The Wall Street Journal mooted that a recent ruling in a lawsuit between Apple and Motorola Mobility may cast doubt on the viability of the ongoing patent battles involving numerous vendors, particularly with regard to blocking the sale of competitors’ products due to alleged infringements.

According to the report, Richard Posner, a US court judge, questioned whether the harm caused by a patent infringement justified the harm done to the defendant by preventing the sale of products to consumers – which also limits customer choice. He argued that monetary damages were a more appropriate remedy, while criticising the way in which companies arrived at their calculations in the process.

Apple has previously called for the ban of a number of products, with some degree of success in various markets, with its primary target in this being Samsung – which is also its closest competitor. The company has recently tried to block sales of the South Korean company’s flagship Galaxy SIII smartphone, as well as its Galaxy Nexus device.

HTC has also seen the launch of some of its smartphones into the US market delayed by Apple’s actions, after devices faced a review after the Cupertino company was awarded a partial importation bar late last year.

With regard to the Motorola case, court documents posted by AllThingsD noted: “Unsurprisingly, there’s no evidence of loss of market share or customer goodwill by Apple, and no basis for expecting such loss in the future. The price differences between the iPhone, which is Apple’s smartphone, and Motorola smartphones suggest that the markets for the two classes of product are not perfectly overlapping, and so a small improvement in a Motorola smartphone attributable to infringement may not take significant sales from Apple.”

Posner noted: “Apple is complaining that Motorola’s phones as a whole ripped off the iPhone as a whole. But Motorola’s desire to sell products that compete with the iPhone is a separate harm—and a perfectly legal one—from any harm caused by patent infringement.”

The WSJ said that Christal Sheppard, an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska, had argued that the move is “part of a larger trend” toward courts questioning the amount of damage done by alleged patent infringements.

However, it was noted by Brian Love, a professor at Stanford Law School, that: “the ruling was more like a 'what Judge Posner thinks' rather than writing something that can be cited broadly or that other judges can use for their rulings.”

Posner dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning that the companies cannot refile the same claim – although they can appeal his ruling.

The Apple and Motorola suit comes as a number of high-profile cases reach various courts.

Dow Jones Newswires reported yesterday that the US International Trade Commission had delayed a decision on whether Microsoft had infringed Motorola’s patents related to video streaming in its Xbox games console.