Collision Communications v. Samsung — Judge Denies Injunction Despite $445M Verdict, Even as DOJ Backs NPE’s Irreparable Harm Claim

Background

Collision Communications, a small company (~20 employees) that acquired four wireless signal-processing patents from BAE Systems, sued Samsung for infringing those patents in Samsung’s Galaxy phones, laptops, and other Wi-Fi/4G/5G devices. The patents cover advanced multi-user detection and interference-reduction technology—methods for reducing signal interference when multiple devices compete for the same wireless channel, a core challenge in modern LTE and 5G systems.

After a week-long trial in October 2025, a jury returned a $445.5 million verdict for willful infringement of all four patents, structured as a running royalty covering future sales. Collision then moved for a permanent injunction under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

In an unusual move, the DOJ Antitrust Division and the USPTO jointly filed a Statement of Interest in February 2026 urging the court to reject the widespread assumption that non-practicing entities (NPEs) can never satisfy the irreparable harm prong of the eBay test. The government argued that patents are unique assets difficult to value through monetary damages alone, and that the existence of a damages award does not foreclose irreparable harm for future infringement. However, the government also cautioned that irreparable harm should not be treated as categorically available to all patentees.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Gilstrap denied the permanent injunction, but in a nuanced ruling that partially adopted the government’s reasoning on irreparable harm.

Irreparable harm (Factor 1)—Satisfied. In a significant finding for NPE injunction law, the court held that Collision “sufficiently supported its argument that Samsung’s ongoing infringement is irreparable harm.” This is one of the rare post-eBay decisions where a non-practicing patent owner cleared this threshold, apparently adopting the DOJ/USPTO’s argument about the difficulty of calculating ongoing damages.

Balance of hardships (Factor 3)—Not satisfied. This factor proved decisive. The court found that Collision “didn’t identify the hardship it would face absent injunctive relief.” As a licensing entity that does not manufacture or sell competing products, Collision could not show concrete operational harm—no lost market share, no price erosion, no manufacturing disruption. The court also found that Collision failed to rebut Samsung’s compliance concerns about the feasibility of an injunction covering such widely deployed wireless technology.

The result: despite a nearly half-billion-dollar willful infringement verdict and unprecedented government support for the irreparable harm theory, the injunction was denied because Collision’s NPE status made the balance-of-hardships factor insurmountable.

Key Takeaways

• NPEs can satisfy irreparable harm under eBay. This is one of the clearest post-eBay holdings that non-practicing patent owners are not categorically barred from showing irreparable harm. Future NPE plaintiffs can cite this ruling.
• But balance of hardships remains a high bar. Without a competing product or operational stake, NPEs still cannot show they would be concretely harmed by the absence of an injunction—the damages remedy is seen as adequate even when calculated as a running royalty.
• DOJ/USPTO intervention signals policy shift. The joint Statement of Interest was the first time the government has supported NPE eligibility for injunctions at this level. While the court did not grant the injunction, it adopted key aspects of the government’s legal reasoning on irreparable harm, signaling potential movement in future cases.
• Willfulness alone does not compel an injunction. Even with a finding of willful infringement, the four-factor eBay test requires independent satisfaction of each element.

Why It Matters

This decision sits at the intersection of two major patent policy debates: whether NPEs should ever get injunctions, and whether the government should weigh in on patent remedies. The DOJ/USPTO’s Statement of Interest was widely seen as a signal that the current administration views injunctions as an underused tool that could strengthen the patent system. By accepting the irreparable harm argument while denying the injunction on other grounds, Judge Gilstrap threaded a needle: the ruling moves the law incrementally toward NPE injunction eligibility without actually granting one, preserving the eBay framework’s practical barrier against exclusion orders that lack a commercial justification.

For patent holders and licensors, the case underscores that satisfying eBay’s irreparable harm factor is necessary but not sufficient—the balance-of-hardships showing remains the critical hurdle for non-practicing entities, regardless of verdict size or government support.

The DOJ/USPTO Statement of Interest filed in this case is available below: