patent holder to prove infringement at the pleading stage second redefining substantial non infringing use to the same point of impracticality undesirability this court for bade  and third the substantial erosion of the protections to the method afforded to method patents especially when they are the victim of indirect infringement that each of these repercussions would be significant in therefore required you to go further and needed to do an interesting uses of your are i would not characterize the problem here with you as the allegations i would suggest that the problem here was the analysis that was applied to the customized right correct and you talk about in the is it clearly is a clear to you that in the allegations with respect infringing uses you've identified clearly what products  rather we believe that it's clear that when we talk about the individual products of the defendants offer and how they specifically told their customers in the public that those products are customized to practice the zero seven eight pat t that it becomes clear that it leads to the allegations as we allege that as we suggest in the court and that this court respectfully here must be accepted as true that those those customized abilities of their products there there or it would be dishonest to suggest that this this product once a symbol can do other things but that is not the point as this court has held many times that is not the point the point is is there any specific infringing used that we have a wedge the pleading stage and we certainly how well only if there is but it but if if you allege and your complaint a fact that otherwise kills your complain sample but all we did in the complaint was was assert that there were other uses of the product no in the complaint we allege there was all the one substantial not in for one of only one infringing use of the products of the sample and that the other uses were not other things that they were assembled the fans of the sample but it was a substantial nave reduce the inference from that that we were entitled to receive at the pleading stage is that the other uses are not substantial we have that this is a case police stage all reasonable inferences must be drawn we're already on to suggest that the other uses that we one could discern from the nuts the defendant's statements and from the pleadings as we had to set them forth because the defendant statements are what they are the two to conclude that those uses are substantial in the face of the allegations that they are not or the allegation that there is one substantial monitoring to use turns the pleading stage on its head and isn't it is it is but i suggest to your honor that once once the defendants combine their products that with that has and though that combination has no other use other than to of there is no been for it there is no non infringing use for that combination once we get to that conclusion the question now results of ok with if you can use it for sending billing receipts back to your billing department is that substantial in the face of that infamous specific infringing is and i and i go back to the point where we are at the pleading stage a finder of fact the jury may one day conclude that yes mr white sending billing statements back to the billing department will  substantial not infringing using you lose but at the pleading stage when we allege that when you put this bad software with that scanner in that processor and it does this and there is no substantial not infringing use for that there we are there we must be allowed the ability to proceed with our case because we have put forth the evidence to establish a specific infringing use and under the case law of this court that specific its range of use especially especially at the pleading stage controls and that was the error of the district to reject those of the reject are specific infringing use in the face of what possibly might be used in other situations without giving without giving rise in concern to the fact that we're at the bleeding stage and we're entitle to all responses now does that include the inference that the principles of joint infringement would apply to the used the word contributors and in a generalized sense to the various steps of the claim your honor that issue was addressed initially by the by the district court in the court concluded that there was this was not a situation where the patent required join fringe with the one party could in fact perform all steps of the patent and the court gave us we believe an appropriate evaluation of the case of the pleading stage on that particular issue and said that that was not an issue for the court to  consider at this stage because it required terminations that were improper at the pleading stage i we believe the court properly ruled on that joint infringement issue and we just believe that in certain areas the court  do this case but this is not you know this is not an ordinary case you know pat this court is is charged with dealing with patent infringement so lawsuits that have unique and and difficult issues in it up themselves aspects it was not a complex case in other aspects the idea of whether it conspiracy held you know is simply you know a question of a generic question of fact that i think can be discerned from the basic moral facts i think here we're dealing with you know complex issues of claim construction complex issues of of intertwining all around substantial not infringing use about the ability of someone to allege facts that show that when combined certain aspects of their product well that i mean infringement cases in which a plaintiff patent holder is attempting to prove sophisticated perhaps complicated issues in a complaint and the difficulty that want that a patent holder will have impact infringement lawsuits hey look at this is a simple process it's pretty neat a you can go use it to do this this this in this which is the zero seven eight that now district court concluded that we had to identify a direct infringer for each of the indirect infringe under off we pointed out eight under the laws that existed then there was such court never held in this court certainly never that and be even if we did four to seventy one see liability separate apart from offer say offer for it's not limited to an offer to sell the invention under two seventy one c it is there under two seventy one c one may offer to sell the material or apparatus use in the patent process and thereby be in be found to be contributory those allegations because the court concluded that it was we didn't show that that it was only possible the pitta heil was infringing our patent by using by using the zero seven he added i would submit to this court if if the pla a patent infringement lawsuit is was stablished that there is only one possible way for the defendant and the direct infringer to be doing what they say they are doing and that possible ways infringing the patent that you're going to have a heck of a lot of  firmed for the principal reason that arnelle played itself out of court this case involves allegations only of contributory and induced infringement against defendants