CUPP Computing v. Trend Micro: Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Invalidity (819 Days)
Norwegian cybersecurity firm CUPP Computing AS appealed an IPR cancellation of US10951632B2 — a patent covering security services during device power management mode — against Trend Micro, Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity ruling on 12 May 2025, ending an 819-day appellate contest and leaving the patent unenforceable.
Federal Circuit closes CUPP’s last appellate avenue on power-mode security patent
CUPP Computing AS, a Norwegian cybersecurity company, initiated this Federal Circuit appeal on 13 February 2023 under Case No. 23-1496, challenging an inter partes review (IPR) determination that invalidated US10951632B2. The patent, filed under application number US16/601466, claims systems and methods for providing security services while a device operates in a power management mode — a technology area with broad relevance to endpoint and mobile security architectures. Trend Micro, Inc., a major cybersecurity vendor, was the petitioner in the underlying IPR proceeding.
The Federal Circuit issued its affirmance on 12 May 2025, finding no reversible error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s invalidity determination. An affirmance at this level confirms that the PTAB’s patentability analysis — likely focused on anticipation or obviousness grounds — withstood appellate scrutiny under the substantial evidence and de novo standards applicable to IPR appeals. For CUPP, the ruling terminates all administrative and appellate avenues short of a Supreme Court petition, leaving US10951632B2 cancelled.
The 819-day duration from filing to affirmance is consistent with substantive merits briefing rather than a purely procedural resolution, suggesting the parties advanced detailed claim construction and prior art arguments. The public record does not disclose the specific PTAB grounds affirmed, the number of challenged claims, or whether any claims survived the IPR intact. The commercial stakes are notable: power-management security — bridging endpoint protection and low-power device states — is a growing technical domain targeted by multiple OEM and software vendors competing with CUPP’s product line.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 819 days
819 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit patent appeal, suggesting substantive briefing complexity
Federal Circuit affirms: what the IPR invalidity ruling means for both parties
Affirmance: the lower IPR invalidity determination stands
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it holds that the tribunal below — here the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — committed no reversible error. The court applies substantial evidence review to factual findings (e.g., what a prior art reference teaches) and de novo review to legal conclusions (e.g., claim construction). An affirmance does not independently re-adjudicate patentability; it confirms the PTAB’s analysis was legally and factually sound. US10951632B2 remains cancelled as a result.
No reversible error foundCUPP’s security patent is cancelled — enforcement path closed
For CUPP Computing, the Federal Circuit affirmance exhausts all standard appellate avenues against the cancellation of US10951632B2. A petition to the Supreme Court remains theoretically available but is rarely granted in IPR matters absent a circuit split or constitutional question. CUPP cannot enforce the cancelled claims against Trend Micro or any third party. Any licensing programme built around this patent must be restructured around surviving IP assets, if any exist.
Patent cancelled — unenforceableTrend Micro’s IPR challenge succeeds at every level
Trend Micro prevailed at the PTAB and has now secured Federal Circuit confirmation of that win. The affirmance substantially eliminates the litigation and licensing risk associated with US10951632B2 across Trend Micro’s product portfolio. Critically, the IPR cancellation has inter partes estoppel implications: Trend Micro is estopped from raising in district court the grounds it reasonably could have raised in the IPR — but because the patent is cancelled, that estoppel carries no practical consequence.
Full vindication at appeal levelPower-management security IP landscape shifts after cancellation
US10951632B2’s cancellation removes a patent that could have constrained design choices in endpoint security products interfacing with device power states — a relevant architecture in mobile, IoT, and enterprise laptop security. Competitors and vendors in this space may now operate with greater freedom relative to the specific claims cancelled. However, CUPP likely holds related patents in its portfolio; the strategic question for R&D teams is whether continuation or divisional applications cover overlapping technical territory that remains enforceable.
Freedom to operate increasedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CUPP Computing AS | Individual | Cybersecurity technology company — holder of US10951632B2 covering power-management security systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trend Micro, Inc. | Company | Trend Micro, Inc. — global cybersecurity vendor and IPR petitioner challenging CUPP’s patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | DANIEL NOAH LERMAN | Attorney | Counsel for CUPP Computing ASSearch 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 counsel | Redwood Shores | Attorney | Counsel for CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing CUPP Computing ASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy J. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Martin Heintz | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter J. Ayers | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter John Sawert | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Office of the Solicitor | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The single-word verdict ‘AFFIRMED’ at the Federal Circuit level carries significant legal weight: the court found the PTAB’s invalidity determination to be free of reversible legal error and supported by substantial evidence. In IPR appeals, the Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo and factual findings — such as the scope of prior art references — under the substantial evidence standard. An affirmance without opinion (if issued under Rule 36) would signal the panel saw no issue warranting elaboration; a reasoned opinion would confirm the specific grounds. The cancellation of US10951632B2 is now final for all practical purposes.
