That's true but at the very least it suggests a weakness in what they have in place at the moment. And what's written in the contract certainly can't be contra

That's true but at the very least it suggests a weakness in what they have in place at the moment. And what's written in the contract certainly can't be contradicted by anything before it. At best they're going to be able to fill in the gaps. EDIT: I am also not a lawyer but this seems to be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule Essentially where something exists in the contract in writing it can't be amended or contradicted by any other source. What other material can be used for is to prove / disprove validity, provide clarification around ambiguity and so on. That would seem to suggest that Lodsys at the very least aren't confident that the contract as written completely supports their case.