Summary
In a recent patent case, the U.S. government urged a Texas federal court to give greater weight to the difficulty of calculating damages as a basis for finding irreparable harm. If embraced by courts, the move could give patent holders more power to seek early injunctions and raise the pressure on defendants.
The Upshot
- The government recently filed a statement of interest in a patent infringement case urging the court to give greater weight to the difficulty of calculating damages when assessing irreparable harm.
- The filing suggests support for broader access to injunctive relief in patent cases even when the patent holder is a nonpracticing entity.
- Since eBay (2006), courts have rarely granted injunctions due to strict interpretations of irreparable harm and adequacy of legal remedies.
- If adopted, the government’s view could raise the stakes in early-stage patent litigation and increase leverage for patentees.
The Bottom Line
Patent owners may soon find it easier to obtain preliminary injunctions, giving them greater leverage earlier in litigation and increasing pressure on accused infringers. Attorneys in our Intellectual Property Group can evaluate and advise on how to navigate this new development.
On June 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office jointly filed a Statement of Interest in Radian Memory Systems, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:24-cv-1073). The filing urges the court to give greater weight to the difficulty of calculating damages when determining whether there has been irreparable harm, even when the patent owner is a nonpracticing entity. While the government takes no position on whether the court should grant an injunction in the case, it emphasized that monetary damages are often inadequate because they fail to account for harms that are difficult to quantify and may persist even after litigation ends, such as reputational damage and loss of market position. This indicates a policy shift toward easing the path to injunctive relief in appropriate patent cases.
This filing represents a potential inflection point in U.S. policy regarding patent enforcement. Since the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, courts have become increasingly reluctant to grant injunctions, especially at the preliminary stage and particularly to nonpracticing entities. In eBay, the Court rejected the application of a general rule automatically granting injunctions in patent cases and required courts instead to apply a four-factor equitable test. Patent owners seeking injunctive relief must show: (1) irreparable harm, (2) inadequacy of monetary damages, (3) that the balance of hardships favors an injunction, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Courts have interpreted the first two factors as significant hurdles, and as a result, injunctions have become increasingly rare, with courts often defaulting to monetary relief in cases of ongoing infringement.
If courts adopt the government’s position, it could shift early-stage litigation by restoring preliminary injunctions as a viable remedy, particularly for patent holders who license rather than manufacture. If courts become more willing to grant preliminary injunctive relief to patent owners, it could raise the stakes for accused infringers who could face operational disruptions rather than just monetary exposure. This could raise the cost of settlement, licensing, and litigation.
The author appreciates the assistance from Summer Associate Daniel Shen in the drafting of this advisory.
Related Insights
Subscribe to Ballard Spahr Mailing Lists
Get the latest significant legal alerts, news, webinars, and insights that affect your industry.
Subscribe Copyright © 2025 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.