IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS: U.S. backs patent owner’s bid for injunction against Samsung in Texas patent case, (Jun 26, 2025)

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

Government’s rare intervention supports Radian’s preliminary injunction motion claiming infringement can cause irreparable harm-even when patent holders are non-practicing entities.

In a notable development, the U.S. Government filed a Statement of Interest in a patent assertion entity’s infringement lawsuit against Samsung pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) jointly submitted the filing. It urged the court to recognize that owners of valid patents, including non-practicing entities like Radian, can suffer irreparable harm from continued infringement and may be entitled to injunctive relief even at a preliminary stage (Radian Memory Systems v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01073-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed June 24, 2025)).

Background. Radian Memory Systems LLC, a Texas-based patent assertion entity, filed suit in December 2024 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The complaint alleged infringement of seven patents covering Radian’s "Cooperative Flash Management" (CFM) technology, designed to enhance the performance and efficiency of solid-state drives (SSDs) in enterprise and data center environments. Among the asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 11,544,183 and 11,347,656.

Radian claimed that after it declined to join the NVMe consortium—a standard-setting body that would have required it to license its technologies royalty-free—Samsung and other members of the consortium incorporated features protected by Radian’s patents into NVMe’s Zoned Namespace (ZNS) standard. Radian alleged that Samsung's ZNS-enabled SSD products infringe multiple claims of the asserted patents, including those covering the redistribution of SSD and host responsibilities.

In April 2025, Radian moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Samsung from continuing the alleged infringement during the pendency of the case. Radian argued that it faced irreparable harm in the form of lost licensing opportunities, diminished reputation, and erosion of its position as a technology pioneer. Samsung opposed the motion, asserting that Radian lacked standing, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and could be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

Patent holder's rights. The government’s filing emphasized that a patent is a form of property carrying with it the right to exclude others. Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 154 and 261, the patent grant entitles its owner to control how, when, and to whom the patented technology is licensed. “This right of exclusion,” the government stated, “includes the ability to determine the identity of licensees, fields of use, geographies, and other license terms.”

The government highlighted that even where a court awards reasonable royalties in lieu of an injunction, such remedies cannot replicate the nuanced control that patentees often exercise over licensing. Patent owners may wish to include auditing provisions, arbitration clauses, royalty structures, or field-specific limitations that reflect their long-term strategic goals. A court-imposed license, by contrast, strips away this discretion and reduces the patent’s commercial value.

Additionally, the Statement clarified that the equitable remedy of injunction plays an essential role in preserving the property-like attributes of patents. Even without direct market competition, the loss of control over licensing and use constitutes a legally cognizable form of irreparable injury.

Valuation challenges. The government next focused on the difficulty of monetarily quantifying harm caused by patent infringement. The Statement cited i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and other precedents to support the proposition that when damages are uncertain or speculative, the case for injunctive relief becomes stronger.

The government noted that appellate courts often reverse or adjust damages verdicts, introducing even more uncertainty into the remedial calculus. In such cases, the lack of a predictable damages framework amplifies the risk of under-compensation. Injunctions, in contrast, provide clarity and reinforce the statutory guarantee that a patent confers an exclusive right.

To support this point, the Statement listed examples in which courts have found irreparable harm based not on financial loss alone but on the inability to measure that loss accurately or to recapture licensing leverage once infringement has occurred.

Non-practicing entities. One of the central themes of the government’s intervention was the defense of non-practicing entities’ rights. The Statement rejected the argument that entities who derive revenue through licensing are inherently unworthy of injunctions.

Furthermore, the Statement cited Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the court acknowledged that reputational harm and loss of market position—even in the absence of manufacturing—can warrant injunctive relief. Similarly, in Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that irreparable harm may stem from business disruptions not easily reduced to a monetary figure.

The government also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), clarifying that the decision does not bar injunctions to licensing entities. Rather, it requires courts to apply a flexible, fact-specific four-factor test—considering irreparable injury, adequacy of remedies at law, balance of hardships, and the public interest. None of these factors, the government insisted, precludes injunctive relief based solely on the patentee’s licensing-focused business strategy.

Efficient infringement. The Statement voiced concern over the increasingly common practice of "efficient infringement," where firms intentionally infringe patents, knowing that the absence of injunctive relief and the unpredictability of damages will result in negligible consequences. This practice, the government argued, disrupts the market-based balance envisioned by Congress and distorts incentives to innovate.

“Where injunctive relief is categorically withheld, infringement may be seen as a rational business decision,” the government warned. It noted that such strategies tilt the playing field in favor of large implementers who can afford to litigate rather than license. The result is a systemic erosion of the patent system’s deterrent function.

The Statement advocated for restoring balance by ensuring that courts retain the discretion to issue injunctions where warranted. Recognizing irreparable harm in licensing contexts, it argued, is critical to maintaining the full protective scope of patent rights.

Deterrent function. Finally, the government emphasized the role of injunctions in deterring willful infringement and protecting the innovation ecosystem. While injunctions are not appropriate in every case, their availability is essential to prevent patents from becoming devalued public franchises. The Statement described injunctive relief as a structural mechanism that forces parties to negotiate licenses on equal footing.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-01073-JRG.

Judge: Gilstrap, R.

Attorneys: Bradley W. Caldwell and Adrienne Roberts Dellinger (Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC) for Radian Memory Systems LLC. Melissa R. Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP) and Sean Pak and Arian Joseph Koochesfahani (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Andrew N. DeLaney, U.S. Department of Justice, for the United States.

Companies: Radian Memory Systems LLC; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet TexasNews GCNNews