We have repeatedly preached against the sin of greed. Well, we now have a case where the plaintiff clearly did not demand enough. (Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW North America, LLC et al.)

Affinity is a small – two person – firm which owns two patents directed to “a system and method for connecting and integrating a portable electronic device, such as an MP3 player, with a second electronic device such as a car’s sound system.” It does not practice the patented inventions.

Once upon a time, a patentee that prevailed in an infringement suit was awarded a permanent injunction barring the scum-sucking, bottom-feeding defendant from committing further dastardly acts of infringement. Automatic; no questions asked. Then, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, handed down its eBay decision, under which a patentee which does not practice the patented invention – an N.P.E. or, depending upon your point of view, a Patent Troll – is simply not going to receive an injunction.

By now, every “non-practicing entity” (NPE) in the country must be aware of the impact of the Supreme Court’s eBay decision, compelling the courts to apply the dreaded “four-factor” test to determine whether a prevailing patentee is entitled to an injunction barring further infringement by the scum-sucking defendant. In case anyone has been comatose for the past year and is unaware of the implications of this decision, I will briefly summarize – if you’re an NPE, the courts will NOT grant you an injunction.

From the "fact is stranger than fiction" department, we report on the bizarre case of a giant Japanese corporation suing a giant Taiwanese corporation in a court in Madison, Wisconsin. (Ricoh Company v. Quanta Computer Corp.)

Ricoh is an electronics manufacturer employing approximately 100,000 people, of whom over 40,000 are in the U.S. It produces, among other things, photocopiers, printers and digital cameras, with annual sales of about $20B.

We have previously commented upon the shabby treatment accorded small, non-practicing entities (NPEs) by the courts. Well, we are now able to report that, in at least one respect, large corporations are being treated in like manner to small ones. A large corporation, seeking to enforce a patent which it does not practice, i.e. a large NPE, gets the same short shrift as a small NPE. (Pitney Bowes Inc. et al. v. Zumbox, Inc.)

A reader of intellectual property trade publications is certainly aware that there exists a degree of antipathy towards “Non-Practicing Entities” (“N.P.E.s”), wherein such entities are pejoratively known as “trolls.” Most of this is instigated by the corporate infringers (“scumbags”) sued by the N.P.E.s. Much of it is unwarranted; some, however, is not.