The patent holder sued the alleged offender in the Northern District of Illinois for patent infringement. The Landgericht issued a summary judgment that, under a 2006 contract not to assert his patent against the alleged infringer, the patent holder was no longer refused to claim his patent. The patent holder appealed. The Federal Circuit did not retain the merger clause in the 2007 transaction agreement and, therefore, in 2006, the NSC excluded infringement applications from the patent holder against the offending offender. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered whether the purpose of the NSC and the 2007 transaction was the same to determine whether the merger clause had been applied. The patent holder argued that the purpose was the same, since the purpose of both agreements was the right to practice the alleged patent. A non-recourse contract is a legal agreement in which the party seeking damages agrees not to sue the party against which it has grounds. A non-recourse contract may indicate that the potential plaintiff will not take a long-term action or indicate that the applicant may defer a fixed-term lawsuit. For example, in Pro Done, the New Hampshire Supreme Court faced „a first question for this jurisdiction: does the New Hampshire law recognize a contract breach ground based on a contract that is not pursued if the treaty does not explicitly provide that the uninjured party is entitled to consequent damage because of breach of contract?“  The disputed transaction agreement contained both an authorization and an agreement not to sue a business and certain related persons with respect to certain identified claims. Nevertheless, the parties who continued the release and the non-recourse agreement subsequently sued some of the beneficiaries of the release and failed to take legal action on claims under the settlement agreement. It is not to allow the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal, based on declassification, which has been improperly brought, that the released persons have filed a separate application for violation of the federal state, which will not bring an action for damages resulting from the filing of the appeal at first instance (first, the legal costs for the defence of the unduly brought remedy). On the basis of certain cases in other jurisdictions that had previously dealt with an agreement, not to bring legal action as the equivalent of a discharge, unless there was an express language that resulted in damages as a result of their violation, the defendants (the parties who had promised not to bring an appeal of the released rights) chose to return the applicants“ (the parties who were dismissed by the defendants) who are now being sued by the defendants, had been released) for violation of the federal state. Not to sue.
And the court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs` complaint for violating the federal government not to bring an action.