U.S. Patent Infringement: Injunctions Following the Socket Solutions Case

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

The actual reason for the annulment was the interpretation of the claim

The Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction due to errors in the interpretation of the terms „backplate“ and „pin.“ It did not definitively rule on whether the factual circumstances demonstrated irreparable harm. However, it objected to the potential application of the relevant presumption and called for a review without this automatic presumption.

This results in a clear division of labor when filing a claim: The likelihood of success in a patent infringement case and the impending harm that cannot be adequately compensated should be supported by independent offers of evidence. A convincing claim chart does not fulfill the second requirement.

eBay is demanding a specific review of legal remedies

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 favor of the petitioner, and consistency 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 consistent 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 case 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 alleged to be the cause, and why the disadvantage cannot be sufficiently compensated for with money. In the case of a price decline, its duration, market mechanisms, and potential reversibility should be analyzed. Such questions operationalize the eBay test without prejudging its outcome.

FRAND is neither a prohibition on infringement nor a free pass

For FRAND-bound patents, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), remains a landmark decision. The Federal Circuit rejected a categorical rule against SEP injunctions. At the same time, it recognized that a FRAND obligation can make it more difficult to prove irreparable harm. Simply rejecting any licensing 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 it is bound by FRAND terms to exclude any risk of an injunction.

For the strategy, negotiating behavior and economic disadvantage should be substantiated separately. The patent holder would need to explain why reasonable compensation is insufficient in the specific case. On the implementer’s side, it must be determined which of the alleged disadvantages are actually attributable to the patent-infringing use and which can be offset by a monetary payment. The FRAND obligation is part of this assessment; it does not replace it.

The scope of the application is also a separate point of review

Rule 65 requires sufficiently specific conditions and a concrete description of the acts in question. For the defense, it is therefore advisable—in addition to challenging the allegations of infringement and damages—to conduct an independent review of the operative part of the judgment: 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: The risk of a U.S. injunction should not be generalized based solely on the strength of the patent or the „SEP“ label. Claim interpretation, likelihood of infringement, actual damages, and the scope of the requested order 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 informational purposes only and do not constitute individual legal advice. They may contain errors or omissions and reflect the status as of the date indicated. We do not guarantee that they will be updated on an ongoing basis. Use of these articles does not create an attorney-client relationship.