Collision Communications v. Samsung: Landmark Patent Infringement

In 2025, New Hampshire-based wireless-technology developer Collision Communications, Inc. won a $445,494,160 million verdict for patent infringement against Samsung. 

Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. is a patent infringement case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

The importance of this patent infringement case cannot be stressed enough.

Collision Communications is a tech company that acquired signal-interference reduction patents originally developed by BAE Systems. While BAE Systems frequently partners with DARPA on defense electronics, radio frequency communications, and adaptive networking contracts, Collision Communications focuses on commercializing those acquired signal-processing portfolios, leading to major high-stakes patent enforcement litigation against major electronics manufacturers.

Collision sued Samsung in December 2023, alleging infringement of patents of unique technology that reduces signal interference in cellular wireless network communications of 4G, 5G, and Wi-Fi.

The technology was developed in the early-2000s by the defense contractor for military use, to stop the interference in mobile communications. Recognizing that it could apply to commercial networks, Collision acquired the patents around 2010–2011 and sought commercial partnerships and licensing with companies including Samsung, Nokia, and Ericsson. Extensive discussions and simulations occurred with Samsung from roughly 2011–2014 before talks ended.

Samsung had refused to respect Collision’s patent rights for over a decade while they were in the middle of licensing the technology to Samsung, and had even started negotiating the contract. However and unbeknownst to Collision, Samsung took the technology to the Russian and South Korean universities to recreate. And all the while, stringing Collision along. Eventually, Samsung told Collision they weren’t interested, but had strung them along for years as if the deal would happen. Someone at Samsung even got promoted for so effectively stringing Collision along.

Should the U.S. be concerned that the Russians have this technology?

Law360 reported:

“Despite knowing that Collision’s technology was patent protected, Samsung chose to implement it without permission anyway,” Collision said. “To that end, it enlisted universities in Korea and Russian research personnel to attempt to secure the technology for itself, all while acknowledging this course of action included ‘Risk/Issue.'”

“One of the principles of America First is protecting U.S. companies and innovations from foreign IP theft,” Ric Grenell, former Director of National Intelligence commented to the Globe.

Six claims from four patents were found infringed and not proven invalid, with the jury awarding Collision $445,494,160 in damages, the amount characterized as the “sum of money, if paid now in cash” that would compensate the plaintiff for the infringement proven and as a running royalty.

Collision then motioned the court for a permanent injunction in December 2025 to stop Samsung from importing products to the U.S.

In February 2026, the Justice Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 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.”

“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 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.”

“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.”

On May 17, 2026, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the injunction. He found that Collision established irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies, and rejected categorical rules against non-practicing entities obtaining injunctions. However, he held that Collision failed to meet its burden on the balance of hardships and public interest factors.

“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,” the statement says.

Owning a patent is a monopoly on the information. But large corporations continue to violate patent rights of others. The only way to enforce a patent is an injunction, and many involved say the $445 million is inadequate.

However, in Why Collision v. Samsung Is Actually a Win for Patent Owners, written by a patent firm, is this: “Buried in that injunction denial is something far more significant: Judge Gilstrap expressly acknowledged that a non-practicing entity *may* be entitled to an injunction if it can satisfy the four-factor test established by eBay v. MercExchange.

They explain that the 2006 Supreme Court decision in the ebay case, “has fundamentally weakened patent owners’ negotiating leverage for nearly two decades.”

“The eBay test requires patent owners to prove four elements: (1) irreparable injury, (2) inadequacy of monetary damages, (3) favorable balance of hardships, and (4) that public interest favors an injunction.

For years, Federal Circuit cases have treated this test as effectively insurmountable for NPEs.”

“Judge Gilstrap didn’t say NPEs can’t get injunctions. He said Collision didn’t satisfy the eBay test *in this specific case*. That’s a critical distinction.”

The reason the injunction is so important is without it behemoth corporation Samsung will continue using Collision’s patented technology as legal remedies play out over time.

Samsung has informed Collision they will appeal the decision, which will again only serve to stretch out the time Collision can be made whole.