The settlement agreement was originally filed under seal but Minted, Inc. moved to unseal the Agreement, believing it relevant to its own Section 285 motion against ECT. The Court agreed, finding:
First, Defendant has not met the burden of demonstrating any information contained in the Settlement Agreement meets the Ninth Circuit standard for under seal filing.
Second, and perhaps more critically, the terms of the Settlement Agreement indicate that “California Entities,” a defined term that includes California resident entities that are not parties to the action, are third party beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement disposes of certain claims made by Plaintiff pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and purports to protect such entities from future lawsuits. Such specified third-party beneficiaries of a settlement of what amounts to private attorney general UCL claims will not know of the terms of the agreement, nor will they have any way to enforce those terms, if the Settlement Agreement remains under seal
Kindred Spirit aka True Grit v. ECT, Case No. 18-cv-7661-GJS (CACD), Dkt. No. 69.
California Entities are now safe from the patent monetization campaigns of one of the most prolific NPEs. See: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/stupid-patent-month-eclipse-ip-casts-shadow-over-innovation
Lamkin IP Defense would like to formally thank Andrew Fairclough, the owner of DJ Plaintiff True Grit, for the honor of representing his Private Attorney General action against ECT. The state of California and I are in your debt.
Postscript: the Honorable Judge Standish found ECT had engaged in “in terrorem” tactics and awarded attorney’s fees.