....I'm not sure that's quite accurate. Sheppard M

....I'm not sure that's quite accurate. Sheppard Mullin lawyers are not stupid, as a rule. This is more like a teacher asking you to show your work on a math test, to see HOW you arrived at the answer you ultimately write down. Centrify doesn't really care what the final number is in the Entrust settlement. They want to see HOW that number was calculated, to make sure there was no funny business between SFOR and Entrust. It's actually quite good lawyering. Hypothetically, Centrify could get their hands on the documents they're seeking and find out SFOR and Entrust made some crazy deal in an effort to screw over subsequent infringers, like Centrify, Duo, etc., while agreeing to a license or some other back-door agreement in the future. Admittedly, I'm using the fringe-end of the reality spectrum, but when you're Centrify's attorney and you're staring down the barrel of a potentially huge payout based on agreements and math done by your opponent (SFOR) and some other unrelated 3rd party (Entrust), you can see why Centrify's lawyer wants to see how the sausage was made.

That all said, I firmly believe this is a positive step, even if the judge orders SFOR to produce the documents that Centrify wants. I refuse to believe Ropes & Gray would have done anything in the Entrust settlement that is untoward, or would negatively impact the value of future settlements with other infringers. That is why SFOR doesn't really oppose handing over the documents. I think this has more to do with Entrust being over-protective of their litigation strategy, and not wanting to let a competitor like Centrify gain insight into their inner-workings.

All my opinion. I welcome any differing viewpoints.