Good points. The clause "that is the main memory of the system" is so vague and ambiguous that I can't imagine the judge accepting it. It is, as you say, extra verbiage, and all it does is confuse the issue. That's not what the judge wants.

I agree that we're in good shape, and my point in drawing attention to the other scenarios is merely to point out even if we don't get everything we are expecting/hoping for, there is only a very small chance (15%?) that this whole thing will go against us.

The dire predictions that the stock will become worthless if we lose, are overblown. First an actual loss is highly unlikely, and even if we don't get all we're asking for, chances are excellent that we'll see a nice payday down the road — several nice paydays.