we have four argued cases this morning but the counsel for the st two should be aware that we intend to only hear arguments in the st of those two since their word for word identical amazon customers listeners petitioners but they're simply not true correct that liar ok what's your obligation as an attorney to correctly present facts to this case i think like in the reply i  certainly wrong absolutely obvious really didn't make our preparation for this case uneasy now trying to figure out who you were talking about i agree your honor and i apologize to the court so the real question right ok right so in order to make under the world case your motion to terminate has to do more than just say i think amazon is a real party and injured right of course you can just say that so i've got a copy of the motion terminated here in front of me and i see that in two places you say the very allegation petitioners failed to party in interest in this proceeding because of its conduct with regard to this proceeding i want you to exclude all of the conduct of the amazon or anybody else in virginia or in texas no limitation is that amazon took over speedier ok the next media was named as a real party in the christian provided some money i guess to the petitioners correct like they'd not theirs i think that there's and the way i read it was that it's primarily same the main theory that you have is that the real the parties that were named as a real party in interest to the i p r's that those par that it's not that good it isn't going to answer my question i relieve you of my concerns i really think that you need to tell me where it is that you are you'd that amazon was an r p i are i think that but that doesn't go to the theory i mean maybe it does but i don't see where you stack for theory and argument for why amazon is a real party in interest to the i p r so i'd like i said the theory that you have here is a different the other the theory that we're primarily saying was is they at amazon was acting as a proxy for the amazon customers by filing the d j they filed do think that their relationship in that texas case can matter ok but i don't see where it's argued here oh i'm so pleased with it but i what i want to know is one you walk through some of the taylor factors with amazon so you say they have an interest we'll have you two minutes the file the i p r they control the i p r they have the right to make arguments they how do you stop the facts they can control appeals archives are listed parties that are different from petitioners and i think the questions the court asked drove that point in here as mr cantor admits none of the petitioners have any relationship whatsoever with him so he's going to this other question that i was asking about their motion to terminate her you know devotion to terminate seems to me to only go to trying to show agree with my characterization i do i think the way that the argument was presented to the board the board responded to it and i think in the western jiko case this court actually said that's appropriate in that case it dealt with the control argument that was the focus of the arguments below so the board is responding to the arguments g presented in its motions but it sure shows we treat the decision by the board on the motion determination with regard to the question of whether or not amazon should have been named on this issue it was paper number fifty eight in the current joint captioned proceedings at the top of that page the board does talk about the fact that johnson has not shown that anybody really pushed control to amazon so the home during the period before the motions descend into the question so you think it's important again to keep in mind that the petitioners in the r p i is are different in different analysis and this court's precedent makes clear that the important analysis is what's the relationship of an alleged r i think that something you already knew about the auction i think in certain situations if there was a d j where the parties were found to be in some kind of relationship outside of simply a custody customer being protected by of and or i c for example in fact or a test i mean what and then amazon would be a real party in interest right i don't think so i think certainly not i do because there's no evidence that amazon had anything to do with the with experience actions in the pizza but when they have a which talks about pretty we're dealing with three hundred and fifteen dollars a one which is only r p i you're saying is that example there would have to be some evidence that amazon finding a day or two that could provide some control maybe an identification agreement that said that amazon is going to be the one aspects something like that correct and even i think the case law says that funding it in and of itself is not sufficient so it would really have to be something that i think approaches control which we don't have in the record here at all if you want r p i is about are right agreed agree so i think that's where we come out with them is the amazon issue and i thought i'd mention just the standard review to the questions about what the board did this is a substantial evidence question in our mind the board applied the arguments gems and made their findings supported by substantial evidence i don't there's any reason to upset that i also want to make it clear to the panel ensured came through the briefing but this was not a motion that was filed out of the blue we engaged in substantial back and forth with the board and with gems of providing voluntary discovery everything they asked for we gave them so parties to the declaratory judgment action did either party go back to the board didn't ask for clarification on that point or ask for more of an express ruling on whether amazon was a real party in interest now in fact the next time the board heard about the r issue was post i did see him post a final decision when james went back and said it has been a change in the lobby like to refile our motions under the new the new law that we didn't go back and argue it was because the board addressed the arguments that james had made appropriately for the way that they were made and then you ha hast first of all the evidence below there are representations below and there is also evidence because discovery was granted there was specific evidence that this petition was not brought at the behest of amazon or with any influence from amazon whatsoever but i would also make the this is the nd common sense point if the suggestion is that amazon was somehow behind this petition behind the scenes even though there's no evidence in the record that it somehow should be you know it we should imagine there is some collusion that when that would have made absolutely no sense why would amazon create a three hundred and fifteen a problem by following a d j action and then filing or having somebody at it's in this case he made some mistakes and there were naming giving people the wrong message board like respect yes yes but it's if they if they made a mistake that's you know that's that's their mistake it's not the petitioners have to say what i'm saying next if it's the same interest and the same interest according to them was champ says infringement claims against the amazon technology it's every single one of their briefs i don't think you can do that and also this is very