USPTO, DOJ Reaffirm Importance of Patent Incentives

USPTO News & Updates

Filed February 27th, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The USPTO and DOJ filed a statement of interest in a U.S. District Court case, reaffirming the importance of patent incentives for innovation and competition. The statement argues that limiting patentees' ability to seek injunctive relief for infringement undermines the incentive to innovate and the U.S. patent system.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have jointly filed a statement of interest in the case Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This statement emphasizes the critical role of patent incentives in fostering economic growth and competition within the U.S. economy. It specifically addresses the importance of injunctive relief as a fundamental component of the exclusionary rights granted by patents, arguing that unduly restricting this remedy for patent infringement weakens the incentive for entities to innovate. The filing supports the principle that patent owners, including non-practicing entities, should not be categorically denied the opportunity for injunctive relief when facing irreparable harm from infringement.

This action serves as a significant signal to the legal and business communities regarding the government's stance on patent rights and remedies. While the statement does not take a position on the merits of the specific case, it highlights the potential consequences for innovators if injunctive relief is significantly curtailed. Companies involved in patent litigation, particularly those seeking or defending against injunctions, should review this statement to understand the government's perspective on the balance between patent rights and competition. The implications could affect strategies in patent enforcement and licensing negotiations, underscoring the need for legal counsel to assess the impact on ongoing and future patent disputes.

What to do next

Review statement of interest regarding injunctive relief for patent infringement
Assess impact on patent litigation and licensing strategies

Source document (simplified)

USPTO and DOJ file statement of interest reaffirming the importance of incentives to innovate

February 27, 2026

Press Release 26-03 CONTACT: (Media Only)
(571) 272-8400 or press@uspto.gov

ALEXANDRIA, VA— Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The statement reaffirms the importance of preserving incentives to innovate, which are key to growth and dynamic competition in the U.S. economy and fundamental to the U.S. patent system.

“The USPTO again joined the Justice Department in filing a statement of interest because a thorough evaluation as to whether a patent owner is entitled to injunctive relief is foundational to the exclusionary right a patent confers,” said John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. “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.”

“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 Dina Kallay, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “We are pleased to partner with our USPTO colleagues to address these critical issues and support innovators, both big and small.”

Today’s statement of interest explains that unduly limiting patentees’ ability to seek injunctive relief to block patent infringement undermines the incentive to innovate. A patentee’s right to exclude is grounded in the U.S. Constitution. Non-practicing patentees should not be categorically denied the opportunity for injunctive relief and, under certain circumstances, such patentees can demonstrate irreparable harm and the inadequacy of monetary damages to compensate for the harm of continuing infringement. The statement of interest was filed in support of neither party and does not take a position on the merits or the ultimate outcome of the questions at issue in the case.