Uniloc 2017 v. Google: Wireless Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC |
| Case Number | 4:20-cv-05343 (N.D. Cal.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Duration | Aug 2020 – Apr 2024 3 years 8 months |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Claims Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Home audio devices, location services, phones, and tablets |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on licensing and asserting wireless and networking technology patents in federal courts.
🛡️ Defendant
A global technology company offering mobile operating systems, smart home devices, and location-based services.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on **U.S. Patent No. 6,628,712 B1** (application number US09/708165), covering wireless communication technology. Patents in this family broadly relate to signal transmission methods relevant to networked and mobile computing environments.
- • US 6,628,712 B1 — Wireless communication technology for networked and mobile computing.
Developing a wireless product?
Check if your device or service might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The action was resolved by a **stipulated dismissal** under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All of Uniloc’s infringement claims were dismissed **WITH PREJUDICE**, permanently barring them from re-asserting these claims against Google. Google’s defenses and counterclaims were dismissed **WITHOUT PREJUDICE**, preserving its right to raise them in future proceedings if needed. Each party bore its own costs.
Legal Significance
The **with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims** is a critical legal element, functioning as a final adjudication on the merits of Uniloc’s assertion rights against Google for this patent. The **asymmetric dismissal structure** (plaintiff’s claims extinguished permanently, defendant’s counterclaims preserved) is common in negotiated resolutions where the defendant holds meaningful leverage, often due to strong invalidity arguments. The absence of disclosed damages or fee-shifting suggests that no monetary compensation was publicly exchanged, indicating a strategic win for Google in avoiding a costly trial.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in wireless communication technologies. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the wireless communication space
- See which companies are most active in related patenting
- Understand claim construction patterns for similar patents
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Wireless communication protocols & location services
Uniloc Patent Portfolio
Ongoing assertion activity
Strategic Defenses
Can lead to favorable dismissals
✅ Key Takeaways
Stipulated dismissals with asymmetric prejudice terms are a powerful tool, signaling which party held greater litigation leverage.
Search related case law →Preserving invalidity counterclaims without prejudice maintains downstream strategic value for technology defendants.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,628,712 B1, a wireless communication patent asserted against Google’s home audio devices, phones, tablets, and location services.
The asymmetric dismissal structure, common in negotiated resolutions, permanently bars Uniloc from re-asserting these specific claims against Google while preserving Google’s invalidity defenses for potential future use.
The resolution reinforces that defendants with robust multi-firm defense resources can effectively pressure PAE plaintiffs toward with-prejudice dismissals, particularly when invalidity counterclaims create existential risk to asserted patents.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- U.S. Patent No. 6,628,712 B1 (USPTO Patent Full-Text Database)
- PACER — Case No. 4:20-cv-05343, Northern District of California
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.