Full docket text for document 33:
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS filed by e.Digital Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Hedrick, Gabriel) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

Full docket text for document 34:
MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL re [33] STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS filed by e.Digital Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 30, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL Re: ECF No. 33 The parties have filed a stipulation of dismissal dated June 30, 2016. ECF No. 33. Because the stipulation is signed by all parties who have appeared, it is effective without court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This case has been dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 2016 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

may be one time fee.....

They're not filing formally "joint" motions as in past settlements.....however, reviewing the above it reads... "The parties have filed a stipulation of dismissal dated June 30, 2016. ECF No. 33." with that, it is a joint consideration.

When I read 33 noted above, the motion/stipulation is filed by e.Digital, seemingly filing at its discrussion alone...e.Digital, again hiding details?

Whatever...

Stats of past filing jointly...with prejudice

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA-DONE...with prejudice (doc 177 JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 10/21/09 {19 months})...PR10/22/2009 "announced today that it has entered into a cross licensing and settlement agreement with Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (Samsung). Under the terms of the confidential agreement, Samsung obtained a license and release on e.Digital's foreign and domestic patent rights, including the Company's Flash-R™ patent portfolio, and e.Digital obtained a license and release on certain Samsung patents. e.Digital also received a one-time licensing fee."( foreign and domestic patents including FlashR/Xlicense certain patents,),10Q 2009-11-16

No ongoing considerations of royalities....with that, case closed with prejudice.

doni