that the release was executed under the new jersey law which governs the contract here in this court's precedents releases generally are construed not to release future claims unless the future claim is explicitly present or future cleans including without limitation claims for patent infringement or misappropriation or misuse of confidential information and all what the courts do because they're sort of they are the savoring of release of future plans and what's very clear that that's what the problems in terms of the courts require you to be much more specific it's not enough to say any claim from a to z isn't your real problem here in fact that the documents the fifth likely reference selling a product and says that that we want them to be able to parties jointly want them to be able to continue selling this product as it currently exists or has ever existed in the past and then we release them from our claims and future crimes relating to this product so it's not the cases that you cite do not talk about the leasing of claims relating to the sale of the products principles that apply to general release of apply here when it comes to future claims that they have to be very specific and it does not specify that you could continue to sell their product no matter what patents are issued in the future and so it's there's a there's easier for for this not to be dispositive well they certainly if somebody else who didn't execute this release got a patent they would have to deal with that but this is someone who'd executed a relation said forever in the future you could you can sell this product well they did that in a later issue cat and i don't understand how you get out from under well again if you look at the case who do require you to be more specific than just those any  been applications but there had been applications for them they were there were not so there was something to like there were pending up with well there was a pending application even cheer for what became the parents of the five eighty three which had been published a couple of years before the settlement if you look it up and if you look at it like this the court has addressed this issue four times up to this point the first time it found that the claim was released that was in august and the difference in augustine is that there the patents had been issued in the infringing activity was already taking place so the court said well you had to have known about this claim and that's how the sport distinguished it in this next case diversified but the look but all three of the last cases the claim was held not to be released despite the very broad a non exclusive license to that same patent i mean there's no reference to the patent number here in this release language and how medical they concluded that the release language which is not identical to this was in big u s and then they decided that based on the extr was resolved in favor of not having it be released but here i don't see any ambiguity in the language another including there was if you look at the language in the whole medical relief it seems to cover every fact but with the courts so when it comes to future when you've got to be more specific than that and if you're not that's what the spog sort of what it means we've got to look at all the evidence and so you've got to look here at the at the through sample license why did they license convert check to proceed under this other type of just not taking it face value of this very broad language and instead looking at all the other which the court in the district court didn't do hear it said that the language itself was dispositive were other under new jersey law in addition to the the license but that it general release language that given the license to proceed with under un issued patents involving the father took the technology why would you issue a license for that but not for the b technology when you would give an equally broad release of i think this raises questions on top of other zesty evidence that we think should be explored and that's really i think the the the drug of this court's decisions in how medica license which was actually incorporated into the settlement agreement it's part of the agreement if you can just look at the release language separate and apart from that from that license all of this needs to be taken into account in order to determine of eventually we're not saying it's dispositive that in another self what we've got this far means that we win ourselves but it does raise enough questions that the court shouldn't have cut off the case and summary judgment should but should proceed to determine what was it that was intended by issuing this addressing whether there was the fifty six s motion or not and we think that would be the appropriate thing to do here if it hadn't been requested that makes it quite difficult for us so you titled well you know this about but by making this argument based on the  little bit different in that you can always look at extrinsic evidence but you can only look at it to affirm or add further loves to the interpretation that's already very within the within the contract w clear to say that you can't use it to contradict the plain language that's absolutely correct your honor i was just going to get to the quote from the cases from calgary for example and even this court's case at that point that point of care which is sixty six after twelve ninety nine and in that case to the admission of evidence of extrinsic facts not for the purpose of changing the writing but to secure light by which to measure its actual significance so far as evidence attack will be permitted to continue manufacturing offering for sale in permitting worldwide the present or past commercially available flex of steel f m s products a sample of which convatec is designated as exhibit a and was in fact  changes or differences and those were all spelled out in a declaration that was set forth in summary judgment and is it is in the record i can find that for you there but there's no dispute as to whether disagreement applies to the design agreement while jesse made that representation about there being no none of the acquired art quartered intellectual property being encumbered in fact nine of the nine patents are patent that that representation occurred nearly a year after the settlement agreement was entered into it and that that's also i would point out also that that subsequent active that that subsequent act or subsequent statement by the cases that were that are relied on by how stupid the julius shulman city then makes clear that subsequent activity between it's got to be between the parties to the contract not someone going to go off and that's a six eighty six and that was i guess this document came from house or spouse we don't know what this so e mail it doesn't look like an e mail it looks like a memo that some prepared but it references about  how can you determine that without some investigation one of these representations were made at the time of the assignment of intellectual property rights and others were made during through diligence so these you know and i urge you need to be but if the products are the same that doesn't quite harmonize the there's no question that there's a general release with regard to this v m s product that can detect was using at the time but what's not absolutely clear and really needs to be investigated in terms of some of these other evidence is whether the parties intended the card to take would be able to use this product forever no matter what patents were issued in the future as opposed to what the existing pen situation was at the time