DataCloud Technologies v. Imperva: Four-Patent WAF Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
DataCloud Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against cybersecurity firm Imperva, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents spanning cloud web application firewall, SSL certificate generation, and web-based account roles. The case closed 179 days later via joint stipulation — with DataCloud’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Imperva’s defenses dismissed without prejudice.
A Pre-Trial Settlement Ends DataCloud’s Four-Patent Cybersecurity Assertion
On May 24, 2024, DataCloud Technologies, LLC filed suit against Imperva, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00384), alleging infringement of four United States patents: US7209959B1, US8370457B2, US8615555B2, and US7398298B2. The asserted patents relate to cloud web application firewall technology, SSL certificate generation via email-based verification, web-based account roles and permissions management, and cloud-based multi-domain hosting — all capabilities central to Imperva’s commercial WAF and cloud security product suite.
The case closed on November 19, 2024, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal accepted and acknowledged by the Court. Under the terms of the stipulation, all claims DataCloud raised or could have raised are dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring DataCloud from reasserting the same claims against Imperva on these patents. Imperva’s counterclaims and defenses, by contrast, are dismissed without prejudice, leaving Imperva with the theoretical ability to revive those positions in a future proceeding. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
At 179 days, the resolution is notably swift for a four-patent E.D. Texas action, suggesting the parties reached commercial resolution — likely a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — before substantive motion practice concluded. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The asymmetric prejudice structure (plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s defenses without) is a common negotiated outcome that protects the defendant’s legal position while giving finality to the plaintiff’s assertion.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 179 days
179 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Joint stipulation dismissed: what the asymmetric prejudice terms mean for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars DataCloud from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice on the plaintiff’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits. DataCloud Technologies cannot reassert US7209959B1, US8370457B2, US8615555B2, or US7398298B2 against Imperva in any future action arising from the same accused products and conduct. This is the strongest form of finality a defendant can obtain short of a court judgment — and here it was achieved through negotiated stipulation rather than litigation.
Plaintiff’s claims: permanently barredDataCloud walks away — likely with undisclosed consideration
Plaintiffs rarely agree to with-prejudice dismissals without receiving some form of consideration — typically a lump-sum licence fee, a covenant not to sue on related patents, or a structured settlement. The public record is silent on financial terms. What is certain is that DataCloud has extinguished its right to sue Imperva again on these four patents, which is a significant concession suggesting Imperva’s position was commercially resolved to DataCloud’s satisfaction.
Settlement consideration likelyImperva secures strong finality while preserving its own defences
Imperva obtains a with-prejudice bar against DataCloud’s four asserted patents — effectively patent peace on these specific claims. Critically, Imperva’s own counterclaims and defences are dismissed without prejudice, meaning any invalidity arguments or other defensive positions Imperva developed remain available for potential future use. This asymmetric structure is a hallmark of a negotiated exit where the defendant holds meaningful leverage.
Imperva: strong IP position retainedWAF patent risk persists for the sector despite this resolution
DataCloud’s with-prejudice dismissal against Imperva does not affect the enforceability of US7209959B1, US8370457B2, US8615555B2, or US7398298B2 against other cloud security vendors. Companies offering competing WAF, SSL management, or cloud hosting orchestration products should treat this case as a signal that DataCloud’s portfolio is being actively monetised. The patents were not invalidated — they remain in force and could be asserted against other defendants.
Portfolio still live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7209959B1 and three further cloud/WAF patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Imperva, Inc. | Company | Imperva, Inc. — cybersecurity company providing cloud WAF and web application security productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan R. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Meredith Martin Addy | Attorney | Counsel for Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Patrick Hart | Attorney | Counsel for Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | AddyHart P C – Chicago | Law Firm | Representing Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Addyhart, PC | Law Firm | Representing Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order reflects a purely procedural acceptance of the parties’ joint stipulation — no merits ruling was issued. The critical asymmetry is that DataCloud’s claims are extinguished with prejudice under claim preclusion principles, while Imperva’s counterclaims and defences survive without prejudice. This structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which Imperva held sufficient invalidity or non-infringement leverage to demand permanent dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims as a condition of settlement.
