The parties' stipulated motion to vacate judgment and allow entry of a consent judgment was granted. "[T]his Court has little difficulty concluding the equities at issue in the Motion to Vacate strongly favor allowing the settlement between [the parties] to proceed on condition that the jury’s findings in favor of [defendant] as to the [patent-at-issue] claims are vacated even if doing so is at the expense of the . . . Intervenors’ ability to argue in the case brought against them by [the same plaintiff] that the jury’s advisory finding in [this case] should be given preclusive effect. . . . On balance, the cost to the Court, the public, and the parties of undoing the proposed settlement and forcing the parties and the Court to proceed with post-trial motions and subsequent appeals on a host of issues far exceeds the cost associated with the . . . Intervenors’ defense of [plaintiff's] patent claims without the benefit of a preclusive sword as to only one issue."
CollegeNET, Inc. v. Xap Corp., 3-03-cv-01229
(ORD June 8, 2009, Opinion & Order) (Brown, J.).