trademark infringement with respect to claim construction intrinsic evidence shows that the district courts implication of a limitation excluding all staring was wrong as a matter of law and with respect to a summary judgment issue primary trust the district courts argued her opinion was the absence of direct infringement and due to the stirring issue resulted in a finding of no direct infringement or inducement or contributory infringement but even if we were to issue with respect to the change of the claim construction is that the construction of the district court used was wrong as a matter of law that there is no support in the intrinsic record for use an exclusion or a limitation excluding all stirring that products and it was despite that knowledge did not seek an opinion of counsel and then it produced products and sold products where the physical configuration of those products meets every one of the structural limitations  excess patent as a result when those products are used they will infringe by default and turn the blender on with the device inside and it will infringe the only way to avoid infringement in that situation is if the user w of november two thousand and seven is that the right date that's the second set of instructions where the screen the edge material kenya and your contention is that quite apart from the two thousand and seven instructions or there's an inducement with respect to the original support the district court exclusion that has conceded that it is relevant only some issues so there with respect to contributory infringement the only issue with respect to contributory infringement is whether or not there are properly sized it's drawn into the center of the mixing flutes and maintained in exactly the infringing position unless somebody cracked the top of it and moves it in a manner where it either not be adjacent to it above the blades or where it would teach people to insert the device within the pitcher and operate the blender they don't teach there and some of them teach rotation of the device but none of them tell you like you played out in november two thousand and seven that they sold ten million units mention anything about stirring whatsoever and so the fact that the machine is capable of not infringing use does not mean that there is not direct infringement the question is whether or not that  infringement occur under this court status case on the sale of a machine that's capable of infringing use accompanied by instructions teaching that it's and constitutes evidence of infringement but sufficient certainly to survive summary judgment appearing on behalf of basic holdings the facts and governing law in this case combined to demonstrate that the claim construction as decided by the district court was absolutely correct as a matter of law in addition the findings of not infringement must stand based on the complete lack of evidence and likewise survive this challenge because they were appropriate as a matter of law first originally if i understand i i'm not sure you accept this but let's assume for purposes of argument that the device that the plunger stays in what my next calls the default position in the middle for a period of time while i put it's an infringement position this sort of a few seconds of infringement and then not infringement as a frankenstein method of approaching the french or let's let's take it the other way around in any seconds of the play and you're sitting there that your position about that would be correct for a couple of reasons first they disclaim it was bidets that clearly disclaimed and this about a story about operation they distinguish in fact that ted eighteen of the appendix they say that because of the method completely is completely distinguishable from a stirring operation that this goes to show you a couple of temporal turbot step but that the problem with that is it's one thing to say that stern is not within the scope of  claim which is to say that you don't infringe on your spirit another thing to say if you ever stare during the operation the machine then there's no in principle even when you're not severe well the problem with that your honor is th between a rock and a hard place on this if they say that this this default position actually prostitutes and infringement what they really did say is that all of the prior art in the end you find accused product that just has a temper that is is placed with there's and that's exactly why at page ten eighteen of this record they narrowed this player down as far as they get it that's why the judge was correct in making this claim construction because without that they fall squarely into all these other products that have a that's when they came in at ten eighteen they said no we distinguish completely the story process because if you stir at all you're going to create this situation actually and has the ability to create air pockets saying i think that if they start out in the kitchen one of the fluid in turn would know and with the plunger pen and you walk away and stand back for twenty six seconds and then you start scaring you had twenty six seconds of a period of infringement correct i do not concede there are because i heard of time and again they would have to show the perfect good all that there's no evidence that there is any and this is this is the record that the court had to deal with there is no evidence that a situation occurred where all of the events necessary think of this play you have a very specific apparatus related playing elements you have very specific steps and they have temporal limitations you have to maintain stare at some point before you turn the plates off you don't infringe even if you had the machine operating in its prescribe manner for right now and therefore properly construed it that way your honor because that's a good point you g survey which was considered part it still doesn't reach the level of proof of all of the elements being present here there is no direct infringement for the reason that there is even under the appropriate time destruction no showing up all of the elements as a matter of law side of the case that that constitutes a substantial honor for a jury and they say that it exists that minute there was contributory infringement on a deuce but again there's no intent that they have to show specific intent and here we have a situation in which you and contributory to that make the cross the kalpoe way no i would not for the reason that if you address it for two or three reasons the reason is that by doing that you you've got to step away from the pres must be proven if we look at the semantic test for specific that fire twenty two federal third at a pin sept twelfth ninety two but the clerk found there was that that specific intent that spoken of is necessary to and that is necessary to prove induced infringement the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause a direct infringement now that specific intent is absent for a number of reasons let me to the second important reason is so we have a design we have the complete lack of a showing of the specific intent not just intend it specific and there's no there's never been any evidence that basic holdings acted to cause to essentially as something completely different because it disavowed stirrup so you go to the instructions now the instructions always bijan at any time and this is pretty nov two thousand and seven that the fact that it's actually factors even a car that was inserted down and you'll see this it's it's kind of a splayed view of the blender and that's because it was full of players actually inside that letter you see these instructions striking feature of their arguments today is aside from the claim construction every argument is directed towards weight and balancing the evidence what by doing so and what back to basics showed and why they disagree with what biden it showed why the district court disagreed with what biden it showed based on back to basics out of the us if we are director jury trial that would be an appropriate conversation but today we're here on summary judgment where the only question on infringement is whether by the knicks came forward with evidence that it believed and with the benefit of all reasonable inferences would be sufficient with status to disputed elements of his claim we understand parameters of the argument i think it would be very helpful at least to me if you could get right down to the nitty respect to inducement and the intent issue yes you did get medical cases clear that the specific intent cause direct infringement exists where the huge infringer knew or should have known that their actions would result in direct infringement an inherently fact based inquiry invitees came forward with the evidence that shows back to basics you knew of the patent it designed a product where although it may have other features as law it is specifically configured so that absence of the formation of the bubble you try in the of world to form a but there are doing it after the formation of the correcting it after the formation of the bubble so if you take it on that basis there is direct infringement for purposes of inducement a contributory for an early one interpretation one construction right but if you would if you were to stay with the district court's construction or to reverse it under it there would be direct in limitation so on that direct point yes there would be infringement for that initial period it's important i think on this too with respect to the construction issue that occur technically mr laycock you have the right for a rebuttal since we have talked a little bit about the invalidity if you want to if you want to take thirty seconds if there's something that you're just