pursuing and that was a judgement a breach later on it was not a fact that he went off into conduct this same analysis and this time he came out with a different opinion that's not a mistake a fact that is a mistake of judgment and confident that when he but looking at the facts what we do know is that even under his view of materiality which we don't think it's even remotely supported by the case for him to walk through that even under system he did not have enough information at the time the media's decision  knowledge about the decision to abandon adult so the only thing he looked at is a floor for a girl in the joint and x which is the report where it says no he decided not to renew that report is dated january two thousand and three january fourteenth he says once there had to be some change in circumstance or the result in a different decision and he said the black logic scenario applies which says that in the city for reasons not a legal neglect we dispute that we don't think there's any support in that in the  submitted he has not done any investigation at all that point so we have to assume that he also he doesn't know whether the inquiry by mr ansari is for any legitimate reason under the need is own policy and they're only supposed to license absolute is going to be used for productive use of commercial value and it turns out that his message here is actually really what's wrong with the tape which is that it turns up just for ansari after the fact doesn't want to use this for any productive commercial reason he just wants to use it so he can sue but the point is at the time that is a crock no his decision he did not have any information as to whether that initial inquiry was sufficient to be something that was actually a commercial interest that was legitimate under the naval office and then lastly he didn't know the time and the so there's a difference between when the initial decision was made to a man who had and when the facts arguably could have come to light kidneys needed to do some investigation to find out whether that would have changed the decision to turn the time the going back to the  is getting at there is if you make an intentional decision to review the patent and for some reason the delay for events you from doing that if lost in the mail right the wrong number down there's some confusion over what  the decision maker who was supposed to decide made the decision on the information that's known to that person intentionally not to renew the patent that's a deliberate decision there's nothing that renders unintentionally even if additional information comes to life that's exactly what happens in lots of opportunities to have the deposition in another case with good explain entirely all the facts and he was also the title submitted on declaration where he could have provided more back that would show that it was limited to this but once it looked once you take a look at the deposition the other case you take a look at it after isn't this a real line that the facts are still what they are even as he tells us which is that he did not have enough information at the time to submit respect leader on at that point were entitled and one of the reasons for that is that in this unique