IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Licensing entity not entitled to permanent injunction against Samsung in wireless communication patent dispute, (May 21, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Despite proving irreparable harm, the successful plaintiff failed to establish that the balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction under the eBay framework.

A federal district court in Texas has denied a wireless technology developer’s motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung, holding that although the plaintiff established irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary damages, it failed to satisfy the balance of hardships and public interest factors required under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.C.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The court rejected categorical rules favoring injunctions and emphasized a fact-specific equitable analysis. Notably, the United States, through the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, filed a Statement of Interest opposing categorical approaches to irreparable harm and urging strict adherence to eBay (Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00587-JRG (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Collision Communications, Inc., is a non-practicing entity holding certain wireless communication patents. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are global manufacturers of smartphones and other consumer electronics.

The case involved multiple patents, but the motion for permanent injunction was confined to U.S. Patent No. 7,593,492 (the ’492 patent). The patent relates to wireless communication functionality used in mobile devices. Following a jury trial, the jury found that Samsung infringed all asserted claims, that the claims were not invalid, and that the infringement was willful. The jury awarded approximately $445 million in reasonable royalty damages, structured as a running royalty rather than a lump sum.

After entry of the final judgment, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement of the ’492 patent. It argued that Samsung’s continued use of the technology deprived it of its right to exclude and caused ongoing competitive harm, particularly in securing design wins—opportunities to embed its technology in commercial products. Samsung opposed, asserting that monetary relief was adequate and that the equitable factors weighed against injunctive relief. The United States filed a Statement of Interest addressing the proper application of the eBay framework, particularly rejecting categorical rules on irreparable harm.

Irreparable harm. Collision argued that ongoing infringement constituted irreparable harm as a matter of law. The court rejected this position, holding that such a categorical rule is inconsistent with eBay. Citing Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 2024 WL 4820802 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the court reiterated that a successful plaintiff cannot rely on presumptions and must demonstrate irreparable injury based on the facts.

The court also addressed Samsung’s suggestion that entities that do not manufacture products rarely suffer irreparable harm. It rejected any categorical distinction based on business model, emphasizing that patent rights are uniform regardless of whether the holder practices the invention. The court noted that even entities focused on licensing or technology development may suffer irreparable harm due to difficulties in valuing patents and quantifying damages, echoing the position taken in the Statement of Interest.

On the facts, the court found that Collision established irreparable harm. It credited evidence that Samsung’s infringement deprived the plaintiff of design-win opportunities and undermined its ability to control the use of its technology. The court also considered ongoing infringement in its analysis and concluded that, taken together, these factors satisfied the first eBay requirement.

Adequacy of monetary damages. The court next considered whether monetary damages were sufficient to compensate for the harm. Samsung argued that ongoing royalties and enhanced damages provided adequate relief, relying on Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The court rejected any categorical rule that monetary relief is always adequate. It observed that damages may not fully compensate for loss of control over patented technology or for competitive harms such as lost design wins. The court also noted the inherent difficulty in valuing patents and forecasting future harm. Accordingly, it held that the plaintiff satisfied the second eBay factor.

Balance of hardships. Further, the court found that Collision failed to carry its burden on the balance of hardships. Collision argued that any hardship to Samsung was immaterial and that the proposed injunction was narrowly tailored. The court rejected this position, holding that eBay requires a genuine comparison of hardships and does not permit categorical disregard of the defendant’s interests. Samsung argued that an injunction would harm its employees and disrupt its operations. The court found that these arguments were either conclusory or improperly directed at third-party impacts rather than hardship to Samsung itself.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to identify specific hardships it would suffer absent an injunction and therefore did not demonstrate that the balance of hardships favored equitable relief.

Public interest. In the analysis of public interest, it was found that Collision failed to establish that an injunction would not disserve the public interest. While acknowledging that protecting patent rights generally benefits the public, the court emphasized that this principle alone is insufficient. Collision argued that an injunction would encourage efficient licensing and deter infringement. The court rejected this as an overly general assertion and held that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the public interest favors an injunction under the specific facts of the case. Samsung argued that an injunction would reduce consumer choice and disrupt the smartphone market. The court declined to accept any implicit argument that Samsung’s size insulated it from injunctive relief but found that Collision failed to meet its burden on this factor.

Conclusion. Finally, the court denied the motion for permanent injunction, holding that although Collision established irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary damages, it failed to satisfy the balance of hardships and public interest requirements under eBay.

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-00587-JRG.

Judge: Gilstrap, R.

Attorneys: Bradley Wayne Caldwell (Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC) for Collision Communications, Inc. Gregory F. Laufer (Wharton & Garrison LLP) for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Companies: Collision Communications, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Patent TexasNews GCNNews