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 2025

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

Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Plasseraud IP says it is eyeing AI and quantum computing expertise with new hire from Cabinet Netter
Gift this article