In granting plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction, the court found that monetary damages were insufficient. "According to the plain terms of [an earlier license of the patents-in-suit], [plaintiff] promised that he would not license the technology at issue to any other third party. Failure to enter a permanent injunction in this case would result in [plaintiff's] unwilling violation of that promise, which would have an unavoidable and undeniable effect on [plaintiff's] future licensing negotiations. . . . Although one could describe [plaintiff's] only commodity as patents and his only concern as being paid royalties for their use, that focus is too narrow. [Plaintiff] does more than collect royalty checks in arms length transactions with random licensees. Instead, [plaintiff] is in the business of building long term relationships with leaders in the window blinds industry. . . . Harm to those relationships, and the resulting loss of these, and other, tangential benefits, cannot be quantified and remedied completely with money."
Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 2-07-cv-00251 (PAWD March 31, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Lancaster, J.)