Webroot & Open Text v. Trend Micro: 11-Patent Cybersecurity Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Webroot and Open Text filed suit against Trend Micro in the Western District of Texas in March 2022, asserting 11 US patents covering endpoint security, threat detection, and cloud-based workload protection. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in February 2024, with each side bearing its own costs — closing the litigation after nearly two years.
Large-scale cybersecurity IP dispute ends by stipulation in W.D. Texas
Webroot, Inc. and Open Text, Inc. filed Case No. 6:22-cv-00239 in the Western District of Texas on 4 March 2022, naming Trend Micro, Inc. as defendant. The complaint asserted 11 United States patents spanning endpoint detection and response, smart threat intelligence networks, workload security, and deep security architectures. The accused products included Trend Micro’s flagship Apex One, Deep Security, Cloud One–Workload Security, Deep Discovery XDR, and Smart Protection Network platforms — effectively the core of Trend Micro’s enterprise cybersecurity portfolio.
The case closed on 16 February 2024 when the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation divided the claims asymmetrically: all infringement claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those specific causes of action, while all other defenses and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving those issues available for future proceedings. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
The resolution after roughly 23 months — before trial — is consistent with a negotiated settlement, though the public record contains no disclosed financial terms. The with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims is a significant concession by the plaintiffs, suggesting the parties reached a commercial resolution rather than concluding the case purely on procedural grounds. What remains unknown is whether a licensing agreement, cross-license, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal, and whether related inter partes review proceedings, if any, formed part of the resolution context.
Filing to filing in 714 days
Case duration: filed March 2022, closed February 2024
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Webroot, Inc. | Company | Cybersecurity software company and IP licensor — holders of US10284591B2 and 10 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trend Micro, Inc. | Company | Trend Micro, Inc. — global cybersecurity vendor, developer of Apex One, Deep Security, and XDR platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher C. Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Webroot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander H. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bruce Yen | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dan N. MacLemore , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry Yee-Der Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Stephen Ravel | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Ming-Jie Hsiao | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan J. Lamberson | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Koichiro Kidokoro | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Costello-Caulkins | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Philip Ou | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Radhesh Devendran | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shashank Chitti | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sojung Yun | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Woenho Chung | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yar R. Chaikovsky | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation’s deliberate splitting of prejudice terms — with prejudice on infringement, without prejudice on all other claims — is legally precise and commercially significant. By extinguishing infringement claims permanently, Webroot and Open Text foreclose any attempt to re-litigate the same patent assertions against Trend Micro’s current products. Trend Micro, however, retains the ability to pursue invalidity or other non-infringement positions in separate proceedings if the patents are later asserted against other parties — a structural advantage the defendant likely negotiated.
US10284591B2 — Network-based threat detection and endpoint security
The 11 patents asserted in this case span a broad arc of cybersecurity technology, from foundational endpoint protection methods (US8181244B2, US8201243B2, filed circa 2006) to more recent cloud workload security and XDR-era detection and response innovations (US11409869B2, filed 2020). The portfolio reflects Webroot’s historical R&D in behaviour-based malware detection and its evolution toward cloud-delivered security intelligence — technologies that became strategically central following Open Text’s acquisition of Webroot in 2019.
This portfolio sits at the intersection of three high-value competitive battlegrounds: endpoint detection and response (EDR), cloud workload protection platforms (CWPP), and extended detection and response (XDR). Trend Micro’s accused products — particularly Apex One and Deep Security — compete directly in all three markets. For competitors active in these segments, the scope of claims across 11 patents means that freedom-to-operate analysis cannot be confined to a single patent family; overlapping claim coverage across the portfolio warrants a comprehensive, multi-patent review.
Should your security product team run an FTO against these 11 patents?
Any organisation developing or commercialising endpoint detection and response tools, cloud workload protection platforms, or smart threat intelligence networks should treat this patent family as a priority FTO target. The breadth of assertion — 11 patents covering both foundational and recent innovations — and the fact that Webroot/Open Text demonstrated willingness to litigate against a major industry player suggests active licensing and enforcement intent. Products that aggregate threat telemetry, perform behavioural analysis at the endpoint, or deliver cloud-native security policy enforcement are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claims of each of the 11 asserted patents simultaneously, flagging overlapping claim language and identifying prior art that could support design-around or challenge strategies. Ongoing claim monitoring across US10284591B2 and its related family members ensures your legal and product teams are alerted to any continuation filings or claim amendments that could expand the assertion perimeter — before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10284591B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cybersecurity patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity IP enforcement landscape
An 11-patent assertion against a top-tier security vendor resolved in under two years — the enforcement and licensing dynamics reward close attention.
Broad multi-patent assertions in cybersecurity carry real settlement leverage
Asserting 11 patents across an opponent’s entire flagship product line — Apex One, Deep Security, XDR, Smart Protection Network — creates litigation cost and discovery pressure that frequently drives resolution before trial. IP holders in the endpoint security space with similarly broad portfolios may find this bundled assertion strategy commercially effective.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for cybersecurity patent plaintiffs
Filing before Judge Alan Albright in Waco remains a deliberate strategic choice for patent plaintiffs, despite recent transfer-friendly precedent. The court’s familiarity with complex technical patents and its scheduling discipline likely contributed to the speed of resolution here. Defendants in this venue face early, intensive case management that can accelerate settlement timelines.
Webroot v Trend — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to all infringement claims by stipulation of all parties under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 16 February 2024. Webroot, Inc. and Open Text, Inc. had alleged infringement of 11 US patents by Trend Micro’s Apex One, Deep Security, Deep Discovery XDR, and Smart Protection Network products. Each party agreed to bear its own costs.
Eleven US patents were asserted: US10284591B2, US8856505B2, US8181244B2, US10599844B2, US11409869B2, US8201243B2, US10257224B2, US9578045B2, US8726389B2, US8719932B2, and US8418250B2. The portfolio spans endpoint protection, malware detection, cloud workload security, and threat intelligence technologies developed by Webroot.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Webroot and Open Text from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Trend Micro based on these 11 patents. They cannot bring a new lawsuit asserting the same patents against the same accused products. The dismissal without prejudice of other defenses and counterclaims means those issues could theoretically be raised in separate proceedings.
The public record shows only a stipulated dismissal — no settlement agreement or financial terms have been disclosed. However, the with-prejudice dismissal of all infringement claims covering 11 patents and Trend Micro’s core product portfolio is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution, which may include a licensing agreement. This is standard practice for IP settlements in the enterprise cybersecurity sector.
The accused products identified in the case include Apex One, Cloud One–Workload Security, Deep Discovery Endpoint Sensor, Deep Discovery XDR (Detection and Response), Deep Security, and Smart Protection Network — representing the breadth of Trend Micro’s enterprise endpoint and cloud security portfolio at the time of filing.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.