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.

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.)

Some time ago, we wrote about developments in the International Trade Commission (I.T.C.) (see "New Opportunities Or How To Circumvent e-Bay"). Specifically, we commented on the newly relaxed requirements for standing to bring an action in the I.T.C. The Commission has determined that the “domestic industry requirement” can now be satisfied by “licensing” activities.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in eBay v. MercExchange LLC, that a prevailing plaintiff, in a patent infringement suit, is not automatically entitled to an award of a permanent injunction against the infringer (scum sucker). Rather, the trial court was to apply the traditional four-factor test.

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.

A previous blog post discussed the eBay decision, about which we will not comment further, except to note that it effectively removed one weapon from the arsenal of the NPE – the dreaded “non-practicing entity” (also, pejoratively known as a “troll”). No longer could the NPE threaten a patent infringer with the legal equivalent of a neutron bomb – a permanent injunction.