Flex-Foot, Inc. And Van L. Phillips v. Crp, Inc. (Doing Business as Springlite)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Federal Circuit law controls when “the un- derlying substance of [an argument as to waiver of claims and defenses in a settlement agreement] . . . is intimately related with the substance of enforcement of a patent right.”
• “Upholding the terms of settlement agreements encourages patent owners to agree to settlements and promotes judicial economy.”
• enforcing a provision in which a settling defendant “agree[d] not to challenge or cause to be challenged, directly or indirectly, the validity” of the asserted patents
• construing litigation settlement containing \clear and unambiguous\ agreement not to challenge patent validity to be enforceable where challenger \had an opportunity to conduct discovery on validity issues\
• upholding a no-challenge clause where the parties settled after the alleged infringer “had an opportunity to conduct discovery on validity issues” and the parties had “fully briefed opposing summary judgment motions on the issue of invalidity”
• reproducing settlement agreement provisions in which the defendant agreed not to later challenge \the validity or enforceability\ of the asserted patents and \waive[d] any argument that the licensed products are not covered by one or more claims of\ those patents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).