SKY...That is your interpretation and it is wrong. They have "Settled" the case, there is nothing in the language of the papers filed with the Court to show the "settlement" is "Pending" as you say... Here is the Court record on this...
That is your interpretation. Here is what the document filed with the Court says:...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AVID TECHNOLOGY, INC., CASIO
AMERICA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS
USA, INC., NIKON INC., OLYMPUS
AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
SANYO NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:08-cv-93-DF-CE
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S
JOINT MOTION FOR STAY
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and Defendant Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. (“Samsung”), the two remaining parties in the above-styled action, hereby move for a stay, through September 18, 2009, of this action as it relates to the claims and counterclaims
that e.Digital and Samsung have asserted against each other. In support of this Joint Motion, e.Digital and Samsung state as follows:
1. e.Digital and Samsung have reached a settlement in principal of their dispute and they are negotiating the final terms of a settlement agreement. e.Digital and Samsung expect to finalize the settlement agreement and file a joint dismissal of their claims and counter-claims against each other by September 18, 2009.
2. In light of the impending dismissal of e.Digital’s and Samsung’s claims and counter-claims against each other, a stay is necessary to avoid the parties expending unnecessary costs and resources.
3. The granting of this Motion will not prejudice any party and is being sought ingood faith and not for the purpose of delay or any other improper purpose.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation and Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. respectfully request that the Court grant their Joint Motion for Stay and enter the proposed order attached hereto.
Respectfully and jointly submitted this 17th day of August, 2009,
/s/ Matthew S. Young.
If their settlement was "Pending" they would have said so. They DID NOT. The lawyers are talking about the filing of the "Impending dismissals", AND NOT ANY PENDING "SETTLEMENT"...
Gil...
