Uniloc v. Snap Inc.: Four VoIP Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice After 7 Years
Uniloc Corp. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. asserted four patents covering instant VoIP messaging systems against Snap Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. After 2,568 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Seven-Year VoIP Patent Fight Between Uniloc and Snap Ends in Bilateral Dismissal
Uniloc Corp. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. filed this infringement action on 30 June 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents — US8199747B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2 — directed at systems and methods for instant VoIP messaging against Snap Inc., the developer behind Snapchat. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the district's chief patent jurist, and proceeded for over seven years.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order states that Uniloc and Snap jointly stipulated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The Court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation on 12 July 2023, denying all other requests for relief as moot. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to stipulate are not disclosed in the available record.
A case spanning 2,568 days is notably protracted for an E.D. Texas patent matter, suggesting the dispute navigated significant procedural complexity, though the precise causes of the extended timeline are not disclosed in the public record. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated resolution, but what — if anything — was agreed between the parties beyond the procedural dismissal is not reflected in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 2568 days
2,568 days — over 7 years from filing to dismissal in E.D. Texas
US8199747B2 and three further patents — instant VoIP messaging systems
Any company building or acquiring a product with real-time VoIP or voice-within-messaging functionality — whether a social platform, enterprise communications tool, or mobile OS feature — should assess its exposure to this Uniloc patent family. The four patents emerged from this case with validity untested and claims against Snap extinguished only for Snap. R&D teams integrating instant voice messaging, audio calling within chat interfaces, or VoIP session management should evaluate whether their implementations overlap with the claimed methods.
Official order — verbatim text
The Court's order accepts and acknowledges a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation and confirms dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims. The order makes no determination on the merits of infringement or patent validity, and expressly denies all remaining requests for relief as moot. The mutual cost-bearing direction is explicit in the order text; the basis for the parties reaching this stipulation is not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a joint stipulation signed by all parties that permanently extinguishes the asserted claims. 'With prejudice' means Uniloc cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Snap on these four patents. The Court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, denied all remaining relief as moot, and made no merits determination on validity or infringement.
Final, no merits rulingUniloc's claims are permanently closed against Snap
By stipulating to dismissal with prejudice, Uniloc forfeits its ability to reassert these four VoIP messaging patents against Snap in future litigation. The four patents — US8199747B2, US8724622B2, US8995433B2, and US7535890B2 — remain valid and enforceable in principle against third parties, but Snap specifically is shielded from further Uniloc claims on these assertions. No court ruling on patent validity was issued.
Patents survive; Snap shieldedSnap exits seven years of VoIP patent litigation with no adverse judgment
Snap Inc. achieves a full exit from this case with no finding of infringement, no damages award, and no injunction. The dismissal with prejudice ensures Uniloc cannot revive these specific claims. The mutual cost-bearing order means Snap absorbs its own litigation spend without recovery from Uniloc. No counterclaim for invalidity was adjudicated on the merits.
No adverse judgmentVoIP messaging patent risk persists for other messaging platform operators
The dismissal leaves the four asserted VoIP messaging patents unlitigated to a merits decision, meaning their validity and scope have not been tested by a court. Operators of messaging and VoIP-integrated platforms beyond Snap remain exposed to potential assertion of these patents. Companies in this space should monitor the status of these patents and consider whether freedom-to-operate analysis is warranted.
Validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Uniloc, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Snap, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett Aaron Mangrum | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James L. Etheridge | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Scott Loveless | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis Lee Richins | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Uniloc USA, Inc. | Attorney | Counsel for Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Etheridge Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mangrum Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Uniloc, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew E. Buccellato | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter Aaron Kerr | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reuben Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tarle Law PC | Law Firm | Representing Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Snap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the instant VoIP messaging patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Uniloc's VoIP messaging assertions against Snap and the broader messaging platform technology landscape.
Uniloc's VoIP messaging patent family: breadth and filing activity
Uniloc has assembled a multi-patent family around instant VoIP messaging spanning application dates from 2003 to 2014. Understanding the full scope of this portfolio — including continuation filings, related applications, and licensing history — is essential for any messaging platform operator assessing long-term enforcement risk from this patent family.
Uniloc VoIP portfolioFiling trends in real-time VoIP integration for mobile messaging platforms
Real-time VoIP within messaging applications has attracted sustained patent filing activity from both incumbents and new entrants since the mid-2000s. Tracking recent filings in this space — particularly around session initiation, audio codec optimization, and peer-to-peer voice routing within chat environments — reveals which players are building defensive or offensive IP positions.
VoIP messaging filing trendsSnap's patent posture in social messaging and audio-visual communication
Snap Inc. has developed its own IP portfolio around ephemeral media, augmented reality, and real-time communication features. Examining Snap's offensive patent filings in voice and audio-visual messaging provides a signal of its R&D investment in the VoIP-adjacent space and its capacity to assert or cross-license in future disputes.
Snap comms IP postureAdjacent innovation opportunities: VoIP quality and security in messaging
The Uniloc patents focus on the system and method layer of instant VoIP messaging. Adjacent areas — including end-to-end encrypted VoIP signalling, AI-driven voice quality enhancement within messaging apps, and cross-platform VoIP interoperability — show relatively lower patent density and may represent white-space opportunities for R&D investment.
VoIP messaging white spaceSimilar VoIP and messaging patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving VoIP messaging technology and social platform defendants litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the VoIP and messaging platform IP landscape
A 7-year dismissal with no merits ruling keeps four VoIP messaging patents in play against the broader market.
Untested patents remain live enforcement tools against third parties
None of the four asserted patents received a validity or infringement ruling. Messaging and VoIP platform operators should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patents are weak — absence of a merits ruling means the assertions remain available against other defendants in the market.
Seven-year E.D. Texas tenure signals heavy procedural load
Cases that run 2,568 days in the Eastern District of Texas typically signal significant motion practice, parallel IPR proceedings, or venue challenges. Companies monitoring Uniloc portfolio activity should track inter partes review filings against these four patent numbers as a signal of patent health.
Uniloc v Snap — key questions answered
All claims and counterclaims between Uniloc and Snap were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court accepted the stipulation on 12 July 2023, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
Uniloc asserted four patents: US8199747B2 (App. 12/398076), US8724622B2 (App. 13/546673), US8995433B2 (App. 14/224125), and US7535890B2 (App. 10/740030). All four are directed at systems and methods for instant VoIP messaging.
No. The dismissal with prejudice bars only Uniloc from reasserting these specific claims against Snap Inc. The four VoIP messaging patents remain valid and enforceable in principle, and Uniloc could assert them against third parties. No court ruling on validity was issued in this case.
The specific causes of the 2,568-day duration are not disclosed in the available public record. Cases of this length in the Eastern District of Texas typically suggest significant procedural activity, though no specific reason can be confirmed from the docket information available.
Uniloc was represented by Etheridge Law Group PLLC and Mangrum Law Group PLLC. Snap Inc. was represented by Cooley LLP (Palo Alto), Tarle Law PC, and The Dacus Firm PC. The case was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
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.