Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction was denied. "Because [plaintiff] is not competing with [defendant], it is more difficult for [plaintiff] to argue that it will be irreparably harmed without an injunction. This fact weighs heavily in the Court’s analysis. . . . [Plaintiff] has never used the [patent-in-suit] to develop a product. . . . Further, the claimed invention embodied in the disc-drive is but one relatively small component of the entire assembled computer. When the patented invention is but a small component of the accused product, it weights against a finding of a permanent injunction. Still further, [plaintiff] has repeatedly entered into numerous one-time, lump-sum licenses on the [patent], and [plaintiff] has always sought monetary awards on the [patent]."
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Storage America, Inc. et al., 2-06-cv-00348 (TXED June 22, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Ward, J.)