sham and it was used as a conduit for don t to transfer to mac well i mean that's not an issue before us i mean you even if that's the predicate that you need for us to conclude before it in order to find against you how are we supposed to be make those determinations here according to its retore license agreements were then transferred entirely to max sound soviet cell no longer have any rights because via cell's purpose and this whole transaction was simply a conduit it there was no  donte is bound by the agreement entered into in the name of the spell but i mean the b s l had no assets it had no business purpose other than to be this conduit and even national it in one point that d s l stands but and maybe i'm wrong on this but how does that impact google i mean google's kind of an innocent bystander when all of this is going on doesn't normally this inequitable result situation apply when you have you know the party who dealt with the party saying i was treated unfairly and it's been an echo bruce ought to just charge me why did why should google in securities for and so therefore this isn't about inequity to google google deserves to be sued by the party with the rights to enforce the pact mac sound is their party because it acquired those rights pen is that a wireless plant you have to try and ascertain the intent of the parties which is done in every contract dispute and here there is no dispute and the donte confirmed in the s l confirm that max sound was given the rights to the two seven seven pat no one questions that the two seven seven pen isn't mentioned by number in the max sound license agreement so there is no authority that says you have to actually cite the pattern number in fact in the speed pay case the number was wrong the listen er specific assignment of the to seven seven well there was but don't forget it said into the the language was clear that the the affidavit in germany focused on the german litigation why was there no when it was  patent either but there's no dispute that the donkey gave max sound those rights through via cell and so there is no requirement that you have to list each packet would have been nice to do that obviously you wouldn't be arguing about this if that in the max out of it was very broad world wide rights and the negotiations of the party's national kept emphasizing the three three nine patent and the desire to enforce that in the united states so in terms of ascertaining the intent of the parties we believe that the only reason the inter taishan of the broad worldwide rights listed in the max out agreement is that it includes one of the o d t patents that's labeled optimized data transmission which is the three three nine patent there is no other reasonable interpretation and google doesn't give any effort to define what what worldwide rights meant what did the o d t technology referenced in the agreement whether that mean it meant intellectual property and nash and title optimize data transmission system and method that's the very name of the not of the three three nine and so the intent has to be ascertained the intent clearly was to include the three three nine patent as know if the agreement talks about i think the agreement itself shows that the d s l is being used as a as an intermediary it says that d s l legally owns and controls all of the worldwide rights title and interest to all fiel because there's never actually an agreement between of e s l and the down to well there is actually if you look at the at the newell affidavit submitted in germany he says except for the license that has been granted to vs l d sending this on behalf of there's nobody saying under oath or inadmissible form i didn't mean that i mean that is undisputed evidence that bedford county was using b s l as an intermediary so there's no question about that google didn't submit any real evidence in opposition their whole argument was you have to have this chain of title in there has to be in agreement actually naming the donte you know the da and t i and because the being with max sound was signed by nash as a d s l president and of stories but that ignored the alter ego and the agency evidence that show that the s l was simply this front conduit whatever you want to call it and the cases that we of action the cause of action would be would with the party that misled you into having to pay money for something get it receipt but would so it's not that you're left with that nothing the question here we're talking about is who is the proper party of which who is charged but we donkey intended to in the document terry evidence shows transfer the rights to sue google to max sounds to me that if there was fraud anywhere here well certainly after the fact when mash tried to steal the lawsuit for her a party now who can't read institute this lawsuit the dismissal is affectively with prejudice because it says we don't have standing and so we should be forced to drop this proceeding and because we can eventually get back to on the agency in alter ego theory that they've advanced among their many theories for why they have standing in this case so i will focus on that as well i think the first and perhaps most telling point is that  again to fight a single fact much less a meaningful one that would have made a difference to the result that the district court failed to consider the district court considered details about the negotiation history tenet of finding agency the district court rejected that based upon all of the facts that it reviewed and found with regard to alter ego the district court also has some very specific findings but the fact and conclusions of law that piercing the corporate veil is an extreme remedy and it found that there is no reason to apply that remedy under these circumstances it said the courts have stepped forth many factors regarding alter ego but here the evidence leather we move on them to the motion when we talk of them here and it seems to me your friend has a pretty strong argument that there's a different case here there are things here to be won or lost in this case is telling as to the record i mean this generally maxell instead they want to preserve their damages treated by preserving this original complaint to go six years back from their october fourteenth filing fourteen only goes back to july of two thousand and eleven and if they were to refile now they would go back to july of two thousand and eleven so there is no legal interest of max sounds to be impacted by whether they proceed under the original complaint or whether the decision the court found this issue of a can in turn each piece of motion even on the same merits issue is irrelevant to the determination of whether the issues on appeal are moved and the reason for that i can go into detail for my case is actually very well on point is that max down could appeal the attorneys fees motion if it doesn't like the results on that motion but it's not it's not before the court right now with before the has any impact and there in a socket also wanted the appeal decided because it would be informative of the pinning fees motion and the court found that it was inappropriate that that would be an advisory opinion ip are is something that is related to an issue that came up in this court system divisions cares in that case there was a collateral proceeding that could have been been informed by a decision in an thank you thank you whereas if you whether you wolf with you reverse and we go back down that one your period has come and gone clearly and so that would directly and it personally affect macs sound if you dismissed this appeal and furthermore on the damages period venue but with the t c hartland case pending out there that lawsuit might be dismissed and then there would be a loss of damages clearly so we don't know when that new lawsuit will be filed where and what might happen to it and if this appeal is this  they might decide we don't care and won't file it till two thousand and twenty but that's not but if they have the ability to get the accrual of six years with the past damages that ought to be enough to it but it's not clear that they will because like even if they filed on july eleventh ok two thousand and seventeen and going back to six years because we believe there is infringement immediately from the issuance of the patent if that lawsuit were dismissed for some reason and i think them you know one can only tell and it had to be refiled in a different venue or for whatever reason the damages start to get lost the point is that the max sounds rights to sue google at this point do not exist unless you a are you then you become a co on yes that's true that's true but what i'm saying is unlike the case of google relied on we cannot just as that plaintiff could have done refile we are barred from refiling as an exclusive licensee and that's all we are right now is an exclusive license leap so all you know the issue moved this is it is a strict standard i mean that we have to have no legal legally protected interest of ailill to us and we do the attorneys  clear on the case that google relies on they are they just for court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction claims that involve the government under you know under the fourteen ninety eight i think is the statute therefore that the federal circuit in that case  we're not going to get into the prevailing party issue because what they don't need issue that was appealed ruhleben sanction dismissing that case and yes that was undone by the district court but the judgment about the lack of jurisdiction on the claim involving the government that was there that was going to go away and so therefore the defendant could still be the prevailing party so the federal circuit there said let's wait and see what happens here if you reverse game over as you said your honor so