CTD Networks v. Musarubra: Four Network Security Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
CTD Networks, LLC asserted four US patents covering its SDI-SCAM distributed agent-based network security monitoring and response system against Musarubra US, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in 176 days via stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Four SDI-SCAM Network Security Patents End in Stipulated Dismissal
CTD Networks, LLC filed suit against Musarubra US, LLC on June 12, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00273), presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff asserted four US patents — US9503470B2, US8327442B2, US9438614B2, and US11171974B2 — all covering aspects of its SDI-SCAM system: a distributed agent-based architecture for network security monitoring and response.
The case closed on December 5, 2023 after just 176 days. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'; the docket order states that the parties filed a Notice of Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the Court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
The 176-day resolution is notably swift for a four-patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that typically sees pre-trial activity extend well beyond six months. The mutual cost-bearing order and the absence of any disclosed damages or licensing terms leave the commercial drivers of the resolution unknown from the public record. Whether the parties reached a private commercial arrangement is not reflected in the publicly available docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 176 days
Days from filing to dismissal — resolved well before trial
US9503470B2 — SDI-SCAM distributed agent network security system
R&D and product teams building distributed agent-based security monitoring platforms, EDR systems, XDR architectures, or coordinated network response systems should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. The dismissal with prejudice here resolved only the dispute between CTD Networks and Musarubra — it did not produce any claim construction or invalidity finding that third parties can rely on. All four patents remain enforceable.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepts and acknowledges a joint stipulation filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), resulting in dismissal of all claims with prejudice and a mutual cost-bearing order. Because the dismissal was stipulated rather than adjudicated, the order contains no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope — leaving the legal merits of the four SDI-SCAM patents entirely unresolved on the public record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is filed jointly by both parties and requires no court approval to take effect — the court here accepted and acknowledged it. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits, meaning CTD Networks is barred from re-filing the same claims against Musarubra on these four patents. The specific terms that led the parties to stipulate are not disclosed in the available record.
Final; no re-filing permittedCTD Networks loses its right to pursue these claims against Musarubra
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, CTD Networks permanently relinquishes its infringement claims against Musarubra on all four asserted patents in this action. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other parties. Whether CTD Networks received any consideration in connection with the stipulation is not reflected in the public record.
Claims barred; patents surviveMusarubra obtains a permanent bar to re-litigation on these patents
Musarubra US, LLC benefits from a dismissal with prejudice: CTD Networks cannot reassert the same infringement claims under US9503470B2, US8327442B2, US9438614B2, or US11171974B2 in a future action. The cost-neutral order means Musarubra also avoids any fee exposure from this proceeding. The underlying commercial terms, if any, are not in the public record.
Protected from re-assertionSDI-SCAM patents remain active enforcement tools against third parties
The four SDI-SCAM patents asserted here remain valid and enforceable — the dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between these two parties. Companies operating distributed agent-based network security platforms analogous to the accused products should note that CTD Networks retains enforcement rights against the broader market. The speed of resolution — 176 days — suggests early-stage negotiation rather than full merits adjudication.
Third-party exposure remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CTD Networks, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Musarubra US, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Bruce Henry | Attorney | Counsel for CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Jude Zito | Attorney | Counsel for CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Blank Rome LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Zito TLP | Law Firm | Representing CTD Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aamir A. Kazi | Attorney | Counsel for Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in distributed network security IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the CTD Networks v. Musarubra dispute across the SDI-SCAM distributed agent security architecture space.
CTD Networks' SDI-SCAM family: continuation risk and filing trajectory
The four asserted patents span application numbers from the early 2000s through US15/357399, suggesting an active continuation filing strategy. Monitor CTD Networks' prosecution docket for pending continuations or divisionals that could extend claim coverage into emerging EDR, XDR, or zero-trust agent architectures beyond the patents already asserted here.
Continuation risk: activeFiling trends in distributed agent-based security monitoring
Distributed agent architectures for network security monitoring are a high-activity filing zone, driven by growth in EDR, XDR, and SIEM platforms. Patent filings in coordinated multi-agent threat detection and response have increased as vendors differentiate on real-time distributed analytics. Understanding the density of the landscape helps identify freedom-to-operate gaps and design-around opportunities.
High-density filing zoneMusarubra's patent position in enterprise network security
Musarubra US, LLC, associated with McAfee's enterprise security heritage, operates in a segment with substantial proprietary IP. Mapping Musarubra's own patent portfolio in distributed security, threat intelligence, and agent-based monitoring reveals its defensive IP depth and highlights whether its own filings provide prior art relevant to the CTD Networks patent family.
Defensive portfolio depthAdjacent innovation space: autonomous response and AI-driven agent coordination
The SDI-SCAM patents focus on distributed agent monitoring and response coordination. Adjacent white space exists in AI-driven autonomous threat response, federated security agent learning, and edge-native security agent architectures — areas where the existing claim landscape is less saturated and where next-generation security platforms are converging.
Emerging white spaceSimilar network security patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions involving distributed network security and monitoring technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the network security patent landscape
Four SDI-SCAM patents resolved in under six months — but CTD Networks' enforcement toolkit remains intact for the broader market.
Rapid dismissal limits public record but not future enforcement risk
The 176-day lifecycle produced no claim construction, no invalidity rulings, and no damages record. That preserves ambiguity around the patents' scope — which can be a strategic asset for CTD Networks in future enforcement actions. Competitors in the distributed network security monitoring space should not treat this dismissal as a clearance signal.
Judge Gilstrap's docket: venue risk remains high for defendants
The Eastern District of Texas under Judge Gilstrap consistently attracts high-volume patent assertion activity. Musarubra's swift resolution — with no costs awarded — is consistent with early settlement dynamics in this venue, where the cost of litigation often drives resolution before substantive merits rulings are issued.
CTD v Musarubra — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The parties filed a Notice of Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which the court accepted. All claims were dismissed with prejudice and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
CTD Networks asserted four US patents: US9503470B2, US8327442B2, US9438614B2, and US11171974B2. All four relate to the SDI-SCAM system — a distributed agent-based architecture for network security monitoring and response.
Dismissal with prejudice bars CTD Networks from re-asserting the same infringement claims against Musarubra on these four patents. However, the patents themselves remain in force. CTD Networks retains the right to assert them against other defendants, and no invalidity or non-infringement findings were made in this proceeding.
No damages award appears in the public record. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Whether the parties reached any private commercial arrangement in connection with the stipulated dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolved only the dispute between CTD Networks and Musarubra and produced no claim construction or invalidity rulings. US9503470B2, US8327442B2, US9438614B2, and US11171974B2 remain enforceable. Vendors operating distributed agent-based security monitoring or response platforms should consider an FTO analysis against this patent family.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.