Cobblestone Wireless v. Motorola Mobility: Wireless Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Cobblestone Wireless, LLC filed suit against Motorola Mobility in the Northern District of Illinois asserting two wireless communications patents against the Edge 50 Ultra smartphone. The parties resolved their dispute within 271 days, securing a joint dismissal with prejudice — ending Cobblestone’s right to re-assert these claims against Motorola.
Wireless NPE targets Motorola’s Edge 50 Ultra — then settles fast
On September 20, 2024, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-08726), presided over by Judge Joan H. Lefkow. Cobblestone asserted two patents — US7924802B2 and US8891347B2 — directed to wireless communications technology, targeting Motorola’s flagship Edge 50 Ultra smartphone as the accused product.
The case closed on June 18, 2025, after just 271 days, when the parties jointly requested dismissal with prejudice. The order records that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses are to be borne by the party incurring them. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, permanently extinguishing Cobblestone’s ability to re-file the same claims against Motorola on these two patents.
A resolution within nine months is notably swift for multi-patent wireless litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, suggesting the parties likely reached a private commercial agreement — possibly a licensing arrangement — prior to requesting dismissal. The public record does not disclose financial terms, which is consistent with confidential settlement practice. Whether Cobblestone obtained a licensing royalty or Motorola secured a covenant not to sue remains unknown from publicly available documents.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 271 days
271 days — resolved well within the median N.D. Ill. patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses all future claims on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 operates as a final judgment on the merits. Cobblestone cannot re-file suit against Motorola Mobility on US7924802B2 or US8891347B2 arising from the same accused conduct. The joint nature of the request — both parties’ counsel signing — confirms a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-filingCobblestone exits with prejudice — suggesting a negotiated exit, not defeat
While dismissal with prejudice formally ends Cobblestone’s claims, NPEs that agree to this mechanism typically do so having secured licensing consideration. The swift timeline — under nine months — is consistent with early-stage settlement before significant litigation costs accumulated. Cobblestone’s patents remain in force and enforceable against other defendants not party to this action.
Patents survive against third partiesMotorola secures permanent peace on the Edge 50 Ultra claims
For Motorola Mobility, the with-prejudice dismissal provides a clean resolution: Cobblestone is permanently barred from reasserting US7924802B2 and US8891347B2 against Motorola on these products. Each party bearing its own costs suggests neither side was compelled to capitulate under fee-shifting pressure. Motorola’s defence was led by DLA Piper, a firm with deep wireless patent litigation experience.
No fee-shifting adverse to MotorolaEarly resolution limits public claim-construction record — but risk remains sector-wide
Because the case resolved before claim construction or any substantive merits ruling, no judicial interpretation of US7924802B2 or US8891347B2 entered the public record. Other smartphone OEMs cannot rely on any adverse claim construction to defend against Cobblestone. This preserves Cobblestone’s licensing leverage against the broader wireless handset and infrastructure market.
No claim construction on recordFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cobblestone Wireless, LLC | Company | Non-practicing wireless IP entity — holder of US7924802B2 and US8891347B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Company | Motorola Mobility, Inc. — smartphone manufacturer and Lenovo subsidiarySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dale Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | George N. Vurdelja , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Scheufler | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristopher R. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harrison & Held | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat Llp | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Meera Midha | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael D. Jay | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nandan Padmanabhan | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul R. Steadman | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Bradley Groselak | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper Chicago | Law Firm | Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joan H. Lefkow | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records that the parties ‘have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ — phrasing that strongly suggests a private commercial resolution, most likely a confidential licensing or settlement agreement. The with-prejudice qualifier is significant: it is a mutual, negotiated election, not a default. The cost-bearing provision — each party paying its own fees — is standard in NPE settlements and is neutral on the question of who extracted commercial value from the resolution.
US7924802B2 & US8891347B2 — Wireless Communications Technology
US7924802B2 (application no. US12/018370) and US8891347B2 (application no. US13/522422) are U.S. utility patents directed to wireless communications technology. Both patents were asserted against Motorola’s Edge 50 Ultra, a flagship Android smartphone, indicating that the claimed inventions relate to core wireless stack functionality — potentially encompassing scheduling, resource allocation, or transmission protocols relevant to modern cellular standards. The patents are held by Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, a non-practising entity focused on wireless IP monetisation.
For the wireless handset and infrastructure sector, these patents represent a monetisation risk that extends well beyond Motorola. Because no claim construction or validity ruling was issued, the patents emerge from this litigation with their scope and validity legally intact. Any OEM, chipset vendor, or network equipment provider whose products implement similar wireless communications architectures should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. Cobblestone’s pattern of litigation suggests a systematic licensing campaign rather than a one-off dispute.
Should you run an FTO against US7924802B2 and US8891347B2?
If your organisation develops, manufactures, or sells smartphones, wireless chipsets, base station equipment, or software stacks implementing cellular communications protocols, both patents warrant a freedom-to-operate review. The Edge 50 Ultra’s involvement signals that the accused functionality is present in commercially shipping flagship devices — meaning the claim scope is likely broad enough to capture a wide range of wireless implementations. No judicial narrowing of these claims exists on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US7924802B2 and US8891347B2 against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support design-around options or an IPR petition, and benchmark Cobblestone’s litigation history across its full patent portfolio. For product teams planning next-generation wireless features, early-stage FTO analysis can identify claim exposure before development investments are locked in.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7924802B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless patent NPE cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore related wireless communications patent infringement actions filed by non-practising entities in the Northern District of Illinois against smartphone and mobile device OEMs.
What this case signals for the wireless patent licensing landscape
Cobblestone’s swift exit with prejudice is consistent with NPE monetisation strategy: file, negotiate, resolve — preserving portfolio leverage.
No claim construction means Cobblestone’s patents remain untested in court
Because the case closed before any Markman hearing or substantive ruling, neither US7924802B2 nor US8891347B2 has received judicial claim interpretation. Competitors and wireless OEMs cannot rely on adverse constructions from this case — the patents carry full enforcement weight in future actions. A freedom-to-operate analysis remains essential for any company operating in the wireless communications space.
Nine-month resolution is a red flag for under-resourced defendants
Wireless NPE cases that settle this quickly — before costly discovery — typically reflect either a licensing payment or a strong early-stage invalidity position. Motorola’s DLA Piper team is well-resourced to contest validity via IPR. Smaller OEMs or infrastructure vendors facing Cobblestone’s portfolio should assess inter partes review petitions early, before litigation economics favour settlement over defence.
Cobblestone v Motorola — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 18, 2025, after 271 days. Both parties jointly requested dismissal, with each bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars Cobblestone from re-asserting US7924802B2 and US8891347B2 against Motorola Mobility on the same accused conduct.
Cobblestone asserted two patents: US7924802B2 (application no. US12/018370) and US8891347B2 (application no. US13/522422), both directed to wireless communications technology. The accused product was Motorola’s Edge 50 Ultra smartphone.
No. A dismissal with prejudice binds only the named parties — Cobblestone Wireless and Motorola Mobility. US7924802B2 and US8891347B2 remain in force and enforceable against any other party. No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was made, so the patents carry full legal weight in future enforcement actions against other defendants.
The public record does not disclose financial terms. The dismissal order states only that the parties ‘have resolved Plaintiff’s claims’ and that costs are borne by each party. The phrasing and the swift nine-month timeline are consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, but no dollar figures or licensing terms have been made public.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-08726) and was presided over by Judge Joan H. Lefkow. Cobblestone was represented by Harrison & Held and Russ August & Kabat LLP; Motorola was defended by DLA Piper.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.