written description of issues and time permitting the venue transfer issues of course i'm happy to answer any questions that the the court may have only get to that then you question if we're all in your favor on the merits that i crap so to get to the venue issue the court would have to reverse the summary judgment decision otherwise that the venue issue is moot and that's why i wanted to focus on that summary judgment decision as pacifically the the notice part of it and then the the substantive written description portion of it the district court erred when it did not allow we agree to rely on the two thousand and three and two thousand and eight applications for priority since this case started in texas are infringement contentions and pointed to that first provisional application the two thousand and two application in our priority disclosure and the parties operated on the basis that that disclosure would allow us to get back to that date if we could get corroborating evidence but also would include each of the other applications in the chain so she has room or what is it about the proceedings two by definition you need to do all steps in the chain so it would be enough for them to respond to say you missed the two thousand and eight step or the two thousand and three step what is it that tells you everybody understood which i think invalidity theory as our infringement contentions due on our infringement their and their invalidity contentions only mentioned two thousand and three and two thousand and eight so in that point in the case of dhobi could not we responded saying hey we can get back to our own through no eight there's enough disclosure there and we fought it again when the case got transfer and adobe told the district court in california we're going to follow a motion on a three a no and and then california why didn't you update your intentions at that time in order to conform with the local rules well i think the local rules for the contentions were the same so in austin they're there aren't local rules because there's a only i think three district court judges but there still are acquirement for infringements contentions and invalid contentions and most districts based that off of what's in northern california there's no there's no argument that what was disclosed in the western district of t this issue came up was in the northern district of california so i think it would be a harder case if our contention said no later than april two thousand and two and then adobe's invalidity contention said you can't get to two thousand and two and you've waived everything in between we would have then moved i believe in western district of texas really early in the case instead the parties follow that of the risk you were facing all along very well i don't think we yes my question is what is your position what is your understanding that the other side's position what is the correct answer to the question could you references the talk about the level of skill in the art that post dates two thousand and two and also the priority defense that the delhi raised was two thousand and three and two thousand  plaintiff has alleged purdy based on the earliest provisional application dated two thousand and two to simplify matters the new matter analysis that follows discusses the earliest utility application from two thousand and three the difference between two thousand and three and two thousand and  three on page fourteen fifty four but to me that discloses if the issue is only two thousand and two and everything else is way of the why fight over two thousand and three this  me that both sides were understood that the applications i've been here for years where i guess i get it wrong i mean i guess that confused about several things here but that in order for you to get to two thousand and two you have to get to two thousand and thousand and three as the priority date and you know look you have if i can rewind the clock and go back and redo those contentions of course i would have put in the alternative of three in the alternative ok but they're on the point with respect to two thousand and three and two thousand and eight is what they were trying to say with those of the dates you're looking at there's a new law that was added around two thousand and three to two thousand weapons that we're talking about and different invalidity contention at that point but there was invalidity contention in the texas case based on two thousand and two they have as if our contentions are limited the way doby re read them and the district court in california did that then the our own pages thirteen eighty three to eighty four and thirty three it says based on defendant's review of specifications as compared to the zero five three and the five for four that's the two thousand three thousand married applications new matter was introduced that's the priority defense right that there are different arguments right i don't understand why you're saying they had the what it does it was required to provide a claim construction its if the local rules and various courts including northern california mentioned your priority disclosure in your invalidity contentions is binding in adobe actually which is the since the sr solution where someone's in flip contention that i'm going to attack this priority date on the patent and then they tried to move for summary judgment on a different priority date similar chain and the court said no you can't do patent in particular no asserted claim is entitle to the benefit of any earlier filed application so far as part of that not entitled to the benefit of any earlier filed application in order for it in fact i would tend to think that that language suggests you think all the earlier war ones are on the table you think that's what's at issue two thousand and eight two thousand and three they were what it's several in two that we understood their contention to be april second two thousand and two was that that is their contention the question is whether that contention was and if we lose on that we lose as opposed to we think we can get back to april two thousand and two but claim can i use a priority date the tween that was between the patent filing and the one that i state it was rejecting the contention that by saying no later than let's say here april second two thousand and two you can't suddenly come in and say two thousand and one two thousand one thousand nine hundred ninety earlier and that you are stuck with not being able to go further back in time but not that you are stuck with if you disputes in the case and hear the contentions on ambiguously for close reliance on any of the later applications i do you arguing in texas about two thousand and three in two thousand and eight if you thought that they had foreclosed it so a couple of points anything else right the other point is that there are no police no local rules in the western district texas and it wasn't our understanding that they were retyped were fired in any way to make priority disclosures and so if we had been arguing about waiver in the western district texas we would have had an argument because there was