Op-Ed: An Argument Against Judicial Injunctions

Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court wisely constrained the power of individual judges to impose nationwide injunctions that block President Trump’s ability to enact the agenda he promised voters.

The Court agreed with President Trump and Republican lawmakers who have correctly pointed out that judges in states like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maryland should not have total power to stop the administration from making policy changes related to everything from immigration policy to health care.

While Republicans in Congress and the administration have opposed this broad exercise of judicial power on some matters, it’s puzzling that there is continued support, and even proposals to expand, judges’ authority to impose sweeping injunctions in cases related to intellectual property rights, which have enormous economic impact.

Right now, in fact, Congress is considering the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, a bill that would make it much easier for bad actors to obtain injunctions that prevent American companies from making and selling their products.

In courtrooms across the country, but especially here in Texas, some of our most innovative companies are defending themselves against bogus patent infringement lawsuits. Investors form shell companies, known as non-practicing entities (NPEs), and use their resources to purchase or acquire broad patents which, in many cases, are of such low-quality they never should have been issued in the first place. NPEs then initiate patent infringement lawsuits against legitimate companies, using litigation to extort eye-popping settlements and verdicts.

During the first half of 2025, NPEs filed 56 percent of all patent infringement cases nationally and more than 60 percent of those lawsuits are based in the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas, venues that plaintiffs believe give them an advantage due to abnormally fast case timelines.

The mere threat of an injunction gives NPEs undue leverage over defendants. Blocking the manufacture and sale of entire product lines, if found guilty, is such a dramatic measure that defendants are pressured to settle even if they are sure that they have not infringed on an NPE’s abstract patent. NPEs know this and use it to demand inflated sums.

In 2006, the Supreme Court’s unanimous eBay decision helped level the playing field by implementing a four-factor test to obtain an injunction. The test maintained the remedy as an option for plaintiffs who manufacture and sell products, but makes it more difficult for shell companies to justify requesting injunctions instead of simply monetary damages.

The RESTORE Patent Rights Act, which was reintroduced earlier this year, and has drawn support from some Republicans, would overturn eBay and its four-factor test, greasing the wheels of justice for plaintiffs pursuing injunctions as settlement leverage. This means that NPEs, which do not add anything of value to our economy, would have more tools to secure hefty payments from the companies that keep our economy moving. The ultimate outcome would be more litigation waste and inefficiency leading to slower innovation and growth.

Yet, the problems with intellectual property injunctions are not limited to Congress. In a perplexing move, Department of Justice lawyers recently filed a “Statement of Interest” on behalf of an NPE that sought an injunction against Samsung Electronics, which employs as many as 10,000 Americans.

This unusual step, choosing to weigh in on behalf of an NPE that wants Samsung to stop producing flash drives – a commonplace technology that many take for granted – runs counter to the President’s stated priorities of growing investments in domestic manufacturing.

While the administration has been correct about nationwide injunctions halting the policies they wish to implement, the DOJ weighing in on behalf of a shell company suing a technology manufacturer appears to be an oversight. The administration has recognized the problems that can come with centralizing that sort of injunction power in a single judge and they ought to be consistent in their stance. I hope that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will take a serious look at the impact of the DOJ’s Statement of Interest and bring the agency further in line with the President’s agenda.

Overturning eBay, which some in Congress and the administration seem intent to do, would not make our economy stronger. It would, instead, increase waste and abuse by giving bad actors more leverage to target productive companies and use our justice system to reap unearned payments.

The Supreme Court got it right on intellectual property injunctions. Congress and DOJ are not there yet. Republicans should be consistently opposing nationwide injunctions – whether they target the President’s agenda or American innovators.

Ted Poe served the 2nd Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2005 until 2019. Prior to his time in Congress, Poe was a judge in Harris County, beginning in 1981.