Categorical Rules Cut Both Ways: Originalist Equity, NPE Status, and the Symmetry of eBay's Four-Factor Test

"The court found that Collision proved both of those, but failed on the trailing two: balance of hardships and public interest. With the result of the injunction being denied."

"Judge Gilstrap's opinion takes a middle ground. It rejects the categorical rule Collision sought, that ongoing patent infringement presumptively constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law under 18th-century Chancery practice (as reinterpreted through Trump v. CASA, 606 U.S. 831 (2025)). And it also rejects Samsung's opposite position, that a non-practicing patent owner cannot establish the harms required under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)."

"Although not a party, the USPTO/DOJ filed briefing (a statement of interest) in the case arguing that non-practicing patent owners should not be categorically barred from injunctive relief, and that the inherent difficulty of valuing patents and calculating damages can itself support a finding of irreparable harm under certain circumstances. The government at the same time declined to endorse Collision's more aggressive theory that ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law under 1789 equity principles. Ultimately, Judge Gilstrap appears to have adopted the government suggestions."

"Despite denying injunctive relief, the key passage from the decision is the court's flat rejection of any NPE carve-out: "this Court rejects the position that a non-practicing entity can never establish irreparable harm. . . . The USPTO does not"

A motion seeking a permanent injunction was denied. The court rejected a categorical rule that ongoing infringement automatically creates irreparable harm as a matter of law, and it also rejected the view that non-practicing patent owners can never satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief under eBay. The court found that irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary relief were proven, but it concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest did not support an injunction. The USPTO/DOJ argued that non-practicing owners should not be categorically barred and that valuation and damages difficulties can support irreparable harm in some circumstances. The court adopted those suggestions and rejected any categorical NPE carve-out.

Read at Patently-O