thinking it through may have thought that by limiting the plaintiff to five certain claims a trial that where there was an implicit limitation of those five  but but i'm just talking about the three claims that were originally asserted sure we have that's off the table now you agree the judgment has to be corrected to eliminate those three points we're talking about the claims other than the i want to shake you know your question before i answer it quite the question is were you limited by his for seeking to invalidly those other points which were originally asserted i don't believe so because of that counter the additional cleat that judged her bra invalidated amaranth was not put on notice that claims beyond the five asserted against dominoes were at issue rules and we try to limit people to what they can and cannot put be but just for your own take away it's really impossible for us for me to comprehend all of these documents when there's  everything going on very hard to follow so that if you go to a b b s wanted to go for it that's the cover page there's also the e c f notice at the top of the page and then you have noticed while claims or expert reports to cover more than five claims otherwise there's no arguments made us that there are any validity it is i want to understand what you're now saying is you're not addressing the case or controversy or you're addressing a different argument which is put on notice that these other claims were it is shoe under the cowardly i'm making that argument during this portion of my role are emitted it's brief but yes we previously discussed the whole case or controversy now saying there was no notice to amaranth that the other claims were we did not raise that in your opening or you which is a bit unfair here oh well i did say that the court validated nine unassertive claims so then you're out of energy yes question is but i'm answering questions that also takes me off of what i would love also like to discuss that so for example the district court found that the claims were routine in conventional and in doing so they had to make a factual determination based on the record before