US10951632B2 — Security services during device power management mode
US10951632B2, filed under application number US16/601466, claims systems and methods for delivering security services to a device while it operates in a power management mode — such as sleep, hibernate, or low-power states. This technical domain addresses a well-known security gap: conventional endpoint protection agents typically suspend during power state transitions, creating a window of vulnerability. The patent’s claims likely cover architectures that maintain or resume security monitoring independently of the main OS power cycle, a design approach relevant to both enterprise endpoint and mobile device security.
Strategically, this patent sat at the intersection of hardware power management and software security — a space increasingly contested as OEMs and cybersecurity vendors integrate security functions at the firmware and hypervisor layer. Its cancellation via IPR suggests that the PTAB found sufficient prior art anticipating or rendering obvious the claimed approach, consistent with a technically mature field where academic and standards literature on power-aware security predates the application date. Vendors building products in endpoint detection, mobile threat defence, or UEFI-level security should map their architectures against CUPP’s surviving portfolio to assess residual risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against CUPP Computing’s security patent portfolio?
US10951632B2 is cancelled, but CUPP Computing likely holds additional patents and pending applications covering related security-during-power-management architectures. Any company developing endpoint security agents, mobile device management platforms, out-of-band security processors, or firmware-level threat detection tools should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against CUPP’s broader portfolio. The cancellation of one claim family does not eliminate risk from continuation or divisional applications that may claim overlapping technical territory with narrowed or reframed claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map CUPP Computing’s full patent family tree, identify pending continuations sharing the US16/601466 priority chain, and flag claim language that intersects with your product’s power-state security architecture. Eureka’s AI-assisted claim analysis surfaces both blocking patents and design-around opportunities — letting your R&D and legal teams align before product launch rather than after a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10951632B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit IPR appeals in cybersecurity and endpoint security
Cases involving Federal Circuit review of PTAB invalidity rulings in cybersecurity, endpoint protection, and power-management security patent disputes — relevant precedent for CUPP v. Trend Micro.
What this case signals for the endpoint security IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance reinforces PTAB’s authority in cybersecurity patent challenges and raises the bar for patentees appealing IPR cancellations.
IPR remains the dominant weapon against cybersecurity patent enforcement
Trend Micro’s successful IPR petition — affirmed through full Federal Circuit review — demonstrates that inter partes review is an effective and durable strategy against cybersecurity patents. Companies facing assertions in the power management and endpoint security space should evaluate IPR petitions early, particularly where prior art in network security and OS power management is well-documented.
Patent owners: continuation filings are now a strategic necessity
CUPP’s loss of US10951632B2 highlights the vulnerability of relying on a single patent in an active technology domain. Patent holders in cybersecurity should maintain rolling continuation and divisional strategies to preserve enforceable coverage even if a lead patent is cancelled through IPR. A portfolio audit against pending CUPP applications is advisable for competitors.
AS v Trend — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity determination against US10951632B2 on 12 May 2025. The affirmance confirms that the PTAB found no reversible error in the board’s cancellation of CUPP’s patent covering security services during power management mode. The patent is cancelled and unenforceable.
US10951632B2 claims systems and methods for providing security services to a computing device while it operates in a power management mode (e.g., sleep or low-power states). This addresses a recognised security gap where conventional endpoint agents suspend during power transitions. Trend Micro challenged the patent via inter partes review, arguing the claims were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art.
An affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible legal error in the PTAB’s decision. The court reviews claim construction de novo and factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. Once affirmed, the cancelled patent claims cannot be enforced against any party. The patent owner’s remaining option is a petition to the US Supreme Court, which is rarely granted in IPR matters.
The cancellation of US10951632B2 applies only to that specific patent. CUPP Computing may hold continuation, divisional, or independently filed patents covering related technology. Companies in the endpoint security and power-management security space should audit CUPP’s full portfolio — particularly applications sharing the US16/601466 priority chain — to assess ongoing freedom-to-operate risk.
The appeal ran for 819 days, from 13 February 2023 to 12 May 2025. This duration is longer than many Federal Circuit patent appeals and is consistent with substantive merits briefing on patentability grounds rather than a procedural resolution. It suggests the parties submitted detailed arguments on claim construction and prior art scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.