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

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
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
Gift this article