Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.
730 F.Supp.2d 333, U.S. Dist. Ct. Del., 2010:
Amazon successfully argued against an order that would require them to permanently halt its infringing activities or pay an ongoing royalty to patent owners.
730 F.Supp.2d 333
CORDANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and, Amazon Web Services, LLC, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 06-491-MPT.
United States District Court, Delaware.
July 23, 2010
Plaintiff sued Amazon for patent infringement with its website’s “1-click” purchase feature.
Plaintiff claimed Amazon’s information storage and way of collecting buyer and seller reviews violated Plaintiff’s patents.
At trial, a jury found that Amazon had infringed on some of Plaintiff’s patents. Plaintiff then filed a motion asking the court to issue a permanent injunction against Amazon from infringing upon its patents, or, in the alternative, an ongoing royalty if Amazon continued to do so. Amazon opposed this motion.
Plaintiff argued that they and Amazon were the only two competitors in the market for digital identity systems enabling one-click shopping and Amazon’s infringement has caused Plaintiff’s business to suffer. Amazon argues that they were never direct competitors and its supposed infringement in using the one-click system has nothing to do with Plaintiff’s business losses, but rather that has resulted from Plaintiff’s poor business decisions, i.e. licensing it’s software out.
The Court found agreed with Amazon and refused to order a permanent injunction as Plaintiff didn’t show irreparable harm that couldn’t be rectified by monetary payment. The issuance of a royalty was denied because of a pending appeal that would resolve the issue.