Opinion ID: 221848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consent Judgment and Settlement

Text: Agreement Based on the district court’s May 13, 2010 claim construction order, the parties entered into a Consent Judgment that Claim 9 is invalid and not infringed by any Defendant. The parties also entered into a settlement agreement which provided for dismissal with prejudice of Aerotel’s claims for infringement of Claims 1-8 and 10-23 of the ‘275 Patent. In the Consent Judgment, the parties agreed that the Claim Construction Order “shall not have any res judicata, collateral estoppel or other preclusive effect with respect to any claim of Aerotel, Ltd. against any third party or any defendant not a party to the Settlement Agreement.” It also provided that the Consent Judgment “does not operate as a waiver of any right of any party to appeal this Court’s Claim Construction Order as applied to Claim 9.” The district court signed the Consent Judgment, thereby entering a final, appealable judgment of invalidity and non-infringement on Claim 9 of the ‘275 Patent. Aerotel timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 17 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP