In December 2025, BMW commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Onesta IP, LLC, seeking declaratory relief and an anti-suit injunction directed at patent infringement proceedings Onesta had initiated in Germany. The dispute presents a familiar but increasingly consequential scenario: the use of U.S. equitable remedies to constrain foreign litigation involving U.S. patent rights.

The case has attracted attention not because it announces new doctrine, but because it illustrates how established anti-suit principles are applied in a contemporary cross-border patent enforcement context, particularly at an early procedural stage.

Procedural Background

Onesta initiated infringement actions in German courts asserting claims based on U.S. patents against BMW and related entities. BMW responded by filing suit in Texas, contending that the foreign proceedings threatened to interfere with the U.S. court’s ability to adjudicate disputes concerning U.S. patent rights. BMW sought emergency relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), likely to be followed by a preliminary and permanent anti-suit injunction.

Issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order

On December 16, 2025, the court granted BMW’s request for a TRO, temporarily restraining Onesta from pursuing or enforcing the German actions. While interlocutory in nature, the order reflects the court’s preliminary assessment that BMW satisfied the requirements for emergency equitable relief, including irreparable harm and a sufficient nexus between the foreign proceedings and the court’s jurisdiction.

The timing of the TRO is significant. Courts are generally more receptive to anti-suit relief when sought before substantial merits adjudication occurs abroad and where the foreign proceedings threaten to undermine, rather than merely parallel, domestic adjudication.

Potential Anti-Anti-Suit Proceedings

With the TRO in place, attention has turned to whether Onesta may seek an anti-anti-suit injunction from a German court. Although procedurally available, such relief would not nullify the U.S. order and could place the parties under conflicting judicial commands—a circumstance U.S. courts have historically addressed through party-directed enforcement rather than withdrawal on comity grounds.

Implications for Cross-Border Patent Strategy

BMW v. Onesta underscores the continued willingness of U.S. courts to deploy anti-suit mechanisms to protect their jurisdiction over disputes centered on U.S. patent rights. It also illustrates the strategic risks associated with initiating foreign litigation that invites early equitable intervention by a domestic court.

As the case proceeds, further guidance may emerge regarding the circumstances under which U.S. courts will restrain foreign patent proceedings and how they respond to countermeasures abroad. For practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of evaluating cross-border enforcement strategies at the outset, with careful attention to timing, jurisdictional overlap, and the likelihood of injunctive escalation.