It does seem that that would be the case, per the language of a licensing agreement. But this "without prejudice" thing.... But I continue to believe the whole issue is moot. And I think that the settlement language would prevail. IMO a settlement is done completely outside the court and IT is the agreement. I suspect that the language in the Pacer filing is standard "boiler plate" language used in all such instances, recognizing that any "fall-out" is dependent on what is stated in the settlement agreement (which should say "done deal" - DONE).

SGE