abstract hypothetical question consented to judge when we finally d j action in the spring of two thousand and eight and we would never be but like there is an ability patent law is for a first to file a generic company to enter the market but that company refrained from doing so for whatever reason there is i believe a seventy five but it's seems to me to be completely different to to be facing a stipulation where you've given up your chair and to have a pending challenge which is exactly what was the case the care decision  trial on the eight forty eight forty one case and ted had lost and there was a permanent injury not a preliminary injunction in place with regard to the eight forty one would that be sufficient now sufficiently analogous to the stipulation intense injunction is accessed in the marketplace and therefore the battle in in a sense and so why would almost the same implications as a permanent injunction apply in that the prospect of overturning a plumber in john junction is not this nothing terribly daunting about that i mean if you have a good strong case and we feel we have a very good strong case we have a pattern of conduct that is truly our wage injunction is going to stay in place it is still tattered spiration all i'm saying is there's an additional sir let me just lay this out is an additional circumstance which is there in joint venture action is equivalent to the stipulation because they can't launch now right in my not that in this case in character there is ongoing litigation challenging that first patent the answer and which hasn't been finally resolved yes there more like america this case is much more like janssen and if i try to explain that there are two hypothetical situations the situation now which is the actual facts there enjoy the digit that are blocking them they're enjoying under this hypothetical where they somehow convinced this judge that that when we had the burden of proof on an equitable conduct that to overturn that if they'd overturned that they'd still want a lot of the d j patents all they do is they put a tablet in and trigger fundamental way this case plays out in terms of the injunction the injunction is blocking them under article three of the constitution had to look is there a real controversy other d j patents blocking them and if not if they get resolution to egypt that has made a difference kroger of one hundred eighty here and so after that's what were they can sell and the point is that that the fact that all you want to do is trigger on hundred eighty days no one can go to market that goes directly contrary to the fundamental we do have the court opinion which is down to plymouth junction recited facts in a different era the patent already been up held by this court you know i mean talk about chances of success the chances of success in the second  company likes better than their other and what it's about is the overall competing goals and one hundred eighty days part of that overall incentive structure if you read backs in the all these other generic sort of paragraph three what does that mean for you when you file your should've it's what was the situation at the time the suit was filed was a situation of the time the district court entered a judgment that's where percy is clearly present and the article three requirements are actually would challenge that entry even though i had perceived final approval and you have to play along in advance in order to have a meaningful launch and you want certainty that's what this whole statute the civil action to obtain at certainty is about if ted has to wait until open trolls and we have a controversy and whatever's going to happen in this complicated framework can be sorted out by the district court for m