2025–2026: four more patent suits against Dropbox — three voluntarily dismissed within months, one now open in California
March 2025 – October 2026
Between March 2025 and April 2026 four patent-infringement complaints were filed against Dropbox in the District of Delaware, the Western District of Texas (two suits) and the Southern District of New York. Three were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs within about seven weeks to three and a half months; the fourth, VE Opening, was transferred from Texas to California in July 2026 and is still open. The captured dockets do not show what any court decided on the merits; the VE Opening docket lists a motion for judgment on the pleadings and an order on it whose content was not captured.
What happened
This entry records four patent-infringement suits filed against Dropbox, Inc. in 2025 and 2026, taken from public CourtListener dockets captured on 4 October 2026. A complaint is an allegation: none of the four dockets shows a finding that Dropbox infringed anything, and the captured pages do not show the content of any ruling on validity. The captured dockets also do not describe what any of the four plaintiffs does as a business, and they do not say which Dropbox products were accused, so neither is stated here.
TG-2006 Holdings, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (D. Del., No. 1:25-cv-00297) was filed on 11 March 2025. The docket shows an amended complaint entered on 14 March 2025, a notice of voluntary dismissal on 30 April 2025, and an order terminating the case on 1 May 2025. The patent report filed with the complaint names U.S. Patent Nos. 8,583,514; 9,454,741; and 9,805,323. The same docket entry also prints a fourth number, '20,180,121,860', which looks like a published patent-application number rather than a patent number, so it is not counted as a patent here. (CourtListener's caption renders the plaintiff as 'TG--2006 Holdings, LLC'.)
Lone Star Document Management, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (W.D. Tex., No. 1:26-cv-00022) was filed on 5 January 2026. A stay was filed on 9 April 2026 and the case was stayed on 10 April 2026; the captured docket does not say why. The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 22 April 2026 and the court entered an order dismissing the case on 28 April 2026.
UBQS-IP LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., No. 1:26-cv-02875) was filed on 8 April 2026. The captured docket does not identify the patents asserted. The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 26 June 2026, and the docket shows a patent-case-terminated form (AO 120) entered on 29 June 2026.
VE Opening LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. was filed in the Western District of Texas (No. 7:25-cv-00538) on 19 November 2025, with U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079 attached to the complaint as Exhibit A. Dropbox moved to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). On 1 July 2026 Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland issued a report and recommendations on that motion; on 16 July 2026 Judge David Counts entered an order adopting it. The Northern District of California docket records receipt of the transferred case on 22 July 2026 (now No. 3:26-cv-07549). The captured pages do not include the text of the report, so this entry does not say what it recommended. The docket shows continued filings after the transfer, with the CourtListener page giving 2 October 2026 as the date of the last known filing, and the case is not marked terminated. The docket also lists an Answer on 30 July 2026 (entry 51), a 'Judgment on the Pleadings' filing on 3 September 2026 (entry 55), an 'Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings' on 11 September 2026, an Amended Complaint, an Answer to the Amended Complaint and a second 'Judgment on the Pleadings' filing on 17 September 2026 (entries 59 to 61), and a 'Stay' filing on 30 September 2026 (entry 62). The captured pages show neither who filed the motions nor what the order decided.
The pattern is what this entry documents. Three of the four suits ended by the plaintiff's own voluntary dismissal, between roughly seven weeks (TG-2006) and three and a half months (Lone Star) after filing, with no ruling on the merits in the captured docket entries. A voluntary dismissal is not a ruling on the merits: it is not a finding that Dropbox did not infringe and it is not a finding that the patents are invalid, and nothing here should be read as a win for either side on the merits. This archive does not know why any of these plaintiffs dismissed; the dockets do not say.
These suits sit alongside earlier patent assertions documented elsewhere in this archive: the Datanet LLC suit (slug datanet-patent-suit), the Daedalus Blue suit (slug daedalus-blue-ibm-patent-suit) and the Entangled Media suit (slug entangled-media-patent-suit).
Impact
Dropbox is a recurring defendant in patent-infringement suits, and the 2025–2026 dockets add four more to the public record, in three federal districts (four counting the transfer). For users the practical effect is indirect and is not quantified in any source reviewed. The value of the entry is the visible pattern of repeat assertion and early withdrawal, set out so readers can weigh it themselves.
Sources
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04