"Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to dismiss their claims and counter-claims in the particular action and Shuffle Master has agreed not to bring any claims against us for the infringement of the above-referenced patents for past or future use of the technology, with the exception of matters involving infringement of the following aspects of Patent No. 6,325,373: (i) a method of recovering from a card jam in an automatic card shuffler, as further described in Claim 6 of Patent No. 6,325,373; and (ii) an automatic card shuffler with a card moving mechanism to clear card jams, as further described in Claim 7 of Patent No. 6,325,373. In return, we will make settlement payments to Shuffle Master in the amount of $400,000 payable on or before July 14, 2005, and $400,000 which is due on or before May 14, 2006."
at the conference call, you're more likely to hear about:
"The Settlement Agreement extends only to the matters described above relating to Patent Numbers 6,325,373 and 6,068,258, and does not extend to the legal proceeding filed on October 5, 2004, by Shuffle Master, Inc., against us in the United States District Court, District of Nevada (Case No. CV-S-04-1373-JCM-LRL). Those litigation proceedings continue and are not affected by the Settlement Agreement." from page 20 of http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004673/000114420405035305/v029205_10qsb. htm
with emphasis on the last bit of: "On December 27, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a final ruling regarding our Notice of Appeal in the infringement action brought against us by Shuffle Master, Inc. in the United States District Court, District of Nevada (Case NO. CV-S-04-1373-JCM-LRL) on October 5, 2004. The Notice of Appeal related to the order issued by the United States District Court granting Shuffle Master's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing us from selling our PokerOne(TM) Shuffler.
In its ruling the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the District Court and overturned the preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court of Appeals expressly concluded that under our claim construction, our PokerOne(TM) Shuffler does not infringe on Shuffle Master's patent for its shuffler product. The Court of Appeal's decision permits us to seek damages from Shuffle Master for the period we were wrongfully enjoined. We intend to pursue all available remedies against Shuffle Master relating to this matter." from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004673/000114420405041567/v032386_8k.txt