IMO, it's implied by the admission they are trying to blame their US infringement (their defense on some of the products) on the "grey market", i.e. the market they said consists of infringing (allegedly, at this point) products sold that they didn't intend to sell in the US, but certainly will sell to the supply channels.

Basicly, since they aren't contesting ALL products (cellphones), and are seeking to eliminate only certain models, the argument is that they shouldn't pay on selected models (they don't argue against the other models that were sold in the US... do they?) because those phones were not intended for the US market.... so does that mean they should pay for the others?