U.S. Government’s Intervention in Patent Case Signals Good News for Patent Owners Seeking Injunctions

“It seems clear that the Trump Administration is advocating a new path forward and a return to the possibility of an injunction issuing to patent owners—even a preliminary injunction.” Earlier today the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Radian Memory Systems, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1073), a patent infringement matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The filing was made by attorneys from both the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), and suggests that the court should find the existence of irreparable harm to be in favor of the patent owner. Ultimately, the government argument boils down to this: Patent infringement in many cases causes irreparable harm to the patent owner, and monetary damages are extremely difficult to calculate and, therefore, monetary damages are insufficient. The decision of the U.S. government to intervene with this statement in a case between a non-practicing entity and one of the world’s largest technology companies is quite telling and will be taken as extremely good news by patent owners. While the real decision to watch will be that of the district court, and then the Federal Circuit, it seems clear that the Trump Administration is advocating a new path forward and a return to the possibility of an injunction issuing to patent owners—even a preliminary injunction. And with the DOJ and USPTO intervening in this case so early, whatever the ruling, the case seems destined for the Supreme Court. In this case, Radian filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung. In seeking a preliminary injunction, Radian alleges that it developed and patented an innovative technology to improve management of flash solid-state drives (SSDs), particular for use in enterprise and data-center operations. Radian alleges it was pressured into joining the NVM Express (NVMe), which was the relevant standard setting organization. Radian refused because membership would have required Radian to offer a royalty-free license of its patented technology to NVMe members. Following Radian’s decision not to join and freely give its patented technology to Samsung, Radian alleges NVMe members, including Samsung, began infringing. In the preliminary injunction request, Radian argued it will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the form of both lost market opportunity and market position as a technology pioneer. Samsung countered that Radian failed to show irreparable harm, specifically arguing that Radian, a non-practicing entity, only ever expects a royalty and thus monetary relief will provide full compensation. According to the U.S. government, “[A] valid patent is inherently a unique asset… And a valid patent has attributes both of personal property and of a public franchise, with the rights (like the right to an injunction) that the statute prescribes.”