Uniloc 2017 v. Motorola Mobility: Bluetooth Patent Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Uniloc 2017, LLC filed suit against Motorola Mobility, Inc. in the Delaware District Court asserting US7020106B2, a Bluetooth wireless patent, against a broad range of Motorola consumer devices. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims across four linked civil actions after 1,779 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs.
Four-action Bluetooth patent dispute ends in joint stipulated dismissal
Uniloc 2017, LLC filed this infringement action in the District of Delaware on 20 November 2018, asserting US7020106B2 — a patent relating to Bluetooth wireless technology — against Motorola Mobility, Inc. The complaint targeted a wide array of Motorola consumer electronics implementing Bluetooth version 3.0 + HS, including the DROID MAXX 2, DROID Mini, DROID Turbo 2, Motorola XBOARD 8.2, MOTO G6, MOTO X4, MOTO Z3, and additional device lines referenced on Motorola's commercial website.
The case was closed on 4 October 2023. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order reflects a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice all claims between the parties in this action and in three linked civil actions — 18-1842-RGA, 18-1843-RGA, and 18-1844-RGA. The stipulation further provides that each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, and that all other relief is denied as moot. The specific terms underlying the resolution, if any exist beyond the stipulation, are not disclosed in the available record.
The litigation ran for approximately 1,779 days — nearly five years — before resolution, a duration consistent with complex multi-action patent proceedings in Delaware. What drove the timing of the joint stipulation, and whether any commercial arrangement exists between the parties outside the public record, is not disclosed in the available docket materials.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1779 days
1,779 days — nearly five years from filing to closure in D. Del.
US7020106B2 — Bluetooth wireless technology
Any company manufacturing or selling consumer electronics, smartphones, or tablets implementing Bluetooth — particularly Bluetooth 3.0 + HS — should treat US7020106B2 as a live FTO concern. The Motorola litigation produced no invalidity finding and no claim construction. Product and engineering teams commercialising Bluetooth-enabled devices cannot rely on this case as a shield against assertion.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) terminates all claims across the four linked actions without any court determination on the merits of infringement or validity of US7020106B2. The provision that each party bears its own costs, and that all other relief is denied as moot, reflects a negotiated procedural exit rather than a substantive adjudication. The patent's validity and scope remain judicially untested.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation: how this dismissal works
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared. It is a procedural mechanism that terminates the action without a merits ruling by the court. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal'; the docket order is styled as a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. The distinction has material consequences — see Card 2.
Stipulated procedural exitWith or without prejudice? The public record presents both characterisations
The Basis of Termination recorded for this case is 'Voluntary dismissal,' which does not specify prejudice. The verbatim docket order, however, states dismissal 'with prejudice,' which would bar Uniloc from re-filing the same claims against Motorola. These two characterisations appear in the record as-is; the public docket does not reconcile them. Readers should treat this distinction as unresolved on the available record.
Prejudice status unresolved in public recordMotorola exits four linked actions with no merits adjudication
Motorola Mobility exits all four linked Delaware civil actions — 18-1842, 18-1843, 18-1844, and the present case — without any court finding on infringement or validity of US7020106B2. The stipulation denies all other requested relief as moot. Each party bears its own costs, meaning no fee-shifting award was entered against either side.
No liability findingBluetooth implementers: no binding validity ruling on US7020106B2
Because the case resolved without a merits determination, US7020106B2 has not been judicially invalidated or construed. The patent may remain a live enforcement risk for other Bluetooth device manufacturers, particularly those implementing Bluetooth 3.0 + HS. Companies in the consumer electronics and mobile device space should assess FTO exposure against this patent independently of this dismissal.
Patent enforceability unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron S. Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James J. Foster | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Gannon | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul J. Hayes | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean T. O'Kelly | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas H. Kramer | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Offit Kurman | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc 2017, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lai L. Yip | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Martin R. Bader | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael K. Heins | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nam H. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Philip A. Rovner | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yasamin Parsafar | Attorney | Counsel for Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP | Law Firm | Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the Bluetooth wireless patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Uniloc 2017's assertion of US7020106B2 against Motorola Mobility's Bluetooth device portfolio.
