Uniloc v. Samsung & PlayStation Mobile — Dismissed With Prejudice After 7+ Years
Uniloc Corp. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. brought a four-patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics and PlayStation Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting messaging app technology. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 2,792 days of litigation, with each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Seven-year messaging patent battle ends in bilateral walk-away
Uniloc Corp. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. filed this infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas on June 14, 2016, asserting four US patents — US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2 — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and PlayStation Mobile, Inc. The asserted patents cover messaging application technology, and the case was consolidated with related action Case No. 2:16-cv-00732 under Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
The litigation closed on February 5, 2024, when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal. Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation and dismissed with prejudice all claims and causes of action in both the member case (2:16-cv-00732) and the lead case (2:16-cv-00642). The dismissal with prejudice is final and on the merits, meaning Uniloc is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against these defendants. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting neither side extracted a formal concession from the other.
The 2,792-day duration — nearly 7.7 years — is notable given the case reached resolution without a reported trial verdict or published settlement figure. The own-costs order and with-prejudice designation together suggest a negotiated resolution or portfolio-level agreement reached outside the public record, consistent with Uniloc’s broader pattern of high-volume patent enforcement activity. What drove the precise timing of the 2024 stipulation, and whether any cross-licensing or financial terms accompanied the dismissal, remains unknown from the public docket.
Filing to dismissal in 2792 days
2,792 days — nearly 7.7 years from filing to close
What the with-prejudice dismissal means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a final, merits-equivalent exit
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) carries the same legal weight as a judgment on the merits. By jointly stipulating to this outcome, both sides agreed to terminate the litigation permanently. Uniloc cannot re-file these specific claims against Samsung or PlayStation Mobile in any US federal court. The voluntary nature means no court ruling compelled the exit — the parties chose it.
Permanent bar on re-filingOwn-costs order signals a negotiated, even-handed resolution
The court’s instruction that each party bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses is a standard feature of negotiated settlements. Had either party prevailed through litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or Rule 54 cost awards would typically follow. The mutual absorption of costs suggests neither side formally conceded, and any financial terms — if they exist — are not reflected in the public docket.
No fee-shifting appliedLead and member cases closed simultaneously
This action served as the lead case in a consolidation with Case No. 2:16-cv-00732, which named PlayStation Mobile and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC as defendants. The dismissal stipulation expressly covered both cases, and the clerk was directed to close both dockets. This consolidation structure is common in the Eastern District of Texas when a plaintiff asserts the same patents against multiple related defendants.
Both consolidated cases closedUniloc’s enforcement model: volume litigation, quiet exits
Uniloc is a prolific patent assertion entity known for filing large volumes of infringement actions across multiple jurisdictions. Cases frequently resolve via stipulated dismissal without public disclosure of terms. The 7.7-year duration here is longer than typical Uniloc resolutions, suggesting this case encountered substantive procedural challenges — potentially including IPR proceedings, claim construction disputes, or eligibility challenges — before the parties agreed to exit.
Patent assertion entity patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Uniloc, Corp. | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, US7535890B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and mobile device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Seth Jacobs | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony Michael Vecchione | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Craig Tadlock | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel James McGonagle | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dean G. Bostock | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward R. Nelson , III | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James John Foster | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Clarence Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keith Bryan Smiley | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Gannon | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael James Ercolini | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul J. Hayes | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shawn A. Latchford | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allan A. Kassenoff | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua L. Raskin | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Julie P. Bookbinder | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Khashayar Stephen Shahida | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark G. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Myomi Tse Coad | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J. Mccarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald John Pabis | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vimal M. Kapadia | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order accepts a joint stipulation — neither party was compelled by a judicial ruling. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it permanently extinguishes Uniloc’s right to re-assert these specific claims against these defendants. The simultaneous closure of both the lead case and member case confirms no residual claims remain. The own-costs order suggests the resolution was commercially negotiated rather than legally adjudicated, though any private financial terms are not disclosed in the public record.
US8243723B2 and three further patents — messaging application technology
The four asserted patents — US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2 — cover technology in the messaging application domain. Application numbers span filings from the mid-2000s through the early 2010s, reflecting a period of intense innovation in mobile messaging, push notification, and real-time communication protocols. These patents were asserted against Samsung’s messaging-capable devices and PlayStation Mobile’s app platform, suggesting the claims reach into how devices establish, manage, or route messaging sessions.
For the mobile technology sector, this cluster of patents represents a meaningful enforcement risk. Uniloc has historically asserted messaging-related patents against a wide range of defendants — from device OEMs to platform operators — which signals that the claim scope was drafted broadly enough to read across hardware and software implementations. Companies developing messaging features, push notification systems, or real-time communication stacks should treat the full patent families surrounding these four numbers as live monitoring targets, even following this dismissal.
Should you run an FTO against US8243723B2 and the Uniloc messaging patent family?
Any product team building messaging applications, push notification infrastructure, VoIP features, or real-time communication layers for mobile or gaming platforms should assess exposure to the Uniloc messaging patent portfolio. The four patents asserted here have application dates stretching back to the mid-2000s — their claims may read on architectural patterns that are now standard in the industry. A dismissal with prejudice in this case does not clear the path for companies that were not parties to this litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full family landscape around US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2 — including continuations, divisionals, and related applications that may carry similar claim language. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can alert your team if new continuations publish or if related patents are reassigned to new assertion entities, giving you early warning before litigation risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8243723B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar messaging technology patent cases in Eastern District of Texas
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the messaging technology IP landscape
A seven-year Uniloc enforcement action closing quietly tells us something about patent assertion dynamics — and about how major tech defendants manage portfolio-level risk.
With-prejudice exits protect defendants permanently — but come at a cost
Samsung and PlayStation Mobile secured a with-prejudice dismissal, eliminating any future threat from these four patents in this litigation thread. For in-house counsel, this outcome represents the gold standard of non-trial resolution: no judgment, no royalty admission, permanent closure. The trade-off is the years of litigation cost absorbed to reach it.
Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for messaging patent claims
Uniloc’s choice of EDTX in 2016 was consistent with plaintiff-friendly filing patterns of that era. Despite TC Heartland (2017) reshaping venue strategy industry-wide, this case persisted in EDTX through to close — suggesting the consolidation structure and case posture made transfer impractical. Defendants in messaging tech should monitor EDTX filing activity closely.
Uniloc v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2024, via a joint stipulation filed by all parties. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Both the lead case (2:16-cv-00642) and consolidated member case (2:16-cv-00732) were closed simultaneously.
Uniloc asserted four US patents: US8243723B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2. All four relate to messaging application technology. The case targeted Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and PlayStation Mobile Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final termination that bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendants in any US federal court. It carries the legal effect of a judgment on the merits. In this case, Uniloc permanently relinquished its right to pursue Samsung and PlayStation Mobile on these four patents.
The public docket does not disclose the specific procedural reasons for the 2,792-day duration. Cases of this length in EDTX often involve inter partes review proceedings at the USPTO, extended claim construction disputes, or stays pending parallel proceedings. The exact cause of the delay in this case is not confirmed in the public record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice only binds the named parties — Samsung Electronics and PlayStation Mobile. Companies not party to this case remain fully exposed to infringement claims under these patents or their family members. Additionally, continuation applications and related patents may carry similar claims and are not extinguished by this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.