Enviroengineering Products Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v. Npc, Inc., Defendant,npc, Inc., Counterclaim-plaintiff-appellant, v. Enviroengineering Products Co., Inc., David Pentland,richard Pentland, and Jefferson Rubber Works,inc., Counterclaim-defendants-appellees, 923 F.2d 871 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

NPC, Inc. (NPC) appeals the judgment of the District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissing with prejudice the complaint filed by Enviroengineering Products Co., Inc. (EPCO) against NPC, in which EPCO challenged the validity of U.S. Patent No. 3,958,313 held by NPC, and NPC's counterclaim against EPCO for infringement of that patent. The District Court granted EPCO's motion to enforce a settlement agreement pursuant to which NPC and EPCO, inter alia, agreed to dismiss with prejudice the claim and counterclaim. We affirm.

OPINION

NPC presents six issues on which it contends the District Court abused its discretion and therefore committed reversible error. Those six issues are whether the signed settlement agreement constituted a legally binding contract and, if so, whether it is unenforceable because of an alleged misrepresentation by EPCO, an alleged mutual mistake, and an alleged unilateral mistake or an alleged impracticability of performance, and finally whether NPC is entitled to an injunction compelling EPCO to return certain molds and equipment delivered to EPCO in connection with the settlement agreement.

We have carefully considered the lengthy Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate, which concluded that the parties had effected an enforceable settlement agreement and recommended that it be enforced on EPCO's motion for dismissal of the case with prejudice. The Chief Judge of the District Court reviewed de novo the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate to which NPC objected. The issues raised on appeal were addressed in the Memorandum Order of the District Court, which after its review directed expeditious entry of the judgment here appealed.

NPC has failed to present any basis for us to conclude that the District Court committed any error whatsoever in the findings of fact or conclusions of law in this case. We therefore affirm.