The judge entered a tentative ruling saying that he was inclined to dismiss the entire case on the merits with prejudice (meaning, to kill all the claims in the case definitively so they could not be brought again by either party) on grounds that (a) neither party could prove actual damages on their claims, and (b) no good ground existed for the grant of an injunction.
These conclusions are well supported on technical grounds by existing law. A damage case can be tossed, once and for all, if a party is conclusively shown not to be able to prove damages, as happened here. And a judge can decline to impose an injunction where the costs of doing so would be far out of proportion to the benefit it gives to the harmed party, where the wrongdoing party is not gaining great benefit from the wrong committed, and where the public would be more damaged than helped by such a remedy.
What this really amounts to is a victory for common sense. Where patents involve essentially trivial rights (as often is the case with software patents especially), judges do not like to be used as tools to be manipulated in a broader commercial fight between litigants. In essence, this judge, looking at these facts, said "OK, kids, time to stop squabbling in the sandbox and go home." The lesson: pick your fights carefully and don't push claims that are essentially trivial.
Judges, good as they are, can only do so much in a system that is defined by constitutional authorization, congressional implementation, and a specialized court set up by Congress that has become cozy with the patent bar. That said, Judge Posner can hardly be accused of being a judge who doesn't respect property rights or IP rights generally and his voice will carry far more impact than most. It will be necessary to have respected voices in the legal community say, "enough is enough" many times over before Congress will listen. This act may not be enough but it is a great push in the right direction.