Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc.
Dismissed- Docket:
- 6:13-cv-00795
- Filed:
- 2013-10-18
A lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas which the district court rejected.
Plaintiff
11 cases as plaintiff.
Uniloc USA, Inc. is a privately held company known for patent licensing and assertion. Originally a US subsidiary of an Australian company founded in 1992 that developed software activation and copy protection technology, Uniloc USA was established in 2003. While it has a history of developing technology, its primary business is now patent monetization, and it is widely characterized by sources like Unified Patents and in legal filings as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity. The company is an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, a large investment firm that acquired Uniloc's patent assets and monetization business. Sources report a small employee count, with one estimate at 6 people as of early 2026.
Uniloc does not manufacture products but owns and asserts a large portfolio of patents. Its original patents, developed by founder Ric Richardson, covered software product activation, often known as "try and buy" software. This technology was designed to prevent unauthorized software copying. Over time, its asserted portfolio has expanded to include patents related to digital rights management (DRM), communication systems for wireless devices, and motion estimation for digital video encoders. The company's business model is based on licensing this patent portfolio to technology companies, often under the threat of litigation.
The company's litigation posture is exclusively that of a plaintiff. The provided data shows Uniloc USA, Inc. as the plaintiff in all 11 tracked cases, with zero instances of it being a defendant, a pattern typical of an NPE. Uniloc has been a prolific filer of patent lawsuits, with many of its cases filed in jurisdictions considered favorable to patent plaintiffs, such as the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Critics have described the company as a "patent troll" due to its aggressive litigation tactics against a wide range of software companies.
Uniloc's most notable litigation was its long-running suit against Microsoft, first filed in 2003 over a software product activation patent. A jury initially awarded Uniloc a landmark $388 million verdict, which was among the largest in patent history at the time, though this verdict was subsequently vacated by the judge. The case ultimately ended in a settlement for an undisclosed amount in 2012. More recently, Uniloc's relationship with its litigation backer, Fortress Investment Group, drew scrutiny in an antitrust lawsuit filed by Apple and Intel, which alleged anticompetitive behavior through the aggregation of thousands of patents to extract excessive royalties.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Uniloc USA, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
A lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas which the district court rejected.
This case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and was dismissed following a settlement in January 2016.
The case against Adobe was terminated and dismissed on August 2, 2012, likely due to a settlement.
This case was dismissed after defendant Sega served as the lead petitioner in a successful inter partes review (IPR2014-01453) that invalidated the patent's claims.
A consolidated lawsuit filed against several companies in the Eastern District of Texas. It is reported that Uniloc settled with many of the defendants.
The case against Electronic Arts was dismissed on May 18, 2015. The defendant had previously been the petitioner in an unsuccessful IPR (IPR2015-00178) against the patent.
The case was dismissed after defendant Ubisoft, Inc. successfully petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR2015-01026) which invalidated all claims of the patent.
The case was terminated and dismissed on April 12, 2011, likely as a result of a settlement.
The case was terminated and dismissed on September 15, 2010, likely due to a settlement between the parties.
After a lengthy legal battle including a $388M jury verdict for Uniloc, the infringement judgment was ultimately vacated by the Federal Circuit in 2012.
A jury found Microsoft infringed and awarded Uniloc $388 million, but the case went through appeals where the CAFC ordered a new trial on damages. The parties reached a confidential settlement in March 2012 before the new trial could occur.