CUPP Computing v. Trend Micro: Federal Circuit Affirms Mobile Security Patent Unpatentable
CUPP Computing AS appealed a finding that US10621344B2 — covering network security systems for mobile devices — was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit, in a per curiam ruling by Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stark, affirmed the decision in full. The appeal ran 549 days before closing in May 2024.
Federal Circuit closes the door on CUPP’s mobile security patent
CUPP Computing AS, a Norwegian cybersecurity firm, appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn an invalidity or cancellation ruling against US10621344B2. That patent, filed under application number US16/656358, protects a system and method for delivering network security to mobile devices — a commercially significant technology domain as endpoint protection has expanded to smartphones and tablets. Trend Micro, Inc., a major cybersecurity vendor, was the opposing party in the underlying proceedings.
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36 on 10 May 2024, with Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stark on the panel. A Rule 36 affirmance means the court found no reversible error warranting a written opinion — the decision below is adopted in its entirety. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming that US10621344B2 did not survive the validity challenge brought by Trend Micro.
The 549-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with the typical Federal Circuit patent appeal timeline, suggesting no unusual procedural delays or en banc complexities. A Rule 36 affirmance without opinion forecloses the publication of further judicial reasoning, leaving practitioners without appellate guidance on the specific invalidity arguments applied. CUPP’s only remaining avenue would be a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court, which faces a very high bar in patent validity cases absent a circuit split.
Filing to Unpatentable in 549 days
549 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error found below
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance under Rule 36 means the panel unanimously concluded the lower tribunal committed no reversible legal error in finding US10621344B2 unpatentable. Rule 36 is reserved for cases where the result is clear enough to require no written opinion. It is not a lesser ruling — it carries full precedential force for the parties, even if it provides no published reasoning for the wider bar.
Affirmed without opinionUS10621344B2 is unpatentable — CUPP’s IP position weakened
For CUPP Computing, the affirmance is dispositive: US10621344B2 is confirmed unpatentable and cannot be enforced. Any licensing programme or litigation strategy built on this patent is extinguished. CUPP’s broader mobile security portfolio — if it holds related patents — may face heightened scrutiny from competitors emboldened by this outcome. The lack of a written opinion also deprives CUPP of findings it could distinguish in future proceedings.
Patent invalidatedTrend Micro’s validity challenge upheld at every level
Trend Micro secured affirmance of the unpatentability ruling, meaning it faces no infringement exposure from US10621344B2. The Rule 36 outcome confirms the invalidity case was strong enough that the Federal Circuit saw no need for further analysis. Trend Micro’s mobile security products are now shielded from this specific patent claim, and the result sets a clear precedent in its bilateral relationship with CUPP Computing.
Challenger fully prevailsMobile network security IP: validity bar remains high
This outcome suggests that broad system-and-method claims over mobile network security face meaningful patentability hurdles, consistent with the post-Alice/Mayo landscape for software-adjacent patents. Competitors operating in mobile endpoint protection should note that CUPP’s claim scope in this family has been extinguished. R&D teams building mobile security solutions may find the freedom-to-operate landscape modestly clearer, though related CUPP patents — if any remain — warrant separate analysis.
IP risk reduced for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CUPP Computing AS | Individual | Norwegian cybersecurity firm — holder of US10621344B2 covering mobile network securitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trend Micro, Inc. | Company | Trend Micro, Inc. — global cybersecurity software and services vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Price | Attorney | Counsel for CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul J. Andre | Attorney | Counsel for CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36’ — is terse by design. Under the appellate standard of review applicable to patentability determinations, the Federal Circuit reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. A Rule 36 affirmance signals the panel found neither legal error nor unsupported factual findings in the lower tribunal’s unpatentability ruling. The absence of a written opinion means the court’s reasoning remains private, offering neither party a published basis to build future arguments from this appeal.
US10621344B2 — Network security system for mobile devices
US10621344B2, filed under application number US16/656358, protects a system and method for providing network security to mobile devices. The patent sits at the intersection of mobile computing and cybersecurity — addressing how network-layer security functions can be extended to or implemented on mobile endpoints. This domain expanded rapidly as enterprise mobility grew, making mobile-specific security architecture commercially valuable and competitively contested.
The patent was significant enough for Trend Micro — one of the world’s largest cybersecurity vendors — to mount a formal validity challenge rather than design around or license the claims. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes this patent from the enforceability landscape, but highlights the broader risk that mobile security patent families with similar claim architectures face. Firms holding or acquiring IP in mobile endpoint protection should treat this outcome as a signal to stress-test claim scope against prior art in this space.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10621344B2 and related CUPP patents?
Product teams building mobile network security solutions — including mobile VPNs, endpoint detection systems, and device-level traffic inspection tools — should note that US10621344B2 has been adjudicated unpatentable and carries no current enforcement risk. However, CUPP Computing may hold related patent families covering adjacent claim scope. Any FTO conclusion based solely on this patent’s invalidation could be incomplete if CUPP’s portfolio includes surviving continuations or divisional applications.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full citation network around US16/656358, identify co-pending or granted CUPP applications in the mobile security domain, and flag claims with overlapping technical scope. For IP counsel advising mobile security product teams, a portfolio-level FTO — not a single-patent clearance — is the appropriate standard given the uncertainty left by a Rule 36 affirmance without published claim analysis.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10621344B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in mobile and network cybersecurity
Federal Circuit appeals affirming unpatentability of mobile and network security patents — cases comparable to CUPP Computing v. Trend Micro in technology scope and procedural posture.
What this case signals for the mobile cybersecurity IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance of unpatentability narrows CUPP’s enforcement reach and raises questions for mobile security patent holders broadly.
Rule 36 affirmances extinguish patents without creating citable precedent
The per curiam Rule 36 ruling means no published reasoning exists to distinguish or leverage in future proceedings. Patent holders challenging similar invalidity findings at the Federal Circuit should factor in the risk of a silent affirmance, which forecloses appeal strategy but also leaves no adverse precedent for related patents in the portfolio.
Mobile security method claims face continued validity scrutiny post-appeal
The unpatentability finding — affirmed across all levels — is consistent with ongoing Federal Circuit skepticism toward broad software-implemented security method patents. R&D teams and IP counsel in the endpoint and mobile security sector should audit existing claim portfolios for eligibility and novelty vulnerabilities before asserting or relying on similar patents.
AS v Trend — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower tribunal’s finding that US10621344B2 was unpatentable. The affirmance was issued per curiam under Rule 36 by Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stark on 10 May 2024, meaning no written opinion was published and the unpatentability ruling stands in full.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible legal error or unsupported factual finding in the decision below. For US10621344B2, it confirms the patent is unpatentable and unenforceable. The ruling carries full legal effect for the parties but generates no published judicial reasoning that competitors or future litigants can cite.
US10621344B2 is a US patent filed by CUPP Computing AS under application number US16/656358. It covers a system and method for providing network security to mobile devices — technology relevant to mobile endpoint protection, device-level traffic security, and network-layer security for smartphones and tablets.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, CUPP Computing’s remaining option is a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in patent validity cases absent a circuit split or a significant federal question. The Rule 36 nature of the ruling — with no published opinion — makes a compelling certiorari petition significantly more difficult to construct.
US10621344B2 no longer poses an infringement risk as it has been adjudicated unpatentable. Mobile security product teams can discount this specific patent in FTO analyses. However, CUPP may hold related patents in the same family or technical domain. A comprehensive FTO should cover CUPP’s broader portfolio, particularly any applications sharing prosecution history with US16/656358.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.