"My take on this case (and others) is that the dismissal with prejudice most likely means some sort of agreement/settlement rather than just walking away."

In the past, the parties agreed on a ruling for e.Digital settling up with prejudice came with monetary conditions of one lump settlements...some being 7 figures. With that, some settlements had cross-licensing conditions as well. e.Digitals specific related claims of the case can't be brought before the court again.

In the past, the parties agreed on a ruling for e.Digital settling up without prejudice came with monetary conditions of ongoing payments...where e.Digital could bring cause before the court…e.g defendants not executing on settlement conditions.

In the past, the parties agreed on a ruling for defendant counter claims dismissed with prejudice @ settlement, it more or less meant that the defendants had no worry, what so ever, of issues related directly to the case or possible future cases and had no reason to preserve their counter claims.

In the past, defendant counter claims dismissed without prejudice, it more or less meant that the defendants had issues to worry about that where placed on the back burner with regard to settlement conditions...with that, the parties agreed on a ruling to preserve defendants counter claims for possible future events.

For recent settlements:

I read e.Digital settling its specific claims with prejudice...no doubt as they relate specifically to the case.

I read defendants settling counter claims without prejudice.

The parties have come to terms, whatever they might be, and the defendants are preserving their counter claims for future events...unrelated to the settled specific case.

FWIW...

doni