218
exclusion clearly and unambiguously covers the allegations in the Flextronics Action, PTC’s expectations have no further
'
l’oleto play in this analysis.
III. CONCLUSION
•For the reasons set forth more fully
ahpve, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion, for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED. Although
Charter Oak has not itself moved for dismissal, PTC acknowledges “[i]f the Court
rules that the IP' Exclusion applies, the
case is over.” Having resolved that, the IP
exclusion. does • apply to the Flextronics
Action, I direct the clerk to .enter a judgment. for the defendant declaring that the
exclusion does apply. .

2015 DNH 154
Leon H. RIDEOUT, Andrew Langlois,
and Brandon D. Ross
v.
William M. GARDNER, New
Hampshire Secretary of
State.
Case No. 14-cv-489-PB.
United States District Court,
D. New Hampshire.
Signed Aug. 11, 2015.

Select target paragraph3