Samsung's $445m Patent Loss Stands. The Fight Now Is Whether Its Phones Can Be Banned

Collision Communications filed its opening brief at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 3 August 2026, asking the court to overturn a Texas judge's refusal to bar Samsung from selling products a jury found it had wilfully infringed. The appeal, numbered 2026-1893, was reported by the patent law site Patently-O, which reviewed the filing.

The damages are no longer the argument. The argument is whether a patent owner that manufactures nothing can stop a rival that manufactures almost everything.

The verdict has held up. A jury in Marshall, Texas returned its verdict on 10 October 2025, finding that Samsung infringed all asserted claims of four Collision patents covering 4G, 5G and Wi-Fi technology, that none of those claims was invalid, and that the infringement was wilful. It set a reasonable royalty of $445,494,160, structured as a running royalty rather than a lump sum, according to the court opinion published by FindLaw.

Reuters reported that the infringing products were Samsung laptops, Galaxy smartphones and other wireless devices, and that Collision, of Peterborough, New Hampshire, sued in 2023 over patents derived from research at the defence contractor BAE Systems, which is not a party. The trial ran four and a half days and the jury deliberated for about two hours.

Judge Rodney Gilstrap entered final judgment on 12 November 2025. He upheld the running royalty and affirmed the jury's wilfulness finding, but declined to enhance the damages, according to the court record summarised by FindLaw. A wilfulness finding permits a judge to treble an award. Gilstrap did not.

Samsung filed two sealed post-trial motions on 10 December 2025, one seeking a new trial and one seeking judgment as a matter of law, The Texas Lawbook reported. At trial, Samsung had argued that any damages should not exceed $10 million.

Collision moved the same week for a permanent injunction, narrowing its request to a single patent, US 7,593,492, on the basis that the other three had little term remaining.

The motion drew an unusual intervention. The Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice and the US Patent and Trademark Office filed a joint statement of interest supporting neither party, arguing that a company which does not practise its patents can in principle establish irreparable harm and the inadequacy of money damages under the eBay v. MercExchange test, as summarised by Patent Docs.

Gilstrap heard the motion on 11 May 2026 and denied it the following week. He rejected categorical rules from both sides, holding that there is no presumptive remedy in patent cases. He found that Collision had established irreparable harm and that money alone was inadequate, but that it had not carried its burden on the balance of hardships or the public interest, according to the opinion published by FindLaw and reporting by The Texas Lawbook. Samsung had told the court that the injunction sought would block importation of well above 75 per cent of the products it makes.

On 16 July 2026, Gilstrap granted in part and denied in part a Collision motion for interest and supplemental damages, according to the docket entry published by Justia.

Collision's appeal runs on two tracks, Patently-O reported. The narrow argument is that a court which has already found ongoing irreparable harm, and rejected the defendant's hardship evidence as unsupported, cannot then rule that the patentee failed the balance of hardships. The broad argument asks the Federal Circuit to hold that under equitable principles as they stood in 1789, ongoing infringement is ordinarily irreparable. Paul Clement is counsel of record.

Samsung has lost other patent cases on the same ground in the same period. An Eastern District of Texas jury awarded Headwater Research about $278.8 million in April 2025, Bloomberg Law and KETK reported; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board later invalidated claims of one of the two patents involved, and the parties settled in September 2025. A separate jury awarded Maxell about $111.7 million, The Patent Lawyer reported, over technology used after a ten year licence expired in 2021.

Samsung's motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law were filed under seal, and their disposition is not on the public docket. The $445.5 million has not been reduced or set aside. The Federal Circuit has not listed the appeal for argument.