nothing and then you can agree or disagree with a nine nine three others and exclusion order but the one or i think i'm concerned about is a three four four exclusion order because that's the one that you make the argument with regard to  different kind of arguments they are that one can read if you're talking about power to both the telling and french because subsequently they're used for not infringing uses that's one piece of your argument but you seem to be arguing for something more which is almost a temporal thing that at the time of importation and because they may or may not at the end of the day be entrenching because some of them have non infringing uses that you can never have inducement with respect to have or don't have jurisdiction to to put out our arm with respect to these types of articles then your theory has to be a statutory one that would seem to apply to all facts and that's what one of the the only thing you can do is establish from this particular article how do i if if if the whole thing that can be done of the stuff that comes across the border isn't friends with and then everybody calculation so in other words what you're saying like that the comma could send in some of these products as long as they have enough of a of proof for customs to determine that it's not going to go to either mental  storage well i think it's a little still got to be a little nearer where the nasa i mean the only finding with respect to direct infringement in this case has been with regard to mental exercise so even if arguably at the end of the day suprema doesn't know whether or not some other company is going to use it for infringement or not interested or they just know that would be covered in exclusion or they could certify that it's seventy one b says that one who actively and uses can be liable as an infringer it does not say that the act of actively inducing renders the product in and i presupposes that there isn't direct infringement now given our recent case but if there are some changes that's what constitutes a direct infringement i guess in that context but you still have to have certain of those products and so there was this reporting requirement that was imposed so the question is whether or not there is if we were to conclude that there was some issue with respect to the three three four either because of that  or because of the infringement claim would we have to send it back for the commission to determine whether the appropriate remedy would still be an exclusion order given that limited domestic industry domestic industry to support jurisdiction and a sufficient domestic industry to support the scope of an exclusion order that that would have been that was applied given the fact that there was an overlap  that if we are going to decide whether to affirm this exclusion order we really have to appreciate understand how it applies and who would apply to our conclusion might be very different if the i t c either has already  stands it provides software development kits that are then modified or incorporated into the user interface for customers here in the us but the infringing functionality in the middle of software was functionality that tonic devices commissions decisions that said otherwise in fact in that case and i agree i mean i agree that's true i mean i think there are different parts of the report that want to get we're going to go back to the point about the craft of the us so the customs officer is going to determine whether or not the product even they're going to be even if it's going to be sold to other companies who have not been found to be direct infringers of the patent nobody's done the expert agency or possibly at the direction of congress and by the score this is the i p c c interpretation how they should ensure that the statute that congress is dedicated to them to enforce application and the patent was incorporated by reference that's true but it was a corporate by reference five times three separate times and five and one of those times what the patent said examples of the process for print capture and separation ar reason that we would ask the court to reverse the legal determination on claim destruction additional organization on the policies to and remand that for  whether the quality of the pence good so if you look at our age twenty three you'll see that it's quite possible to have an image that's the right shape but the wrong here and that doesn't fit and  of wrong doing and then the begs the question of willfully blind to what and the only thing that they were possibly willfully ones who have the existence of the reef work or capital that that is not wrongdoing as specially when and when the commission itself found that are other questions