Cooperative Entertainment v. Cloudflare: P2P Infringement Suit Ends in 77 Days
Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. asserted US9432452B2 — covering peer-to-peer network content distribution — against Cloudflare, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case closed just 77 days after filing when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Cloudflare served any responsive pleading.
A fast-exit P2P patent suit that leaves the door open
On September 2, 2025, Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Cloudflare, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Case No. 7:25-cv-00392, asserting US9432452B2, which covers peer-to-peer network content distribution technology. Cloudflare is a major provider of internet infrastructure, content delivery, and network security services — making it a commercially significant target for a P2P distribution patent.
On November 17, 2025 — just 76 days after filing — Cooperative Entertainment filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Cloudflare had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating and required no court order. The court’s November 18 notation confirmed the case was terminated, with each party bearing its own costs.
The 77-day duration is notably brief and suggests the matter resolved — or was abandoned — well before any substantive merits engagement. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement, licensing agreement, or litigation strategy shift prompted the withdrawal. The without-prejudice designation is consequential: Cooperative Entertainment retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Cloudflare in the future, subject to any applicable statutes of limitations.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what this closure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s self-executing exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and without prejudice — simply by filing a notice, provided the opposing party has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Cloudflare had not done so, the dismissal was self-effectuating. No judicial approval was required or sought.
Pre-answer dismissalWithout prejudice — but what does the public record actually say?
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims; ‘with prejudice’ would bar them permanently. The court’s record here confirms the dismissal is without prejudice. However, the public record is silent on whether any side agreement — such as a settlement or covenant not to sue — privately limits that refiling right. Practitioners should not assume the dispute is fully resolved based on the docket alone.
Refiling right preservedCloudflare exits without admissions and no fee exposure
Cloudflare was not required to file any responsive pleading before the case terminated. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees, meaning Cloudflare faces no cost award from this proceeding. Critically, no merits ruling was made, so there is no judicial finding — adverse or favourable — regarding US9432452B2’s validity or Cloudflare’s alleged infringement.
No merits adjudicationP2P distribution patent remains enforceable and unresolved
US9432452B2 was never challenged on the merits in this proceeding, leaving its validity and enforceability intact. Other CDN and content-delivery providers operating in the peer-to-peer distribution space should note that the patent holder retains both the patent and the option to refile. The early exit may reflect licensing negotiations, a portfolio strategy pivot, or a decision to pursue different defendants — none of which are discernible from the public docket.
Patent remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9432452B2 covering P2P network content distributionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cloudflare, Inc. | Company | Cloudflare, Inc. — global internet infrastructure, CDN, and network security providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Cooperative Entertainment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cooperative Entertainment, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s notation confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no judicial determination of infringement, validity, or enforceability was made. The without-prejudice designation means all claims survive for potential refiling. The mutual cost-bearing order forecloses any fee recovery by either party from this proceeding, but creates no estoppel or res judicata bar to future litigation on the same patent.
US9432452B2 — Peer-to-Peer Network Content Distribution
US9432452B2 (application no. US14/023172) covers peer-to-peer network content distribution technology — methods and systems enabling distributed content delivery across networked peers rather than centralised servers. P2P distribution patents sit at the intersection of network architecture, CDN infrastructure, and streaming or download protocols. The application date and grant history position this patent within a generation of P2P technologies that attracted significant commercial and litigation interest as internet-scale content delivery matured.
For CDN operators, cloud infrastructure providers, and any platform leveraging distributed content delivery — including edge-computing architectures — US9432452B2 represents a potential enforcement vector that has not been adjudicated on the merits. The patent’s assertion against Cloudflare, one of the largest CDN operators globally, signals the holder views major infrastructure providers as within scope. Competitors and adjacent technology vendors should assess whether their P2P or hybrid delivery architectures overlap with the claims before this patent resurfaces in litigation.
Should your team run an FTO check against US9432452B2?
Any company building or operating peer-to-peer content distribution infrastructure, hybrid CDN-P2P delivery systems, or edge-based content routing should treat US9432452B2 as an active risk. The patent was never invalidated or narrowed in this proceeding, and the without-prejudice dismissal preserves the holder’s enforcement rights. R&D and product teams launching new P2P or distributed delivery features are particularly exposed if they have not mapped their architecture against this patent’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map US9432452B2’s independent claims against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in the same family or by the same assignee. Running a proactive FTO now is significantly lower-cost than defending a re-filed infringement action in the Western District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9432452B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar P2P and CDN patent infringement cases in Texas federal courts
Cases involving peer-to-peer network content distribution patents asserted in the Western District of Texas against CDN and internet infrastructure defendants.
What this case signals for the CDN and P2P content delivery IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in Texas rarely signals weakness alone — it often marks the start of a different strategy.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve leverage for patent holders
Cooperative Entertainment retains full legal rights to refile against Cloudflare or assert US9432452B2 against other CDN and P2P infrastructure operators. Companies in the content delivery space should treat this closure as a pause, not a resolution. Monitoring the patent holder’s future filings is advisable.
Early exits in WDTX often reflect off-docket licensing activity
The Western District of Texas is a high-volume patent litigation venue. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals — especially those resolving in under 90 days — frequently coincide with confidential licensing discussions that never surface in the public record. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit, though this cannot be confirmed from available data.
Cooperative v Cloudflare — key questions answered
It means Cooperative Entertainment withdrew its infringement claims against Cloudflare before Cloudflare filed any answer or summary judgment motion. The without-prejudice designation preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in the future. No merits ruling was made on US9432452B2’s validity or Cloudflare’s alleged infringement.
Yes. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, subject to any applicable statute of limitations or privately negotiated covenants not to sue that would not appear on the public docket. The public record alone cannot confirm whether a side agreement limits the refiling right.
US9432452B2 covers peer-to-peer network content distribution technology. Cloudflare operates one of the world’s largest CDN and internet infrastructure platforms, which may overlap with the patent’s claims relating to distributed content delivery. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas, a high-volume patent litigation venue.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed before any substantive merits engagement. No court ruling was made on the patent’s validity, enforceability, or whether Cloudflare infringed any claims. The patent’s legal status is unchanged by this proceeding.
Cooperative Entertainment was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm associated with patent assertion activity in Texas federal courts. No defendant counsel is listed in the public record for this case, consistent with the early pre-answer dismissal timeline.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.