no there were no what the rules there were no requirements for them to disclose priority and so they weren't limited in any way by those contentions in the western district but once the case moved to california there are local rules they serve the contentions and we relied on the contentions as they were written and i would say that in this report they now have this argument that well we really just researched the contentions so therefore we brought all the baggage of the history from texas and california that argument was never made to the district court it's waived in this court especially because we're dealing here with a discretionary decision by the district court and so to try and attack the district court here based on an argument was never m talks in terms of notice to the defendants and there's a lot of back and forth about whether the defendants are really put on notice but is there is there really a notice component built into those rules i don't think there is and that's the other thing i mean certainly crystallize theories early and all that but ultimately the questions are just twofold one what are the contentions say and do they include two thousand and three they don't want to begin a slate and then two we get right to is there good cause to a did they explain to me argued to the district court here that they and indeed to you understood this identical language to allow them to  their case based on any of the intervening states and so it came as a great surprise to them when you asserted the country having litigated under an apparent assumption other assumption in texas no i don't believe they did your honor they did mention in the texas proceedings but they never mentioned this language mean presence in texas or that them understanding that that we understood the language to include two thousand and three there was no argument have these kind of grayish words in front of a date you know so at least by whatever if a party just comes out says look our contention is the primary date april two thousand and two but if we don't get that it's august two thousand and two but if we don't get state the person actually gets instead we had this contention that there's no way to the two thousand and two and so we reasonably relied on that and when we were searching for prior art we concentrated our efforts on only things that would have been prior art doesn't fit can you tell me what to make them flee i guess looking at thirteen ninety three to five these are the title is this table seven the state of the art at the time of right so a couple things on this first i mean this isn't actually a formal identification of prior art but i think secondly and most importantly this gets at the two thousand and two versus two thousand and eleven issue so yes there are some things in here that are after two thousand to a lot of things for example like at thirty nine to two suits canadian application from december twenty eighth and that's on the assumption that if they don't get their two thousand and two date then they would be limited to two thousand and eleven  i think if there had been a disclosure that what we were really thinking about here was april two thousand and three we would have focused a lot more effort on prior art specifically in that two thousand to two thousand and three window but we didn't do that because we understood th if you look to table one at appendix thirteen eighty six which is things we actually charged and which is a practical matter if you're in the district court those would be in your cheek intentions you would bring to trial all of that is is before april second to two thousand  so for all these reasons we think it again under the standard of review here which is abuse of discretion the district court didn't abuse its discretion in enforcing the local rule and holding a challenge to its contentions because there was no good cause workers are actually different and they are in the western district the northern district out for their invalid contentions mention you can't get to two thousand and two zero and ballots which is not of what's in the western district of texas contentions but they were responding to you or texas maybe they thought well this is still developing maybe they're really not going to stick with this and then you go to california and you're going to chance to file your contentions under the local rules and you say two thousand and three we just took the same contentions and beat the idea intentions which under those judges kind of the law that's developed in their cases have the same force that they would in northern california in terms of amendment and in turn you know for we would have to show good cause and show demolitions here the first time this issue claim construction proceedings but nobody knew that we were relying on what was on the face of the pad and and the court at the hearing said well what happened in texas was all about zero three and zero eight and counsel for it and he said yes that's right but  five eight forty two to twenty eight forty three the court says the debate in before the texas court in this kind of paraphrasing carry over twenty forty three the debate was what happened with the zero five g all that actual information actually had against you because you know if you're saying two thousand and three and two thousand and eight we're always on the table then why did you say no later than two thousand and two when you filed your inference from contentions and in california to put this together and we were somehow purposely trying to get around docu sign even though it was never charted and was under the idea of the two thousand and two been an issue for twenty months but the very first time this came out we was looking at the cracks timeframe under the assumption that this zero two issue was raised in texas and it never was and the first time it was raised we asked for leave to amend we did so very early the court of these discretion when it denied lea play no later than two thousand and two right could not i don't know what it would mean why we would do have that and tend to give up everything else and the reason for that is even if the intervening art is not  and if the burden is on them and the burden is on us to just prove priority by a preponderance there's no reason we would give up all of those intervening dates and essentially stipulate that our patent would be invalid if we can't get to two thousand and two because they still have to prove an invalid case there hasn't been a chart on doc you saw and that's been produced to my knowledge that you know shows invalidity indicating we would waive our right to those and the intervening applications in the texas record just the opposite because we argued in the from the texas court we can get to two thousand and three we said the priority dates two thousand and three and that's in the claim construction transcript and in our response br and we just took the same contentions and reserved them and hindsight's twenty twenty one b here i assume if we had put in all of those alternative dates although i don't exactly believe that it only would have would have allowed a way out