that are not themselves accused anywhere of direct es as your honor did did i think correctly has a very low bar on this on this issue in terms of what constitutes a substantial not infringing use and the district court expressly held in this case that b s allegations do not plausibly demonstrate that the defendant product want to thank amy i mean that's what i'm struggling with and we counting numbers are we saying because they listed fourteen hundred non infringing uses that you know we have to have an equal number or more on the information that this is what you should use it for that whether there are other uses for which it might be so it's no longer a dominating consideration i think that that gives your order to the induced infringement invention this is really in trying to penetrate as modern technology it's just the sorts of issues that we see that it's where do we draw the line i say that such as you did say the defendants are in fact instructing their customers to perform each and every step of the patent method and i will get to your honest question of contributory fred by the i don't know i appreciate that you but there isn't there is no factual allegations that the method pat here is a very specific method it requires that you use a scanned and wirelessly transmitted documentation data for one package while the package is still on one vehicle to prepare a loading manifest for trans what of that package on another vehicle and the district court probably looked at very carefully did what the supreme court said district courts are supposed to do judge beckwith did a very careful analysis and said none of these allegations  are like any company having their warning their customers to use their products but the key here and here's where we get back to the contributory infringement issue is that the complaints themselves identify numerous non infringing uses for these products so we can start to contributory and i just i mean you started by saying they played their way out of court yes if they had not included in their amended complaint all of the non infringing pieces that they play you then concede that there was sufficient basis for alleging contributory infringement well that is that the problem here that not what they've actually pled in terms of infringing use but the fact that they put in all this other cell this is an easier case you at least are some of the allegations with respect to contributory infringement is it your view that this these allegations would be sufficient under twamley in the absence of the allegations regarding not infringing uses i would say no your hon allegations that are not conclusory that lead to a plausible conclusion that there is no substantial not infringing uses for these products that's what they fail to do in fact this gives you the paragraph one fifteen on a n alleging are the key products here right and then they go on to say that as customized it has no other substantial has no other substantial not infringing to use why is that insufficient it's insufficient first of all you want if you look at for example one fourteen what they're drawing here are what they claim to be reasonable inferences from the facts that they've pled not actual facts and they've been very careful in their complaints to talk about what they claim are reasonable inferences of what they claim are actual facts in this case there are no actual facts pled that indicate that there is this this what you call a customized use that has no substantial difference in use but what the district court i think correctly said was look at the whole complaint which is what the court needs talking about are simple things like scanners and on board p c s these things just simply do what scanners do with p c s do yes it is possible that somebody could use these things to do all of the method steps but there's no not specific battle well you know not conclusion factual gages that anybody actually is doing so tell me let's assume hypothetically they didn't reference these the other to infringe this patent now in a normal case of a contributory inducing printer that might not be hard because you would have a product that can be used only to infringe and if you put out a talking about a summary judgment standard i mean at the at the pleading stage yes it has to be a reasonable inference but it doesn't have to be the only reasonable it sounds to be yet if even if the so if there are competing reasonable inferences then you're supposed to draw the inference in favor of the pleader what has to be the plausible inference as what the supreme court said was an allegation of an illegal conspiracy to raise prices and what they pled was that they're in fact was parallel conduct by these defendants in this and i trust case that their view reasonably infer that these  conspiring to raise prices and the supreme court said no at the pleading stage we have to look at those allegations and say do they raise a plausible inference in other words is it in fact reasonable to infer from this that in fact liability exists rather than attachments to the complaint and then this is i think to step back a bit the district court here did i think exactly what the supreme court said this records are supposed to do here at the pleading stage you cannot have the ability you or the other defendants have fear and have no this is to what products that you're dealing with are alleged to be infringe no our products are not alleged to be infringing our products are alleged to contribute to fri we did not have noticed as to exactly how our products are contributing to the infringement because they didn't in fact identify any specific act of direct infringement all the showed in the and i guess i've been one of the evidence all the showed me allegations in the complaint are that in fact these products scanners can be used for all sorts of things so let me dig example but you know what products they were talking about i mean you may well with i mean who on earth can determine predict the merits and you may well be able to absolutely establish even a summary judgment that there's no infringement here but isn't that for another day no i think not your honor in the in the twelve lee for example the defendants could well have prevailed on summary judgment on the grounds that there was no agreement to raise prices and what the court said is no at the pleading stage you cannot have the ability to take the defendants down that road in less you can put forward bash well a geisha is which rise eighteen says that that word except that a very piecemeal very simple very bright bare bones allegation as it relates to direct infringement so why wouldn't that direct infringement why wouldn't that at least guide us ruling for as it relates to the direct infringement allegations two points or first the formating relates only to an allegation of direct infringement against somebody that is themselves hues of direct infringement and only applies to an allegation of direct infringement against a direct fringe or in this case b of allegations of indirect infringement but we don't even get to that point because in this case we know from the complaint itself