US patent infringement: Injunctions following the Socket Solutions case

A likely finding of infringement does not automatically lead to a ban on sales in the US. In Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC, No. 2025-1121, dated 4 August 2026, the Federal Circuit clarified that the abolished presumption of irreparable harm does not apply even in proceedings for the grant of a preliminary injunction.

The decision does not concern a SEP. Its significance for FRAND disputes lies in the general review of legal remedies, not in a new interpretation of standardisation obligations.

The actual ground for setting aside the decision was the interpretation of the claim

The Federal Circuit set aside the interim injunction on the grounds of errors in the interpretation of the terms „backplate“ and „pin“. It did not make a final ruling on whether the facts of the case demonstrated irreparable harm. However, it objected to any reliance on the relevant presumption and called for an assessment without this automatic presumption.

This results in a clear division of labour when it comes to filing the application: the prospects of success in a patent infringement case and the imminent detriment that cannot be adequately compensated should be prepared using separate offers of evidence. A convincing claim chart does not fulfil the second task.

eBay is calling for a specific review of the legal remedies available

For a permanent injunction, eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), irreparable harm, the inadequacy of legal remedies such as monetary damages, a balancing of interests in favour of the applicant, and compatibility with the public interest. Neither a general right of the successful patent holder to an injunction nor a categorical exclusion of certain groups of patent holders is compatible with this.

In summary proceedings, the key factors are, in particular, the likelihood of success on the merits and the risk of irreparable harm. Socket Solutions specifically does not allow the second point to be inferred from the first.

When preparing evidence, specific economic mechanisms should therefore be described. In the event of an alleged loss of customers, for example, it would be necessary to examine which business relationships are affected, why the patent-infringing function in particular is said to be the cause of this, and why the loss cannot be adequately compensated for by monetary compensation. In the case of a fall in price, its duration, the market mechanism involved and its potential reversibility should be analysed. Such questions operationalise the eBay test without prejudging its outcome.

FRAND is neither a prohibition on infringement nor a licence to do as one pleases

For FRAND-bound patents, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), remains a key case. The Federal Circuit rejected a blanket rule against SEP injunctions. At the same time, it recognised that a FRAND obligation can make it more difficult to prove irreparable harm. Simply rejecting any licence offer is not sufficient: the offer itself may fall outside the scope of FRAND.

The statement „The implementer is unwilling“ does not, therefore, replace a full review of available legal remedies. Conversely, an implementer should not rely on the mere fact that they are bound by FRAND to rule out any risk of an injunction.

For the purposes of the strategy, negotiating behaviour and economic detriment should be demonstrated separately. The patent holder would need to explain why reasonable remuneration is insufficient in the specific case. On the part of the implementer, it must be examined which of the alleged disadvantages are actually attributable to the patent-infringing use and which can be compensated for by a monetary payment. The FRAND obligation forms part of this assessment; it does not replace it.

The scope of the application is also a separate point for consideration

Rule 65 requires sufficiently specific conditions and a concrete description of the acts in question. It is therefore advisable for the defence, in addition to challenging the allegations of infringement and damage, to carry out a separate examination of the operative part: which products, acts and persons is it actually intended to cover? Are there any unchallenged variants or technically modified versions that remain unclear?

The practical implication is that the risk of a US injunction should not be inferred across the board from the strength of the patent or the „SEP“ label. Claim interpretation, likelihood of infringement, actual damage and the scope of the sought injunction each require their own analysis. This article concerns court injunctions in the District Court, not the separate review of exclusion orders by the USITC.

Legal notice

These articles are provided for information purposes only and do not constitute individual legal advice. They may contain errors or omissions and reflect the situation as at the date stated. We do not guarantee that they will be kept up to date. Use of this information does not create a client-solicitor relationship.