Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC

BACKGROUND

In two related appeals, we today determine that Uniloc 2017 is collaterally estopped from arguing both that Uniloc 2017’s predecessors had not licensed Fortress and that Fortress’s license did not deprive Uniloc 2017 of stand- ing. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, -- F. 4th - - (Fed. Cir. 2022). This case presents a different issue: Whether the Termination Agreement terminated For- tress’s license, and thereby restored Uniloc 2017’s standing to sue, an issue as to which there is no claim of collateral estoppel. The background of the present controversy is as fol- lows. On December 30, 2014, Uniloc 2017’s predecessors, Uniloc Luxembourg (“Uniloc Lux”) and Uniloc USA (to- gether, “the Unilocs”), entered into a Revenue Sharing and Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement (“RSA”) with For- tress in connection with a loan Fortress made to the Unilocs. The RSA stated: [T]he [Unilocs] shall grant to [Fortress], for the benefit of the Secured Parties, a non-exclusive, roy- alty free, license (including the right to grant sub- licenses) with respect to the Patents, which shall be evidenced by, and reflected in, the Patent Li- cense …