mystery as to what mr judkins subjectively believe well here here's the portion of judge lancaster's opinion that i think is the most difficult for you and the one that i would like you to address and it does address the objective now if the judge is saying that the patent is theirs it's an open question as to whether this is an equitable conduct in this case objective lee speaking why isn't that enough to satisfy the standard that's applicable here under any test because what we have here is a complete power of conduct going in and the point is that the other one opinion was never cited to the team and this court in the d suppressed in this conceal and still be able to show diligence how how are you connecting all of what you just said to the left two minutes to your argument that judge lancaster misunderstood the law and stated the standard backwards you know what crosstalk were proposed and signed the opinion is equal to the only opinion and there were balances out now you have to bring to the attention of the examiner so what exactly is the standard that you contend is the correct standard of why the judge lancaster should have been mine the on an equitable conduct we don't know because none of us can really predict the future but that's not the issue before us the issue before us is whether you prove the likelihood of prevailing on the to are just adopting the phrasing you just use that a reasonable person would say that there's a substantial question why does it get you to out to a likelihood of success in other words sure there's a substantial question that's why we have lawsuits and there weren't substantial questions or never would have lawsuits at all so pattern of conduct i don't understand where that gets you that just means as we all acknowledge that maybe you can prevail on an acquittal conduct or maybe not that doesn't in saying that this is a slam dunk on an equitable conduct such that no one could take the next step in good faith of issuing infringement notice the cation letters  because no one who wants with with any sense at all setting aside judge lancaster could possibly think this is a reasonable reasonably debatable issue of inequitable kind are that's not your position the phrase we're very close to what i mean by the basis of what we've already put for the court to raise to the level that we are in tiles with on their injunction and for what it's worth for our there was a motion for you you really are implying you're entitled to summary judgment of uninformed civility because your case of inequitable conduct is irrefutable and obvious and any fool would have to immediately say you're entitled to judgment as a matter of law we do you sent to new role and what you told them about and so on well because if you look at the some of the greatest stuff you can draw that is you but you're not telling us to draw an inference from the settlement agreement you're talking about what happened you sent this to them and they considered this and i records before us that it's a sham settlement you're now basically saying well there's all this other evidence out there that shows that it wasn't well even what's on the record it is somewhat agreement and so when if you just talk about what's on the record rather than what's behind if you look at the settlement  right out in rockford or wherever it was i think mr wilson's point is that is that you were involved so to speak in other words mr jenkins testified and i think maybe said even you testify think if you knew about it in since you knew about it you should forehead and so did the back off so there was no bad day in either of those situations but coming back to what the question is ask a question about the third circuit why is the third circuit a circuit where you who are factors to get the injunction some circuits for example the seventh where i am is it's a balancing test and you have to meet some not all well you have to show likely the success and and  my question was why was the northern district of on my decision all that significant given is as mr all states says that they want to party they didn't have any control over it and ended up not being all that material even to the even to the ultimate decision in that case because the meeting got nothing to procedure doesn't make noncom even assuming that that the n p p requires that strictly noncompliance with that provision of the m p e can possibly resulted in that quibble conduct finding as a matter of law in every case do you think i don't suppose it's a grandparent patents that has only the most minimal connection to the to the grandchild you're not suggesting that that requires