Spotlight Drawn to the “Ongoing-Violations Doctrine”

Last October, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a $445M verdict against Samsung for Collision Communications, Inc., which has asked District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in posttrial briefing for, among other things, a permanent injunction. The US Department of Justice and USPTO filed a statement of interest (SOI) urging the court to consider a nonpracticing entity’s claim to irreparable harm because “patents can be difficult to value”. Samsung then warned in a response that an injunction here “would wipe out over a quarter of the U.S. smartphone market based on one patent a non-practicing entity bought from a third party”. Now, Collision has also filed its take on the US government’s SOI.

The US Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange sets out a four-factor test that a patent holder seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy. Key for the patent holder has been to establish irreparable harm, i.e., harm for which money damages is inadequate compensation. Many have shorthanded the eBay decision as foreclosing access to injunctive relief for NPEs, for which money damages have been read as full compensation, but the new US administration has now had multiple times to weigh in on the consideration of this issue, noting that “patents can be difficult to value” and asserting that negotiations between patent holders and infringers is the best route to accurate valuation. Access to injunctive relief, under this view, facilitates such negotiation.

In Samsung’s response to the SOI filed in the Collision case, Samsung suggests that the US government’s interest here is general in nature (i.e., supporting the basic proposition that NPE claims to irreparable harm should be entertained, rather than dismissed out of hand) and characterizes the particulars of this case: “Whereas the grant of an injunction would wipe out over a quarter of the U.S. smartphone market based on one patent a non-practicing entity bought from a third party, the denial of an injunction would not harm Collision”. Samsung represents that it has filed its “short response to clarify the correct legal standard and to confirm that Collision cannot meet any standard for establishing irreparable harm”.

This SOI is the third one on this subject from the US federal government over the past year or so. The others were filed in a district court case filed by Radian Memory Systems LLC against Samsung and in an investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) based on a complaint filed by Netlist against Alphabet (Google) and Samsung. For additional details, see the “US Government Launches New Policy Initiative” subsection within RPX’s Q4 in Review as well as “US Government’s Statement of Interest Begins to Ripple” (July 2025).

Last week, Collision, upon permission from Judge Gilstrap, filed its views on the US government’s SOI, which repeatedly emphasizes the role of the “ongoing-violations doctrine” in the analysis of whether irreparable harm to “non-user patentees” is present:

The DOJ correctly criticizes the district court in eBay for adopting an impermissible rule that non-user patentees can never obtain injunctions—that was inconsistent with the traditional principles of equity. But the DOJ’s own position—that the ongoing-violations doctrine cannot establish irreparable harm—is equally impermissible as also having no basis in traditional principles of equity. The DOJ simply elevates one traditional trigger that it favors (difficulty of calculating damages can establish irreparable harm) over another that it does not (ongoing infringement establishes irreparable harm). The traditional principles of equity recognize both as grounds for irreparable harm, not one to the exclusion of the other. Also, neither of these triggers are an impermissible categorical rule that results in the wholesale grant or denial of an injunction—they involve just the element of irreparable harm.

(Citations omitted.) Per Collision, the “ongoing-violations doctrine has a long history in equity” predating eBay, and that decision’s “prohibition on categorial rules” in no way precludes its application. Because money damages inadequately address “future, post-judgment infringements”, the doctrine “still makes sense today”, Collision arguing that nonpracticing plaintiff-patentholders (like itself) should be able to use it to establish irreparable harm within the eBay framework.

As noted, Judge Gilstrap granted Collision’s motion to file a response. Meanwhile, at least one other NPE has sought to leverage these repeated SOIs from the US federal government. After a Western District of Texas jury awarded Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC $1.05M from Lyft, after finding five claims of a single patent infringed and not proven invalid, Quartz filed a motion asking District Judge Alan D. Albright for a permanent injunction as to one of two accused use cases for that patent. For deeper coverage of that move, see “Citing a ‘Culture of Disdain for Patent Holders’, Quartz Auto Seeks Injunctive Relief After Jury Verdict” (March 2025).

Further coverage of the Collision campaign, in which Apple was just sued (in the Western District of Texas), can be found at “Posttrial Briefing Well Underway in East Texas, Collision Communications Hits Apple Next Door” (March 2026).