"The Court finds, as a matter of law, that the 2002(OCT) Agreement does not supersede the 2002(APR) NDA. Specifically, the Court finds that the merger clause of the later agreement does not alone
allow it to supersede the obligations under the prior one."

However, in ruling on the DRM agreement and its line item nda and non compete conditions...

e.Digital..."Defendants assert they are entitled to produce and sell any technology that does not use RBE because such technology is not DRM technology, and thus, would not run afoul of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the DRM Agreement."

digEcor...Plaintiff argues that, by the plain language of the Addendum Paragraph, DRM technology includes many components in addition to RBE, such that Defendants are not automatically entitled to produce technology which differs from the DRM technology only in that it does not utilize RBE.

Answer...."The Court finds that, by the plain language of the DRM Agreement, the parties here have"

" Plaintiff’s argument that removing RBE from DRM technology is not a sufficient enough change to remove Defendants’ technology from the scope of Plaintiff’s exclusive right under the agreement is unconvincing. As is demonstrated by its relatively extensive mention in Addendum One, RBE is a substantial component of DRM technology."

How the newest prospective is placed next to the 2002 Boyer NDA and agreement, I have no idea.

e.Digital tried to out pace Boyer with "supercede" replacing the 7 year time frame.

digEcore tried to out pace e.Digital with yet another contract having unlimited exclusivity and non compete.

and we wait for a conclusion

doni