i'll just note them for the record the first submitted cases number zero five dash seven o nine for the bird versus the part of the veterans affairs the second submitted case is number zero five dash three three five one or got us versus the office of personnel management and the third submitted case is number zero six dash three zero five to get those three cases are submitted on the briefs without oral argument first of the two cases in which we'll hear oral argument the sat to noon is number zero five dash one three zero five auto meter products versus the international trade commission is to patent you can start whenever you're ready much that's correct but the servants mary very discretionary authority of the commission would be there and they made a determination not to issue the general exclusion of the commission at that that was need use of discretion here because the basis for not be substantial i think that's absolutely correct and on that basis the commission then has the obligation to look at the rest of the evidence that submitted the evidence that submitted that automator submitted inst in spades there was a tremendous amount of evidence of circumvention unnecessary because before him pleading its complaint automator provided the kind of evidence that the commission and certain up to class required documentary evidence physical evidence and evidence of the trademarks and trade dress issue including evidence showing secretary meeting and all the other requirements section three thirty seven as required by the statute doesn't mean affirm the determination of the violation based on people responding are insufficient in fact you can have an affirmative determination violation got a default response that supports a general commission you have to take the additional step when you want to lose an order and through beyond what is just in the complaint you actually have to present evidence and typically this is done through summary terminations motion and all we are actually did summary determination motion trying to get this evidence before the administrative law judge in order to get the affirmative determination a violation and then also to prove the due to factors or with respect to circumventing the path violation the a general exclusion order the commission did not hold on that or and the l j did not the object is determined that it was untimely decided that waiver was an issue for the commission and commission did not pick up on that issue with it so waiver is not the basis that the commission is  presenting its opinion today however it does look a little bit why did the commission which were required it was because there was no affirmative determination a violation based on substantial libel and probative evidence once the motion for will there be that preliminary determination absolutely there can be and that's through the summary determination motion a violation that's typically what parties do when there's a default respond that there's really no reason to have a has typically the default responders don't show up at the at the very end of the case and so typically through a summary tunisian motion they will a party will present the evidence before the ale jay they will consider and determine whether in fact consider evidence a violation once it's moved on to the remedy in the remedy phase like i said there are only two ways to get evidence before the commission that relates to violation and they both begin with the j the commission does not typically consider evidence in the first instance of violation now the commission will consider evidence relating to the g two factors because that is a remedy specific issue and so during the remedy phase the commission will consider that evidence but not evidence a violation that has to go through has to have hearing when it found that all of the parties rather want to settle or default and so it did not move to reinstate the hearing or the procedural scheduling or to present that evidence once the summary determination motion and then they could have done that would have been an opportunity for them to present the violations day for the commission and that you see that throughout they could have amended the complaint to include principle registration they also should have amended the complaint to include the new product and knew what happens in the hearing preparing for the hearing when the hearing was in fact cancelled so it's possible they would have come forward and would have presented evidence of their own would have challenged the evidence presented by auditor and it's possible that yes the evidence would not have been sufficient to make a firm determination a violation so i also i just have a couple more minutes i just want to point out a couple of the things with regard to the principal registration on a meter argues that it should have been allowed to amend the complaints again to add the principle registration during the complaint after institution of the investigation must be made to the presiding administrative law judge and again here they fail to make that to make that motion and so the principle registration do not make it into the complaint and it's important to get into the complaint because it not only provide in principle the trademark exist whether it's common law supplemental principle and absolutely the only thing the principle registration does is it recognizes that the super bubble configuration trademark is a title to all of the benefits of vessel trademark the common law trademark the commission attorneys admitted that the state principle registration application is an appropriate description of the supervisor trademark there was never a dispute ever party agreed that the the application which the church of the principal registration was appropriate description of the trademark issue from the very outset of the complaint to the end of the issuance of the boot scootin orders there's no question it was in evidence there's no question that