by just giving an outline of the issues that i'm going to cover today st of all the district court wrongfully just missed this complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs were put on actual constructive notice regarding the they're all on once again there's someone on the on on the screen on the call who is not on mute we can hear loud laughter so if you're not participating in this argument right this moment please put your your a quintessentially fact driven case the district court applied the wrong standard with regard to inquiry notice they urged in considering the think relative intelligence and sophistication the knowledge that they sequence the actual sequence of zip codes was not invented like discovered let me say until nine hundred and ninety nine so nine hundred and ninety four is to a large extent irrelevant but what it does show you this is why it's been put in the complaint it just is part of the overall pattern but the whether it's a trade secret claim or whether it's a patent claim the basis for those claims would be what happened in  plaintiffs could not possibly have known that there was any misappropriation at all by virtue of the conduct of the defendants they were not put on any notice whatever it took two thousand and fifteen and then your own as it took another two years of were in any way involved were implicated second one of the reasons why the plaintiffs did not know that was because of the fraudulent concealment of the defendants themselves in the way that they willfully and deliberately discards what they were doing using different nomenklatura names and so on and thirdly because the plaintiffs were not on any notice whatever they did not even know they had no idea that only having been licensed source but they were not given any notice they were they had no knowledge that there was any patent infringement how can someone be a party in name and not be given notice in the sense that you're honest that they were given they gave over the entire rights of the intellectual property that was being litigated to cornell university i mean that sense although they were a arguably should give someone notice in this case or on that it doesn't matter it very often could natural that this is a public proceeding but the question is whether it would be whether a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence would be given notice by virtue of that public proceeding that there was a possibility that their own trade secrets were somehow i that there was any possible implication of their own trade secrets being a part of it this was a patent case yours not a treat secret case if you suggested earlier that the point attend given their rights a lot of rights regarding the sequences but what they did not give over and what was never given and what they kept for themselves was the specific order specific sequence of zip codes which is very very essential in order to in order to make the zip codes work and that was never given it was never transferred it was never publicized and yet it was stolen and that is what we're talking about here those are the trade secrets they are what is left as it were from the transfer if there were so  was critically important to your client's right critically important and yet there are patents that are maybe not centrally about the sequence but that might involve the sequence is that the trademark right and so i think well i guess my question is if those are the crown jewels and the patents any patent litigation my touch on those  was st of all impossible to even know what it was that the defendants were patenting nd as far as the sequences were concerned it's also very important to know that we did not know that the sequences were even being implicated it if you in the complaint it shows that in order to determine that the sequences were even involved that involved a decryption and the reason for that your honor was because the defendants were attempting to pull a fast one on the patent office that was their main concern they wanted to patent trade secrets they did not have they want to patent sequences they did not own and for that reason the morning may please the court my name is jonathan bach and i'm speaking today on behalf of all apple lees is the pot to speak up a little bit certainly in a careful and well reasoned opinion that district court properly dismissed this lawsuit it did so after granting the plaintiffs two prior opportunities to amend both of those opportunities came after defendants spelled out in primo sion letters the grounds on which they were seeking dismissal and as for dust well aware of the issues and tw him twice did their best to address them but the problems that they confronted were in surmountable no amendment could overcome the statute of limitations and other issues that cried out from the very terms of their own extensive seven hundred and fifty paragraph complaint the conduct complained of occurred decades ago in nineteen  and ninety nine plaintiffs multiple state law claims most of which they have now conceded or abandoned on appeal expired three years later as with the exception of the new york fraud claim which expired six years later the federal claims are based on statutes with no retroactive application that were not even inactive until some seventeen years later and sixteen contrary to what you may have just heard the so called crown jewels were disclosed by mr serviette and dr berni in a patent as far back as two thousand and one which in august two thousand it was published internationally in two thousand and one it was issued as a us patent in two thousand and eight it disclose all of the optimal zip code sequences and it also disclosed and eighteen step algorithm for anyone reading the patent to generate them as well as a software code connected to that algorithm so that the filed the trade secrets relating to the one thousand nine hundred and forty graham proposal were filed on the public record by cornell in two thousand and seven in connection with the two thousand and six interference proceeding there accessible via the internet counsel argues that not everything was given over to cornell and therefore not everything was disclosed how do you respond to that i don't think be found at the joint appendix between pages three hundred and fifty one and three hundred and sixty  six as europe honors know by this point a key point that we have emphasized throughout is that these prior litigations which spanned the public record which were conducted openly  took place over a course of more than ten years and were not brought by strangers to these point they were brought by people with whom they had a personal relationship with people with whom they had a working history  with people with whom they developed these very secrets with the people to whom they entrusted these trade secrets at key points including just before the submission of the grant proposal and just before the alleged disclosure in  part in these very public lawsuits they were named as party some of these places were named as parties and they were named as witnesses as well in the two thousand and ten cornell patent infringement referred mr coleman and so the question negative is that they were not named as was yes he did and i believe he misspoke because his own complaint says that they were witnesses and he claims the complaint alleges that it was in that and you know they argue that there are some negative trade secrets that slipped through the cracks and may have never been disclosed coral urge them to clarify what those might be in any  what you shouldn't be doing but what you disclose what you should be doing for you having their judge call found that they couldn't possibly claim that there was any continuing value to the dead and that  raise before as it was he put on notice i said it was like a sore you never knew about litigation you never knew it he never was put on there with respect to the other issues i will go swiftly was not listed as a country where he was i do not believe it was  notice that he was ever a witness you have no you have no lawyer he was never it was never a court then asked him for any evidence you have no clue it had gone forward and i believe that he set forth in the nd a minute complaint in detail and i let me just go through and correct just a few issues and i hope this addresses any concerns that your own this may happen but one it's interesting that one of the things that my comment does not address is actually the ongoing