AI Chipmaker Groq Settles Trademark Suit Against Health-Tech Firm Groq Health in S.D.N.Y., Closing One Strand of ‘Groq/Grok’ Brand Disputes

U.S. AI chipmaker Groq Inc. resolved its trademark infringement suit against Groq Health Inc. on May 18, 2026, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case (Groq, Inc. v. Groq Health, Inc., No. 1:2023cv08325) following a settlement notified to the court the previous week. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The dismissal was reported by Bloomberg Law on May 19, 2026.

Groq Inc. is a Silicon Valley company that develops what it calls a Language Processing Unit (LPU) for AI inference. In 2025, the company struck a $20 billion licensing deal with Nvidia Corp., further raising its profile in the generative-AI infrastructure market. Groq Health Inc. is a Manhattan-based health-technology company founded by an endocrinologist. In September 2023, Groq Inc. sued Groq Health in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Groq Health’s use of the name infringed its registered marks and was likely to cause confusion.

The dispute is one of a growing cluster of trademark conflicts involving “Groq” and “Grok” names. After Elon Musk’s xAI launched the generative-AI assistant Grok, Groq Inc. filed a separate trademark infringement action against xAI, signaling that the company intends to defend its mark against multiple defendants in the AI sector. Monday’s dismissal removes one of those threads from the litigation map.

A notable procedural milestone in the case came in March 2025, when Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Groq Inc.’s motion to dismiss Groq Health’s counterclaims. Judge Vyskocil concluded that the federal Lanham Act’s grant of authority extends only to registered trademarks, not to pending USPTO applications, foreclosing Groq Health from asking the court to adjudicate the validity of an application that had not yet matured into a registration. After that ruling cut back Groq Health’s litigation posture, the parties advanced toward merits proceedings before agreeing to settle.

The Groq–Groq Health settlement closes one piece of a sprawling brand conflict, but its broader significance lies in what it does not resolve. The xAI case remains active, and disputes over the spelling and pronunciation of “Groq” and “Grok” will continue to be tested in U.S. courts as more well-funded AI products enter the market. For health-tech founders and clinicians launching companies in this period, the case underscores the importance of trademark clearance against not only existing registrations but also rapidly emerging AI brands whose enforcement resources may exceed those of more established sectors.