Standing to Sue Flies Right Through Tangled Web of Uniloc-Fortress Agreements

February 3, 2019

District Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California has ruled on a motion questioning whether Uniloc Luxembourg S.a.r.l. (f/k/a Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) and Uniloc USA, Inc., subsidiaries of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, had standing to sue at the time that they filed a raft of lawsuits against Apple in their original forum, the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Alsup ruled that the Uniloc plaintiffs did have standing, rejecting Apple’s argument that a purported “default” under a set of December 2014 agreements between Uniloc and Fortress Investment Group LLC, as subsequently and repeatedly amended, had shifted sufficient rights to Fortress to destroy Uniloc’s standing. Apple had also opposed a motion to add Uniloc 2017 LLC as a plaintiff, arguing that joining new patent owner Uniloc 2017 could not fix a lapse in standing caused by a May 2018 transfer of the Uniloc patent portfolio from Uniloc Luxembourg to Uniloc 2017. Judge Alsup ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, granting their motion to join Uniloc 2017.

Subscription Required

This content requires a subscription to view

  • Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
  • Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
  • Proprietary litigation timelines
  • Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
  • Judge, venue, and law firm analytics

Related News


Key Parties