Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen has hit a snag in his massive patent infringement suit against Apple, Google, Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, and numerous others. US District Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the lawsuit on Friday, according to court documents, saying that Allen's company failed to specify infringing products from any of the 11 companies.

Interval Licensing LLC, Allen's patent holding company, filed the lawsuit in August and accused 11 Internet giants of violating four patents. The patents covered three main concepts: browser use for navigating through information, managing a user's peripheral attention while using a device, and alerting users to items of current interest. They collectively addressed the general concept of presenting searched-for information to a user along with related news articles, media, status updates from friends, or other data.

As many pointed out at the time, Allen's lawsuit did not name Microsoft, though it did name Microsoft partner Yahoo for implementing such broadly available technology. In its announcement, Interval said that it was merely protecting its own "investment in innovation," despite the fact that Interval does not create products of its own.

In her order to dismiss, Judge Pechman wrote that Interval left the court guessing which products violated each of the four patents since the original lawsuit failed to name them. "Plaintiff only indicates that Defendants have websites, hardware, and software that infringe on the patents or that they are encouraging third parties to use products that infringe on the patents," Pechman wrote. "This fails to indicate to Defendants which of their myriad products or devices may be at issue."

Since failing to specify the products is a violation of court rules, the case couldn't proceed.

The fight isn't over yet, though. Despite Interval's inability to follow the rules the first time around, Judge Pechman gave the company until December 28 to file an amended complaint, which Interval plans to do.

Once the amended complaint is filed, the arguments over whether the patents are "obvious" or not will begin all over again. Indeed, the companies named in the suit may have a leg up on Interval when it comes to defending themselves, since they have actual products on the market whereas Interval does not. At the time of the complaint, a Google spokesperson said the suit was part of an "unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace. Innovation—not litigation—is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit millions of people around the world."