Rockstar and Google settle patent dispute

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Rockstar and Google settle patent dispute

Google and Rockstar – the consortium owned by Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony – have reached an agreement to settle all matters in their high-profile patent dispute

In an Eastern District of Texas court filing on November 17, the parties revealed they had signed a binding term sheet “that settles, in principle, all matters in controversy between the parties”.

Rockstar requested that the court grant a stay for 45 days while the term sheet is reduced to a definite agreement. The settement would bring an end to the high-profile litigation between Google and Rockstar.

Rockstar sued five companies in 2013, claiming infringement of seven patents directed to software functionalities implemented on general-purpose computing devices. Google was not initially named but supplied each defendant with the Android operating system software used in the accused devices. Google filed a complaint last December seeking a declaration that any version of the Android system does not infringe the seven patents.

Rockstar responded by amending its complaint to include Google, and moved to transfer or dismiss Google’s complaint. The Federal Circuit on October 9 confirmed the Northern District of California’s denial of this motion to transfer or dismiss.

Google has since begun proceedings to have the seven patents invalidated. In October it filed inter partes reviews at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against the ‘551 and the ‘572 patents on October 17, and the ‘937 and the ‘572 patents on October 31. It followed it up this month by filing IPRs against the ‘298 patent on November 4, and the ‘973 and the ‘131 patents on November 5. This means Google has now filed IPR petitions against all of the patents at issue in the dispute.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article