Wilus’s claims of irreparable harm are “likely nonexistent”: Askey opposes attempt to win first U.S. SEP injunction in almost 20 years

Context:

• Last month, Korean research and licensing firm Wilus filed a motion for a permanent standard-essential patent (SEP) injunction in a WiFi dispute with ASUS subsidiary and router maker Askey (February 19, 2026 ip fray article). The move came as a major surprise, given that the last such injunction was granted almost 20 years ago. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with famous (in patent law circles) Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding. Samsung is also a defendant in the same case. HP is still listed but settled after taking a Sisvel WiFi 6 patent pool license (November 18, 2025 ip fray article). Sisvel is also Wilus’s licensing representative for bilateral licenses.
• On March 5, 2026, Wilus brought a motion for partial summary judgment (PSJ) on the suspension of its FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing obligation vis-à-vis both Samsung and Askey (March 6, 2026 ip fray article). Technically, the term here is RAND, but the omission of the F has no practical implications.

What’s new: Askey has filed an opposition to Wilus’s motion for a permanent injunction. Askey claims its limited sales would result in insubstantial damages, and it provided several offers to which Sisvel and Wilus “failed to respond”. It also states that Wilus is seeking supra-FRAND rates as “Wilus now resorts to injunctive relief to pressure Askey to increase its offer”. Further, Judge Gilstrap has not granted Wilus’s request to strike all of Samsung’s pretrial motions where Wilus had previously claimed Samsung’s “surreptitious” violation of line spacing limits violated local rules.

Direct impact: Samsung has yet to file an opposing motion. We will need to see how Judge Gilstrap handles the motions before the court. He previously decided in G+ Communications v. Samsung that an implementer who acts as an unwilling licensee, thereby making it impossible to conclude an agreement on FRAND terms, cannot use the patentee’s FRAND licensing obligation as a shield. Damages for past infringement may therefore be regular patent damages, not capped by FRAND.

Wider ramifications: 

• Technically, the Wilus motion for a permanent injunction and the SJ motion on the suspension of FRAND are separate. But it is possible that the court will resolve both at the same time or suspend FRAND first. That would have a bearing on access to injunctive relief.
• Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ or DOJ) filed their third joint submission in support of access to patent injunctions (February 28, 2026 ip fray article). The question is now whether they will file a statement of interest in this case too.