DOJ and USPTO File Statement Backing Injunctions for NPEs

"Unduly limiting patentees' ability to seek injunctive relief to block patent infringement undermines the incentive to innovate. Non-practicing patentees should not be categorically denied the opportunity for injunctive relief based solely on their status as non-practicing entities, as they can suffer irreparable harm from infringement that monetary damages cannot adequately compensate."

"Even non-practicing patent holders, such as Collision, can suffer irreparable harm from infringement. Samsung opposed the motion for permanent injunction, asserting that Collision had not established irreparable harm because as a non-practicing entity, it expected to license its patent for a royalty and thus monetary relief would represent adequate compensation."

The USPTO and DOJ jointly filed a Statement of Interest in Collision Communications v. Samsung, advocating for strong injunctive relief protections for patent owners. The statement addresses Samsung's argument that Collision, a non-practicing patent holder, should not receive an injunction because monetary damages adequately compensate it. The agencies contend that unduly limiting injunctive relief undermines innovation incentives and that non-practicing entities can suffer irreparable harm from infringement. This position follows a similar joint statement filed at the ITC arguing that exclusion orders should be presumptive remedies for infringement. The case involves Samsung's willful infringement of Collision's signal-processing patents, with a jury verdict awarding $445.5 million in damages.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law