On February 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office jointly submitted a Statement of Interest (“Statement”) in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. in the Eastern District of Texas. In plain terms, the DOJ and the USPTO suggested that courts to treat injunctive relief as a meaningful part of the patent “right to exclude,” and to avoid blanket approaches that make injunctions effectively unavailable for broad categories of patent owners. While the Statement does not change the legal test for granting injunctions, it may influence how courts frame and apply remedies in patent cases.
What the DOJ and the USPTO stated:
Injunctions remain important to the patent system. The agencies assert that limiting the availability of injunctions can weaken incentives to innovate and undercut the exclusionary rights of the patent system.
Remedies should be assessed case-by-case, not by labels. A theme is that courts should avoid categorical rules, such as treating injunctions as off-limits based solely on a patent owner’s business model.
Injunction leverage can drive business resolutions. The agencies note that the prospect of an injunction can help parties reach market-based outcomes, rather than forcing courts into setting a royalty through litigation.
Tailoring is part of the analysis. The Statement highlights that courts can craft appropriately tailored injunctions, including timing and scope limitations (for example, delayed effective dates or sunset provisions), and emphasizes that injunctions are not meant to be punitive or to confer undue leverage where non-infringing alternatives exist.
Money damages are not always a complete answer. The agencies explain that even where damages are awarded, that does not necessarily resolve future harm, particularly where ongoing infringement affects competitive dynamics and damages are difficult to calculate going forward.
Why this matters (practical view)
Injunctions in U.S. patent cases are never automatic, and courts apply an equitable, fact-specific analysis. That said, the current DOJ and the USPTO state the view that remedies should not drift in a direction that systematically undercuts a patent owner’s right to exclude. This Statement was submitted in a case pending before Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas. If Judge Gilstrap meaningfully engages with these points in an injunction decision, it could be shape how parties and courts approach injunction arguments across other cases in the district and throughout the United States. We will be watching how courts respond to this guidance and whether it gains traction.
