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

Cookies Settings

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

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article