Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict of infringement was denied because plaintiff failed to establish that the infringing activity irreparably harmed plaintiff's business. "Cordance has neither provided the court with a clear, summary-level overview of the relevant market for the [patented] technology, specifically one-click, nor persuaded the court that Cordance and Amazon are direct competitors in a market utilizing such technology. Cordance’s arguments ignore that it was Amazon’s use of one-click purchasing that was found to infringe . . . not Amazon’s commercialization of a digital identity system or activity in or entry into the market for such a system. . . . For these reasons, Cordance has failed to establish that a direct link exists between Amazon's infringing use of one-click technology in online transactions and either Cordance's inability to establish itself in the digital identity market, a loss of goodwill to Cordance, or a change in the digital identity market’s landscape."
Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com Inc., 1-06-cv-00491 (DED July 23, 2010, Memorandum Opinion) (Thynge, M.J.)