A patent permanent injunction does not automatically follow a finding of infringement—even a willful one carrying a verdict worth hundreds of millions of dollars. On May 18, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas addressed a Motion for Permanent Injunction by Collision Communications, Inc (“Collision”) seeking to enjoin Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) from infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,593,492 (the “’492 Patent”).
The Court ultimately denied this motion because (1) the patentee did not establish that a balance of the hardships between the parties favored a permanent injunction and (2) the patentee failed to show that a permanent injunction would not disserve the public interest; both requirements for obtaining a patent permanent injunction, as outlined in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
Background
This motion for permanent injunction follows a jury trial in which Collision asserted that Samsung had infringed 4 US Patents. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Collision, finding that Samsung infringed all four patents, that all asserted claims were valid, and that Samsung’s infringement was willful. The Jury granted Collision almost $445.5 million in the form of a reasonable royalty to be paid as a running royalty rather than a lump sum.
The Court denied all other requested forms of relief in its Final Judgment, including Collision’s request for an injunction outlined in its complaint. Collision later filed a motion for a Permanent Injunction on only one of the four Patents, the ‘492 Patent.
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America (the “Statement of Interest”) in the matter.
Applying the eBay four-factor test
The Court addressed whether the plaintiff successfully demonstrated each of the four factors of the test outlined in eBay for permanent injunctions individually, rejecting several bright-line rules suggested by both sides. The four showings the plaintiff must show are:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Irreparable Injury
With the support of the DOJ and the USPTO’s statement of interest, the Court rejected Collision’s argument that ongoing infringement is sufficient as a matter of law to prove irreparable harm. It stated that such an approach would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay. Accordingly, the Court ruled that, while ongoing infringement is a factor in assessing irreparable harm, Collision must prove more than that to establish irreparable injury.
However, the Court also rejected Samsung’s argument that a non-practicing entity that merely licenses its patents (like Collision) can never prove irreparable harm. The Court made it clear that “there are not ‘two classes’ of patents. A non-practicing entity holds patents with the same rights as that of any practicing patent owner. The identity of the patent holder does not impact the rights conferred by the patent granted,” thereby rejecting another bright-line rule.
The Court was, however, convinced of Collision’s alternative argument of establishing irreparable injury. Collision argued that because of Samsung’s infringement, Collision lost the “design-win” competition against Samsung’s in-house team. In simple terms, that means if Samsung had not infringed, Collision would have been selected as Samsung’s supplier of the Patented technology for Samsung products, rather than Samsung’s in-house team. Collision argues that losing this “design-win” caused them to lose out on (1) the lock-in effect (Samsung would be effectively “locked in” to purchasing the technology from Collision for all future products requiring that technology); (2) the incumbency effect (Collision would be more likely to win future design competitions from Samsung because of the prior relationship); and (3) the goodwill as a winning supplier. Accordingly, the Court concluded that based on the “totality of the circumstances,” the loss of the design-win competition and Samsung’s ongoing infringement were sufficient to prove irreparable injury.
Inadequacy of Monetary Damages
The Court again rejected a bright-line rule on both sides: that patent infringement can never be remedied by monetary damages alone, as proposed by Collision, and that any non-practicing entity that does not compete with the defendant and only licenses cannot show inadequacy of monetary damages, as proposed by Samsung.
Instead, the Court again considered the “totality of the [circumstances]”. It ruled, with the support of the United States and Chief Justice Roberts’ concurrence in eBay, that because it is difficult to protect the right to exclude with respect to patents with monetary damages only, Collision satisfied the second factor for similar reasons to the first factor.
Balancing Hardships Between Parties
Addressing the hardship on each side, the Court rejected Samsung’s argument that an injunction would “impose burdens” on its employees across different countries because it does not apply to them as an entity. It rejected another bright-line rule, that “[f]or global companies like Samsung, there is no protective shield of being ‘too big to be enjoined,’ any more than there is a statutory shield of being ‘too big to fail’ in the global financial sector.”
The Court also rejected Collision’s argument that, because the injunction was narrowly scoped (limited to the infringement) and Samsung could comply with it, Collision satisfied the hardship factor. The Court rejected this bright-line rule “that harm to an infringing defendant is immaterial in the permanent injunction analysis,” because if that were the case, it would “essentially remove this factor from the Court’s consideration.”
Accordingly, the Court found that Collision did not meet its burden of establishing the balance of hardships because it did not identify any specific hardships it would face. It concluded that it did not satisfy the third factor.
Public Interest
Addressing the public interest, the Court again declined to follow Collision’s proposed bright-line rule that the public interest always favors an injunction because it prevents parties from choosing litigation over licensing from the patentee when litigation is cheaper than licensing fees.
The Court concluded that Collision, based on the facts, did not show “the importance of upholding the patent system and encouraging future parties to negotiate with patent holders rather than to strategically infringe meets its burden to show that the public interest will not be disserved by an injunction.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that Collision did not satisfy the fourth factor.
Key Takeaways for a Patent Permanent Injunction
- When moving for a permanent injunction for patent infringement, bright-line rules do not satisfy the requirements under eBay and instead require evidence based on the “totality of the circumstances.”
- It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove these factors through factual showings.
- The third and fourth factors of eBay especially require showing that a balance of interest weighs in favor of a permanent injunction for the plaintiff.
- This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court’s eBay decision of denying categorical rules, where the Court stated, when ruling that the four-factor test governs the awarding of injunctive relief, “[j]ust as the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals erred in its categorical grant of such relief.”
For patent owners and non-practicing entities alike, the decision is a reminder that a patent permanent injunction is earned through specific, factual proof on every eBay factor—not through categorical arguments about what the law should presume. Parties weighing injunctive relief after a verdict should think early about how their liability and damages strategy will shape the equitable factors that decide whether an injunction issues. If you have questions about pursuing or defending against injunctive relief in patent litigation, our intellectual property team can help.