page twenty four states and this is an appendix to page twenty eight there could be no question that the plain meaning of the term accused products and a patent case is the products that are accused of infringing the patent it also makes sense when considering the meaning of any agreement that settles a case that the agreement would be setting the actual crimes asserted in the complaint what's wrong with that because it is the testing equipment that supplies the fissionable to components required for claim one the memory products themselves cannot infringe yet a memory products which cannot be very because it's the it's only when the infringement occurs when the memory product is put into a machine that supplies the other two components for me this is testing equipment infringe therefore the memory products are not accused products there are no excuse products from smart and the judge without the district will not allow me to point out that in a response of discovery the statement was i we were asked what the accused products are and we said there are no accuse products because we have not said that these many products product that is not frenching it's a direct infringement when you put it in the test equipment to test it that combination of the two creates for the few seconds that the testing is occurring that's when the direct was for making using and selling them d d r memory problems you know there are no it's in french we know that to suddenly one day because that moment when they're testing get infringement how could you have sought an injunction prohibiting their sale in less you were implicitly arguing that they amounted to induced infringement or contributory infringement because they had no known infringing uses how could you have prayed for an injunction on the sale of those products if you're now standing in front of me and saying those products standing alone don't cause any harm to anybody i'm  prayer for relief you have goes beyond what you would be entitled to under a direct infringement claim unless you were claiming the modules themselves directly in french i did not claim that it could not possibly occur they and the other side you're saying he knew this was false that is correct well that raises a whole other set of questions doesn't  interpretation was a full sentence to seventy one and rejected the plaintiff appellant interpretation as rendering the contract term meaningless just contrary to texas contract  at the complaint three complains and although it analyzed its orders just the complaints it had before it twenty nine instances from the briefs pleadings where the defendant argued the plaintiff identified the d d r two three and four memory products as you can use products and determined as a question of fact that those were the accused products that is a finding  disagrees with because your parent does not argue from the settlement term sheet impelling argues from the complaint saying that the conclusion from the complaint should have been contrary to the district court's finding talking about patent abuse i'd also i could mention that there is there are other documents that are not before this court like a license agreement so there so that the wife in the future of smart doesn't depend upon this because the settlement terms she require a license agreement that's been