Croga Innovations v. Cisco Systems: Three-Patent VoIP & Network Security Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Croga Innovations, Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Cisco Systems, asserting three patents spanning VoIP telephony and network security across products including Cisco’s Umbrella RBI and Unified Border Element. The case closed after 621 days with a dismissal with prejudice — and each party bearing its own costs.
East Texas VoIP and network security dispute ends at the bar
Croga Innovations, Ltd. filed suit on 1 February 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting infringement of three patents: US10601780B2, US11223601B2, and US7738368B2. The asserted patents span VoIP telephony signalling and network security, with accused products including Cisco VoIP telephones, the Umbrella remote browser isolation platform, and Unified Border Element version 14 — a broad product sweep covering both Cisco’s collaboration and security portfolios.
The case terminated on 14 October 2025 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, accepted by the court. The order expressly states that all claims and causes of action between the parties are dismissed with prejudice, that all pending relief is denied as moot, and that each party bears its own costs and fees. Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), meaning Croga is precluded from reasserting these specific claims against Cisco in any future proceeding.
At 621 days, the case ran longer than many stipulated dismissals, suggesting substantive litigation activity — including likely claim construction briefing and potentially IPR or invalidity proceedings — before the parties reached resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and absence of any damages award are consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm this. What drove Croga to accept dismissal with prejudice on these three patents against one of the industry’s largest networking defendants remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 621 days
621 days — above the median district court patent case duration of ~500 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any future re-filing of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Croga cannot refile these specific patent claims against Cisco in any U.S. district court. The stipulated nature of the dismissal means both parties agreed to this finality, distinguishing it from a court-imposed termination and typically reflecting a negotiated resolution reached outside the public record.
FRCP 41 — merits bar appliesCroga’s patent rights against Cisco are permanently extinguished in this action
Croga accepted a with-prejudice bar on all three asserted patents against Cisco. While the patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants, Croga cannot revisit these infringement claims against Cisco’s VoIP telephones, Umbrella RBI, or CUBE product lines. The mutual cost-bearing term suggests Croga did not receive a damages award from the court, though a confidential settlement payment is possible and consistent with this structure.
Claims extinguished vs. CiscoCisco secures permanent closure of this three-patent infringement threat
For Cisco, dismissal with prejudice provides the strongest available procedural protection: Croga cannot reassert these patents in a new action covering the same accused products. Cisco also avoids any fee or cost award being entered against it. The result is commercially significant given the breadth of accused products spanning Cisco’s collaboration and network security portfolios. Cisco’s legal team successfully navigated 621 days of litigation to reach this outcome.
Permanent closure for CiscoCroga’s patents remain live threats for other networking and VoIP vendors
The dismissal resolves only the Cisco dispute. US10601780B2, US11223601B2, and US7738368B2 remain granted and enforceable against third parties. Competitors operating VoIP telephony platforms or remote browser isolation and session border controller products should treat this case as a signal that Croga is an active patent licensor willing to pursue litigation in E.D. Texas. The broad claim footprint across both collaboration and security domains warrants FTO analysis by any vendor in these spaces.
Patents remain active vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Croga Innovations, Ltd. | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US10601780B2, US11223601B2, and US7738368B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Cisco Systems, Inc. — global networking and cybersecurity technology corporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ashley Marie Ratycz | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Drew Bennett Hollander | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Francis Petrsoric | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael G McManus | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rudolph Fink , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Raymond Hasenour | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William E. Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC (Longview) | Law Firm | Representing Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Croga Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily Nicole Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hector Ribera | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jordan Owens | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kerri-Ann Limbeek | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle George Petrie | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leslie M. Spencer | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marie Weisfeiler | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Phillip John Haack | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Jared Marton | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Thorne | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tamir Packin | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais Llp – New York | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the stipulation confirms a clean termination: all claims dismissed with prejudice, all pending relief denied as moot, and the Clerk directed to close both lead and member cases. The explicit reference to ‘member cases’ indicates this was a consolidated or related-case docket, suggesting Croga pursued parallel actions against other defendants — notably Fortinet is named in the verdict text — under the same lead case number. The with-prejudice bar is the operative legal consequence, foreclosing Croga’s ability to refile against Cisco on these patents.