that there are numerous uses from tracking customers bills to sending bills baster just tracking the locations of trucks to security issues to having drivers send e mails all of these things are alleged in the complaint as things are now you a contributory infringement right but i'm saying that you don't even need to reach the direct infringement issue i just meant we work right now for that is one of the main things you argue is that the direct infringement allegations are insufficient as one of the issues that we you but it's in terms of inducement there still has to be an allegation that the defendants actually instructed their customers to perform each and every step of the method in the order it's not sufficient as it might be in some other case to simply say we're asking our customers to use our products because we know from the complaint that the products can be used for all sorts of things they're staple articles of commerce that can be used for all sorts of things that aren't infringing so simply as telling your customers hey you can use our product isn't enough to constitute inducement you have to actually in this case in structure your your customers to take a wirelessly transmitted documentation data from a package while the package is still in one drug for delivery of the package on another truck this is the method claim they didn't invent the idea of scanning they invented this specific method and in order for a defend much has to be said when they say that the target as the target of their advertising the people who are in this business say here this is it's been adjusted it's been programmed to to be used in this system which is a very nice system but that's a fact with respect are not what they allege in the complaint what they legend or complaint is that the customers are the vendors advertise these products are all of these non infringing uses that in their behavior could be they could customers could use them different but they do not have back to allegations they have what they call reasonable inferences from their backs that in fact the customers are being instructed to do this without a that's the question what does your position depend on whether we think such a reasonable inference can be drawn in the pleadings yes i think that that's what the district court said is that you cannot draw the reason what difference from these pleading the defendants are back instructing their customers to do all the steps of the method all you can do is draw the reasonable inference that these custom these defendants are asking their customers to use their products for all sorts of facts pled that the defendants sell things like scanners to trucking companies what they're doing is making the leap from those facts to what they claim is a reasonable inference number one but that's all the customers are doing and number two that they're being instructed to perform this very complicated method with these scanners with respect to those inferences do not follow and those are the inferences that the district court probably rejected law as unreasonable but you would agree that the district court is not allowed to weigh inferences and decide which is most reasonable know that this record has to determine whether there's a reason why inference of liability in this case and in backs and the backs are also that the the defendants are asking their customers to use them if those facts were sufficient to establish a valid complaint or contributory induced infringement that anybody could bring a complaint and say is offered their product to their customers and some says is that for eight when you slice and dice the individual components of the assembled product that you might find not infringing uses in the individual components that however is an exercise that this court in the doe said is not appropriate it will be a part of your life is a part of your problem the narrowness of your claim i mean your claim doesn't say at the end of the day could print out any variety of things like billing invoices etc it says that you have to print out a very specific doctor at the end of the day sell the narrowness of your method claim really is what partially makes it so difficult for you here to to allege that that's what they're doing with it i agree with your honor and when i think the narrowness of the claim requires i think more precise devalue ration of the pleadings and what the district court was willing to engage in because when you think about the when you think about the narrowness of the claim it depends then on the disk bad software that is attached at the end of the assembled products the skinners a process of this bad software there is a piece of that bad software a significant piece because it's this bad software what does this bad software do it tells a trucking company were to move a piece of package to another spot that's what this batch is all about in the trucking industry but a substantial if not the vast majority of that this bad software is focused on generating a dock on a loading manifest that tell the people on the dock what do you do with this package when it comes in when the defendant assembled their products with these things in a mountain made it into a offering that had on the end this bad software with a piece of it specifically and all designed to create a loading  several product brought it within the narrow function of our client and what what has happened here is that the district court has said we're not going to look at that narrow band of the assembled product because i think that when i slice the scanner off of the assembled product the scanner can do other things when i slice the processor off that a simple product will the process you can do of the thing no i think it would but in fairness what point that the defense arguing is that even if you have the entire sample product at the end of the day you could print off something piece of the software that is can be used only to infringe so there's a specific piece of this bad software that can only be used to generate a living in a fast it doesn't matter that you might be able to use another piece of that software just like in rico another piece of that software to create a building to create a billing statement because there is this is significant piece of software that can only be used to create a loading manifest and one crew when the attached to a sca attached to a processor you have what law the zero seven eight patent and the allegations of our complaint were there when you would catch all these things with that specific function of creating a loading manifest there is no substantial non infringing use for anything else and what the defendants have said and they really have a challenge that particular point what they've instead said was well put up lights like my slice my scanner off i can use it to fax the pictures of my grandkids to my sister that is irrelevant under the in the in this court's analysis under a douche and when your symbol together the fact that it could be used for a billing receipt to going back to billing is irrelevant in this court's analysis of the rico once that this bad software is stuck on the