US7209959B1, US8370457B2, US8615555B2 & US7398298B2 — Cloud WAF and Web Security Portfolio
The four asserted patents span foundational aspects of cloud security infrastructure. US7209959B1 covers cloud-based multi-domain hosting and network resource management. US8370457B2 relates to email-based verification workflows for SSL certificate generation. US8615555B2 covers cloud web application firewall filtering and management architecture. US7398298B2 addresses web-based account roles and permissions systems. Collectively, the portfolio targets the full stack of capabilities offered by enterprise WAF and cloud security platforms — from network delivery to identity and access management.
For cybersecurity vendors, this portfolio represents a layered assertion risk: each patent targets a distinct but commercially essential capability, making the combined assertion difficult and expensive to defend on a claim-by-claim basis. The patents’ application dates span the mid-2000s to early 2010s, a period during which cloud WAF and SSL automation were rapidly commercialising. Competitors offering cloud-native WAF, automated certificate management, or multi-tenant hosting architectures should evaluate their exposure to all four patents independently and as an asserted set.
Should you run an FTO against US7209959B1 and the DataCloud WAF portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising cloud web application firewall products, automated SSL certificate workflows, multi-domain cloud hosting, or web-based role and permissions management systems faces non-trivial exposure to this four-patent portfolio. The DataCloud v. Imperva case confirms this portfolio is being actively asserted in E.D. Texas against enterprise cybersecurity vendors — and the with-prejudice dismissal of DataCloud’s claims against Imperva does not extinguish risk for other market participants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim trees of all four DataCloud patents simultaneously, identifying overlap, prosecution history estoppel, and prior art that may support design-around or invalidity positions. Use Eureka to monitor DataCloud’s filing activity, track any new continuations or divisionals from this portfolio, and benchmark your exposure against what Imperva’s litigation team likely identified as the key vulnerability in this portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7209959B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cloud WAF and Cybersecurity Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related cloud WAF, SSL, and web security patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against enterprise cybersecurity vendors.
What this case signals for the cloud security and WAF IP landscape
A swift four-patent assertion resolved via stipulated dismissal in E.D. Texas suggests an active monetisation campaign — and that Imperva was not prepared to litigate to judgment.
E.D. Texas remains the PAE venue of choice for cloud infrastructure patents
DataCloud’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas for a cloud WAF assertion follows a well-established pattern for patent assertion entities. The court’s docket speed and plaintiff-friendly procedural history make it a high-pressure venue. Defendants with E.D. Texas exposure on cloud security patents should maintain pre-litigation claim mapping and prior art files ready to deploy quickly.
Four-patent assertions signal portfolio leverage — not just single-patent risk
Asserting four patents across cloud hosting, WAF, SSL certificate management, and web access roles is a deliberate strategy to make claim-by-claim invalidity defences costly and time-consuming. Companies in the cloud security sector should audit exposure across all four DataCloud patents simultaneously — a single FTO review of one patent understates the full assertion risk from this portfolio.
DataCloud v Imperva — key questions answered
DataCloud Technologies asserted four patents: US7209959B1 (cloud multi-domain hosting), US8370457B2 (email-based SSL certificate generation), US8615555B2 (cloud web application firewall), and US7398298B2 (web-based account roles and permissions). All four were asserted against Imperva’s cloud WAF and web security product suite in the Eastern District of Texas.
A with-prejudice dismissal of DataCloud’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits under claim preclusion doctrine. DataCloud cannot refile the same infringement claims against Imperva on these four patents. This is the outcome Imperva sought — permanent patent peace on the asserted portfolio — and was obtained through negotiated joint stipulation rather than a court judgment on the merits.
This asymmetric structure is a common negotiated outcome. Imperva likely had viable invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims that DataCloud wanted to avoid having adjudicated. By agreeing to dismiss its own claims with prejudice, DataCloud obtained settlement consideration while Imperva preserved its defensive positions. Imperva’s without-prejudice dismissal means those counterclaims could theoretically be revived in a future proceeding.
No. A dismissal by joint stipulation — even with prejudice — does not constitute a ruling on patent validity or infringement. The four DataCloud patents (US7209959B1, US8370457B2, US8615555B2, US7398298B2) remain in force and fully enforceable against third parties. Competitors in the cloud WAF and cybersecurity sector should not treat this case resolution as a clearance event for their own products.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Texas), one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States. E.D. Texas is frequently selected by patent assertion entities for its historically plaintiff-friendly procedural environment and docket management practices. The filing is consistent with DataCloud’s litigation strategy as a portfolio monetisation entity targeting enterprise technology vendors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.