US10601780B2, US11223601B2 & US7738368B2 — VoIP and network security protocols
The three asserted patents span complementary layers of enterprise network communication. US10601780B2 (App. No. 15/910734) and US11223601B2 (App. No. 16/141535) represent continuation-era filings in network access and session management, while US7738368B2 (App. No. 11/271489) is an earlier-generation VoIP patent. Together they cover protocol-level functionality relevant to session initiation, border control, and secure remote access — technologies embedded in mainstream enterprise networking infrastructure.
The commercial significance of these patents lies in their applicability to products deployed at scale across enterprise environments. Cisco’s CUBE is a widely deployed session border controller; Umbrella RBI addresses the fast-growing secure access service edge market. A patent claim that reads on protocol handling in either product category carries substantial licensing leverage. For competitors in the UCaaS, SBC, or cloud security markets, the survival of these patents post-litigation means the risk landscape is unchanged.
Should your team run an FTO against US10601780B2, US11223601B2 & US7738368B2?
Any vendor developing or deploying VoIP telephony systems, session border controllers, or remote browser isolation platforms should treat these three patents as active enforcement risks. The fact that Croga pursued Cisco — one of the most well-resourced defendants in the networking industry — for 621 days before reaching a confidential resolution suggests genuine claim coverage concerns. Smaller vendors with less litigation capacity face greater exposure if targeted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the independent claims of US10601780B2, US11223601B2, and US7738368B2, identifying feature-level overlap with session management, access control, and media routing claim elements. Eureka’s prior art analysis can also surface invalidating references that were not adjudicated in this proceeding — providing a defensive foundation if Croga targets your product line next.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10601780B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar VoIP and network security patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving VoIP, session border control, and network security patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas against major networking vendors.
What this case signals for the VoIP and network security IP landscape
A three-patent campaign against Cisco in E.D. Texas lasting 621 days carries strategic lessons for the entire networking and cybersecurity sector.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for NPE networking patent claims
Croga’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas for a multi-patent VoIP and network security campaign is consistent with the venue’s continued popularity for NPE plaintiffs. Companies with networking or cybersecurity product exposure — particularly session border controllers and browser isolation platforms — should monitor E.D. Texas dockets actively for emerging patent threats in this technology space.
Broad product sweep across collaboration and security signals licensing strategy
By accusing Cisco VoIP phones, Umbrella RBI, and CUBE simultaneously, Croga targeted multiple revenue-generating product lines in a single action. This multi-product approach is a common NPE leverage tactic. Vendors whose portfolios span both collaboration hardware and network security software face compounded exposure when a single patent family covers protocol-level functionality present across product lines.
Croga v Cisco — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 14 October 2025 via a stipulated dismissal accepted by the Eastern District of Texas. All claims were terminated, each party bears its own costs, and Croga is precluded from refiling the same patent claims against Cisco. The case ran for 621 days from filing.
Croga asserted three patents: US10601780B2 (App. No. 15/910734), US11223601B2 (App. No. 16/141535), and US7738368B2 (App. No. 11/271489). The patents cover VoIP telephony signalling, session border control, and network security access management — technologies present in Cisco’s VoIP phones, Umbrella RBI platform, and Unified Border Element version 14.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Croga from asserting these specific infringement claims against Cisco in any future U.S. court proceeding. However, the patents US10601780B2, US11223601B2, and US7738368B2 remain granted and enforceable. Croga retains the right to assert them against other defendants in the VoIP, SBC, and network security markets.
Yes. The court’s dismissal order references a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Fortinet, Inc., filed under the same case number as a member case. The order directs the Clerk to close both the lead and member cases, indicating Croga pursued parallel infringement claims against Fortinet in the same consolidated docket. The dismissal with prejudice applies to all remaining parties and claims.
The stipulated dismissal order explicitly states each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, which is a common term in negotiated dismissals. It suggests neither party sought — or successfully pursued — an exceptional case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This arrangement is consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm whether any financial consideration was exchanged.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.