Thanks for your response Ron,

I am concentrating more on the settlement than the case. When all the plaintiffs claims have been dismissed "with prejudice" I believe that indicates that the case can no longer be re-opened. If the parties had not reached a settlement before the case was dismissed "with prejudice" then in this case the plaintiff could do nothing to force a settlement on their terms. But, if both parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement, and agreed to dismiss plaintiff claims "with prejudices" couldn't that be a tool used by the defendants to have settled and relieve the plaintiff of the ability to ever bring any claims involving that patent against them in the future. I know it is never wise to assume when it comes to litigation, but unfortunately with a non-disclosure agreement being in effect it is sometimes difficult to determine if investing in one particular party would be wise, or not. That being said if I am forced to read tea leaves how would you interpret that information? Because the Plaintiffs motion was dismissed "with prejudice" the stock has taken a beating, but my contention is the interpretation of "with prejudice" after a settlement was reached and was requested by both parties by mutual consent, in that case, may very well indicate a whole different outlook. Is that a good, fair assumption?