Intitled to Tie Him Up: Can 18th-Century Chancery Practice Restore Patent Injunctions?

"On February 27, 2026, Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas received two filings in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:23-cv-00587-JRG (E.D. Tex.): a Statement of Interest from the DOJ Antitrust Division and USPTO supporting injunctive relief for non-practicing patent owners, and Collision's own motion for a permanent injunction that goes much further than the government's position."

"The Collision argues that the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025) offers the opportunity to revisit seemingly settled law -- particularly that case requires courts to apply 18th-century Chancery practice when evaluating the eBay four-factor test. And, historians suggest that if that history is examined then the result will be a presumption that ongoing patent infringement is irreparable harm as a matter of law."

"If Judge Gilstrap accepts this argument, it would effectively reverse two decades of Federal Circuit precedent limiting NPE injunctions. In my mind, the question is largely whether the Supreme Court is genuinely committed to recovering the historical principles of equity or instead invoking that history as a tool to reach today's policy goals."

In Collision Communications v. Samsung Electronics, the DOJ Antitrust Division and USPTO filed a Statement of Interest supporting injunctive relief for non-practicing patent owners. Collision's motion argues that the Supreme Court's 2025 Trump v. CASA decision requires courts to apply 18th-century Chancery practice when evaluating the eBay four-factor test for injunctions. Historical analysis suggests this approach would establish a presumption that ongoing patent infringement constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law. If accepted, this argument would effectively reverse two decades of Federal Circuit precedent that has limited injunctive relief available to non-practicing entities. The central question concerns whether the Supreme Court genuinely seeks to recover historical equity principles or uses history to advance contemporary policy objectives.

Read at Patently-O