Conexus LLC v. Datadog, Inc.: Injection Exploit Detection Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Conexus LLC asserted US11736499B2 — covering systems and methods for detecting injection exploits — against cloud monitoring provider Datadog, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice after 143 days, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
A rapid stipulated exit: injection exploit patent suit ends at 143 days
On 29 December 2024, Conexus LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Datadog, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge Margaret M. Garnett. The single asserted patent — US11736499B2 (application no. US16/844915) — covers systems and methods for detecting injection exploits, a cybersecurity capability directly relevant to Datadog’s cloud observability and security monitoring platform.
The case closed on 21 May 2025 via a stipulated dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), terminating all claims with prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Conexus’s right to re-assert the same infringement claims against Datadog on US11736499B2. Neither party was ordered to pay the other’s legal costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a court-imposed outcome.
Resolution in 143 days — before any substantive motions or claim construction proceedings are visible in the public record — is consistent with an early settlement or licensing arrangement, though the specific commercial terms remain confidential. The brevity of the litigation and the mutual cost-bearing provision suggest both parties found it commercially rational to exit. What drove the precise resolution, including any royalty exchange, is not disclosed in the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 143 days
143 days — resolved in under 5 months, well below the median district court patent case lifespan
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal, permanently binding
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties and takes effect immediately upon filing — no court order needed. The with-prejudice designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Conexus cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Datadog on US11736499B2 in any federal court.
Permanent bar on re-filingConexus gives up future claims against Datadog on this patent
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Conexus permanently forecloses the infringement claims it asserted against Datadog on US11736499B2. This is a meaningful concession for a patent licensing entity. The mutual cost-bearing provision means no fee award was extracted. However, a confidential licence or lump-sum settlement payment — not visible in the public record — may have provided commercial return before the stipulation was filed.
Claims extinguished vs. DatadogDatadog secures permanent dismissal — but patent survives against others
Datadog obtains a durable legal shield: the with-prejudice dismissal prevents Conexus from re-asserting US11736499B2 infringement claims against it. Datadog also avoids any cost or fee award against it. Critically, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable — Datadog’s resolution has no bearing on Conexus’s ability to assert the same patent against other cloud security or observability vendors.
Protected from re-assertionUS11736499B2 remains a live threat for other injection-detection players
The dismissal resolves only the Datadog dispute. Other vendors offering injection exploit detection, runtime application self-protection (RASP), or web application firewall (WAF) capabilities should note that US11736499B2 is unimpaired and potentially available for further assertion. The 143-day resolution suggests Conexus is an active monetisation entity — competitors operating in the injection-detection space may face similar demand letters.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Conexus LLC | Company | Cybersecurity patent licensing entity — holder of US11736499B2 (injection exploit detection)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Datadog, Inc. | Company | Datadog, Inc. — cloud observability, security monitoring, and infrastructure analytics platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Conexus LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lance Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Conexus LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lance Liu | Law Firm | Representing Conexus LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Conexus LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gene W. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Datadog, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Datadog, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Margaret M. Garnett | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s phrasing — ‘dismiss this action with prejudice’ with each party bearing its own fees — is deliberately neutral, disclosing no admission of liability or infringement. The with-prejudice designation carries the full legal weight of a merits adjudication for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently barring Conexus from re-litigating these specific claims against Datadog. The mutual cost-bearing clause, rather than a fee award, suggests neither party sought to characterise the outcome as a litigation win or an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11736499B2 — Systems and methods for detecting injection exploits
US11736499B2, filed under application number US16/844915, covers systems and methods for detecting injection exploits — a core cybersecurity technique targeting SQL injection, command injection, and related attack vectors that remain among the most prevalent application-layer threats. The patent’s technical domain sits at the intersection of network traffic analysis, anomaly detection, and runtime security monitoring, all of which are foundational capabilities in modern cloud-native security platforms.
For vendors offering cloud observability, application performance monitoring, or integrated security tooling — as Datadog does — this patent’s claim scope is strategically relevant. Injection exploit detection logic is increasingly embedded in SIEM pipelines, WAF integrations, and runtime application self-protection (RASP) modules. The fact that Conexus selected Datadog as a defendant suggests the patent holder believes the claims map onto commercially deployed cloud monitoring architectures, raising the risk profile for similarly positioned vendors.
Should you run an FTO against US11736499B2?
Any product team building or acquiring injection exploit detection, WAF, RASP, or anomaly-based intrusion detection capabilities should treat US11736499B2 as a live FTO risk. Datadog’s dismissal resolves nothing for third parties — the patent remains fully enforceable. If your platform monitors application-layer traffic for injection patterns, analyses request payloads for exploit signatures, or flags anomalous query structures at runtime, a claim-level FTO review is warranted before Conexus sends a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US11736499B2’s independent claims against product architectures quickly, identify prior art that may support an IPR petition, and benchmark the patent’s claim scope against related grants and continuations in the injection detection space. Upload your product specification and let Eureka surface the overlap before litigation risk becomes litigation cost.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11736499B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar injection exploit detection patent cases in federal district courts
Explore related cybersecurity patent infringement actions asserted in S.D.N.Y. and peer district courts involving injection detection, WAF, and runtime security methods patents.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity patent enforcement landscape
A fast, quiet exit in a cloud-security patent suit typically signals leverage assessment — and possible deal — before litigation costs mount.
Early dismissal patterns suggest active licensing — not trial strategy
Cases filed and dismissed within 143 days, before any claim construction or summary judgment activity, are consistent with demand-letter-style monetisation. Conexus’s use of Rabicoff Law LLC — a firm associated with NPE patent assertion — reinforces this read. Companies in the injection detection or cloud observability space should treat a Conexus filing as a licensing overture, not an opening salvo for trial.
Datadog’s with-prejudice exit offers a model for peer defendants
Securing a with-prejudice stipulation ensures that any settlement payment, if made, buys permanent peace on this patent — not just a temporary pause. Defendants facing similar NPE assertions over cybersecurity methods patents should prioritise negotiating the with-prejudice designation and explicit cost-bearing language early, as Datadog appears to have done here.
Conexus v Datadog — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Conexus from re-asserting the same US11736499B2 infringement claims against Datadog. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, giving Datadog durable protection without requiring a trial or judgment on the patent’s validity or infringement.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal resolves only the dispute between Conexus and Datadog. US11736499B2 remains valid and fully enforceable against all other parties. The dismissal contains no invalidity findings, no claim construction rulings, and no licensing terms that would affect third-party risk assessments.
US11736499B2 (application no. US16/844915) is a U.S. patent covering systems and methods for detecting injection exploits. The patent’s technical scope relates to identifying and responding to application-layer injection attack vectors — such as SQL injection and command injection — in networked environments, which is directly relevant to cloud security monitoring and WAF/RASP product categories.
The case closed before any substantive court proceedings are visible in the public record, which is consistent with early-stage licensing negotiations. Conexus LLC, represented by Rabicoff Law LLC — a firm associated with NPE patent assertion — may have prioritised a swift resolution over protracted litigation. The specific terms, including any financial settlement, remain confidential and are not disclosed in the court docket.
The stipulation specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement means no fee-shifting award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise. It is a neutral provision that neither party could characterise as a litigation victory, and it is commonly seen in negotiated pre-trial resolutions of NPE patent assertions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.