Several years and $612.5 million later, the battle between Research in Motion and NTP is settled. It included a huge payout, a long court fight, the threat of a nationwide shutdown and a media circus that bordered on hysteria. One would assume the implications for innovation and intellectual property would be enormous.

So what is the tangible fallout of the RIM/NTP case? According to the intellectual property experts Telephony interviewed, absolutely nothing.

The RIM/NTP litigation was notable because of the stakes, and it had numerous elements of drama — the most notable being the threat of an injunction shutting down millions of BlackBerrys — that contributed to the amount of scrutiny it received. But in the end, it was merely a big patent dispute that happened to be fought out in the media as well as the courtroom, said David Benyacar, a partner at Kaye Scholer in New York, who specializes in telecom and computing technology and patent litigation.

“The RIM settlement isn't really going to change the way companies launch new technologies,” Benyacar said. Even the size of the settlement, though large, wasn't by any means unique, he added. “This isn't a trailblazing case.”

Since RIM and NTP started their courtroom battles, several other wireless e-mail companies have joined in the litigation game, most notably Visto, which after signing a licensing agreement with NTP filed lawsuits against both Good Technology and Microsoft. But Benyacar said that was normal, too. Companies don't make intellectual property claims when an industry is in its infancy — there's simply no revenue stream to justify the time and cost of a court fight. But now that the wireless e-mail market is taking off, companies are ready to assert their patents, Benyacar said.

One interesting element about the litigation, however, was how prominent the threat of injunction was to the case. Injunction really is the sole right of the patent holder, said Rory Radding, partner and head of the New York intellectual property group for the firm of Morrison & Foerster. Patent law only gives patent holders the right to withhold use of an idea or invention, not demand royalties or concessions. But an injunction — or threat of one — shows just how powerful patent law is, he said.

“Even if the allegedly infringing technology pertains to a small component of a software process or business system, an injunction can cripple a company's entire operations,” Radding said. “That risk may turn out to be a bigger issue than the merits of the case.”

Normally when a company asks for a review of a plaintiff's patents, the court reserves judgment until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finishes its investigation. In the RIM case, however, U.S. District Judge James Spencer went ahead with proceedings, forcing the patent office to work on the court's schedule, not the other way around. The case effectively became a race against the clock between the patent office and the court, causing the threat of injunction to loom all the more prominently, Radding said.

If anything, Radding concluded, the RIM case has more repercussions for the patent office itself than it does for patent litigation in general. The case may herald a more active and responsive bureaucracy, he said. But as far as its influence on innovation in technology, it will have the exact opposite effect of stifling innovation. It will encourage innovation because inventors and entrepreneurs will know their intellectual property is protected, Radding said.