Interesting point of view, but I don't see it that way. Using...

Interesting point of view, but I don't see it that way. Using the same car analogy I would consider Bactisure as the old petrol driven Mazda 3 and Xperience as the new Mazda MX (EV). Given that Bactisure is used as a flushing agent of a wound, where as Xperience is intended to be left in the wound and reabsorbed by the human body. Another example is would one consider a permanent titanium plate inserted in a patients skull through surgery the product as a 3D printed bio resorbable implant in the skull to assist bone regrowth?

Regardless, I do agree with your point of 'what the contract said' if it was a broad, open-ended, and possibly somewhat ambiguous supply agreement then this will hurt NXS. Surely they will provide an update in next Mondays conference call as to the likely success of a favourable ruling in the defendants favour.