In the Eighth Defense of document 92, EDIG's lawyers write:

"digEcor's claims based on the 2002 NDA are barred because that agreement has been replaced in whole or relevant part by the subsequent agreements between the parties."

Given that the Court already ruled the 2002 Agreement does not supersede the NDA, I find it interesting that EDIG's lawyers make this argument. They must feel there is a reasonable chance for this defense to be accepted by the Court.  Since they didn't specifically cite the 2002 Agreement in the defense, perhaps they're referring to other documents since they write "subsequent agreements".