It was dismissed without prejudice. This means nothing. If a patent troll wanted to do the same thing & file for the same lawsuit, they could easily do so. This isn't a "win" for the sutdents as much as it's "oh, let's just drop it."
I'm glad they didn't have to the pay the troll, but I also hate when the troll doesn't get what it deserves, either: losing.
I think it means something, but I agree with you I wish the patent troll wasn't getting away with it.
This seems similar to a house that had an alarm system. The thief opened the door and started to look for good stuff to take then heard the alarm go off and ran away. Mainly I would say the home owner "won" in that case by not having their stuff taken. Though it is annoying that the thief could come back and they have to deal with the thief's break in attempt. And it is annoying the thief wasn't caught and put in jail to prevent them from just going to the next house and breaking in there.
Is there a legal procedure that would have made it possible for the defense team to say to the judge "It should not be possible to dismiss this unless it is with prejudice"?
In most cases, if a plaintiff withdraws, it needs to be with prejudice. Thats the default rule.
In this particular instance, there was a procedural twist that make it a somewhat close call.
I'm glad they didn't have to the pay the troll, but I also hate when the troll doesn't get what it deserves, either: losing.