The agencies filed their statement of interest in Collision Communications Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that preserving injunctive relief for patent holders is "foundational to the exclusionary right a patent confers" and critical to protecting innovation incentives.
The Justice Department and USPTO argued that policies limiting patent holders' access to injunctive relief could undermine the constitutional right to exclude others from using patented inventions. "Innovation is core to dynamic competition, and vigorous competition is central to the success of the American economy. Policies that preserve incentives to innovate are therefore vital to safeguarding competition," said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay of the Antitrust Division.
The statement specifically addresses the treatment of non-practicing entities, commonly known as patent trolls, arguing they should not be "categorically denied the opportunity for injunctive relief" and can under certain circumstances demonstrate irreparable harm that monetary damages alone cannot remedy. The agencies took no position on the merits of the underlying Samsung case.
The filing comes as courts have increasingly scrutinized requests for patent injunctions following the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, which established a four-factor test that made injunctions more difficult to obtain. The Justice Department has been walking a careful line between supporting patent rights while also pursuing antitrust enforcement against alleged patent abuse.
"Injunctions prevent ongoing and irreparable harm to innovators and the innovation economy, and ensure that legal remedies can stop unlawfully copied inventions from continuing to harm innovators," said USPTO Director John A. Squires, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property.
The statement represents continued collaboration between the agencies on intellectual property policy, an area where antitrust and patent law intersect. Both agencies have emphasized that strong patent rights and competitive markets are complementary rather than conflicting goals.
The case involves Collision Communications' patent infringement claims against Samsung and other defendants, though the specific patents and allegations at issue were not detailed in the agencies' filing. The statement will likely influence how the Eastern District of Texas, a favored venue for patent litigation, approaches future injunction requests.