Uniloc 2017's Bluetooth and wireless connectivity filing activity
Uniloc 2017 has assembled a broad patent assertion portfolio spanning wireless communication technologies. Understanding the full scope of patents adjacent to US7020106B2 — including continuations, divisionals, and related family members in Bluetooth and wireless protocol domains — is critical for any company in the connected device space assessing long-term assertion risk.
PAE portfolio mappingFiling trends in Bluetooth 3.0+HS and high-speed wireless protocols
Bluetooth 3.0 + HS adoption across consumer electronics drove significant patent activity in the 2008–2015 window. Mapping the current citation landscape around US7020106B2 reveals which assignees hold adjacent claims to high-speed Bluetooth transport mechanisms — a signal of where future enforcement or licensing pressure may emerge for device OEMs.
Bluetooth protocol IP trendsMotorola Mobility's defensive patent position in wireless connectivity
Motorola Mobility holds an extensive portfolio in wireless communication and mobile device technology, including Bluetooth stack implementations. Analysing Motorola's own filing activity in Bluetooth and adjacent wireless protocols provides insight into how the company may be building defensive depth against future PAE assertions in this technology domain.
Motorola wireless IP postureAdjacent innovation gaps near Bluetooth high-speed transport patents
With Bluetooth 5.x and emerging ultra-wideband (UWB) protocols now displacing Bluetooth 3.0+HS in new device designs, the patent landscape around next-generation short-range wireless transport is still forming. R&D teams can identify white-space claim opportunities in areas such as Bluetooth 5 coexistence, LE Audio, and UWB-Bluetooth hybrid positioning where coverage remains sparse.
Bluetooth 5.x UWB white spaceSimilar Bluetooth patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting Bluetooth and wireless connectivity patents in the District of Delaware, including other Uniloc 2017 filings against consumer electronics manufacturers.
What this case signals for the Bluetooth patent enforcement landscape
A near-five-year dispute across four linked actions ending in joint stipulation without merits ruling warrants close attention from Bluetooth device makers and IP teams.
No judicial validity ruling leaves US7020106B2 as a live risk for third parties
The voluntary dismissal produces no claim construction, no invalidity finding, and no infringement ruling. For companies shipping Bluetooth 3.0 + HS devices, the patent remains legally intact. Independent FTO analysis against US7020106B2 is advisable before assuming the Motorola outcome provides any protective precedent.
Multi-action filing strategy signals broad assertion intent by Uniloc 2017
Uniloc 2017 filed at least four linked civil actions in Delaware simultaneously around the same patent and product category. This coordinated filing pattern suggests a broad enforcement programme targeting the Bluetooth device ecosystem. IP teams at competing device manufacturers should map Uniloc 2017's broader portfolio to assess residual exposure.
Uniloc v Motorola — key questions answered
The case was closed on 4 October 2023. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order reflects a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice all claims across four linked Delaware civil actions. Each party bears its own attorneys' fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Uniloc 2017 asserted US7020106B2, filed under US application number 09/920041, relating to Bluetooth wireless technology. The patent was asserted against a wide range of Motorola consumer devices implementing Bluetooth version 3.0 + HS, including the DROID MAXX 2, DROID Turbo 2, MOTO G6, MOTO X4, MOTO Z3, and other device lines.
No. The voluntary dismissal produced no claim construction, invalidity finding, or infringement ruling. US7020106B2 remains judicially untested. Other Bluetooth device manufacturers cannot rely on this outcome as legal protection against assertion of the same patent and should conduct independent FTO analysis.
The case ran for 1,779 days — approximately four years and ten months — from filing on 20 November 2018 to closure on 4 October 2023. The joint stipulation covered four linked civil actions in the District of Delaware: 18-1842-RGA, 18-1843-RGA, 18-1844-RGA, and the present case.
A voluntary dismissal recorded as the Basis of Termination indicates the case was ended by the parties' agreement or unilateral plaintiff action under Rule 41, rather than by a court ruling on the merits. In this case the docket order also uses 'with prejudice' language, but the public record presents both characterisations without reconciling them. The specific terms of any underlying arrangement are not disclosed in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.