The parties' motion to vacate claim construction following settlement was denied. "[The] patentees argue vacating the claim construction order would promote the public policy in favor of settlement. . . . [T]he Court disagrees that the overriding public policy is in favor of vacating an otherwise valid court order because one or more of the parties, after settlement, finds that order inconvenient. . . . Not only would such a practice come dangerously close to engendering improper advisory opinions by courts, it might also encourage inefficiencies through repetitive litigation. . . . Had the parties wished to resolve their disputes in a matter that did not involve public proceedings, there were ways to do so. . . . The parties did not choose that option and therefore cannot now expect that orders relating to the dispute, properly entered and unrelated to settlement, will now be vacated."
Aurora, Colorado, City of v. PS Systems, Inc. et al., 1-07-cv-02371 (COD July 2, 2010, Order) (Brimmer, J.)