Thank you for posting the stipulations you referred to in your earlier post.

The stipulations I posted, while we now know are not those you cited, were related to the claims for infringement of 445 and 108. There was no intent to disseminate disinformation.

My intent is to thoroughly understand any potential risks that may result from the claims having been "dismissed with prejudice".

I found and posted the following explanation:

By contrast with prejudice means that a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost. To continue the same example, if instead the court had jurisdiction, but the plaintiff did not appear for the trial, the court would dismiss the case "with prejudice". That dismissal is a judgment against the plaintiff "on the merits" of the case, and extinguishes the claim that was being sued over. However, this does not prevent an appeal or a trial de novo if ordered by a higher court.

While this is, undoubtedly, not the difinitive legal explanation, it does say, "a party's legal rights have in fact been determined and lost." It does not say that a claim was withdrawn, it says lost "on the merits" of the case.

So, if company A and company B both make comparable devices and we loose a claim against company A "on the merits of the case", then winning the same claim against company B would seem unlikely.