Eire Og Innovations v. Palo Alto Networks: Dismissed With Prejudice After 623 Days
Eire Og Innovations, Ltd. asserted four U.S. patents covering CPU cache and memory management against Palo Alto Networks’ AMD Zen-based and Intel Haswell-based next-generation firewalls in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice in December 2025 — each side bearing its own costs — suggesting a confidential resolution after nearly two years of litigation.
Cache Architecture Patents Collide With Palo Alto’s Firewall CPU Stack
On April 3, 2024, Eire Og Innovations, Ltd. filed suit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00227), asserting infringement of four U.S. patents — US8117399B2, US9436626B2, US8504777B2, and US9442870B2 — directed to CPU cache and memory management technology. The accused products spanned Palo Alto Networks’ PA-5000 and PA-5400 series next-generation firewalls, encompassing both AMD Zen-based and Intel Haswell-based (and newer) CPU architectures.
After 623 days of litigation, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2025, which Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne granted the same day. All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice — meaning neither party may re-litigate these specific claims — and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The order also clarified that the member case be closed while the lead case remain open, suggesting this was one action within a broader consolidated docket.
The ‘with prejudice’ designation combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement is broadly consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm financial terms or licensing outcomes. The case’s duration — over 20 months — suggests the parties likely progressed through claim construction and potentially early discovery before reaching resolution. Whether Eire Og secured a license or Palo Alto obtained a covenant not to sue on the remaining lead case remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 623 days
623 days from filing to close — above median for E.D. Texas patent cases, suggesting substantive pretrial activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all asserted claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Neither Eire Og nor Palo Alto Networks can re-file these specific infringement claims in any federal court. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — strongly suggests the dispute was resolved by mutual agreement rather than by court order on the merits.
Permanent bar on re-litigationEire Og gives up the right to re-assert these claims against PAN
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Eire Og Innovations permanently surrendered its right to pursue the four asserted patents against Palo Alto Networks in this action. If a licensing agreement was reached, the dismissal would reflect resolution on agreed commercial terms. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants unless separately challenged — a distinction with significant FTO implications for the broader cybersecurity sector.
Patents survive; claims against PAN do notPalo Alto Networks achieves certainty — at a price not disclosed
Palo Alto Networks secured a permanent end to this infringement action covering its PA-5000 and PA-5400 series firewall products. The ‘each party bears own costs’ provision is typical of negotiated settlements and does not imply a defendant victory on the merits. PAN avoided a public verdict and claim construction ruling, which would otherwise have set precedent affecting its broader product line and potentially signalled vulnerability to other patent holders in the CPU memory management space.
Litigation risk eliminated; terms undisclosedFour cache patents remain live threats to the wider firewall industry
Eire Og’s four patents covering CPU cache and memory management architecture were not invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding. Competitors shipping AMD Zen-based or Intel Haswell-generation (and newer) CPU architectures in network security appliances should assess exposure independently. The absence of a public claim construction order means the scope of these patents has not been judicially defined — arguably increasing uncertainty for third parties evaluating FTO positions in this technology space.
Unresolved scope risk for sector peersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Eire Og Innovations, Ltd. | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US8117399B2 and three related CPU cache/memory management patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | Company | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — global cybersecurity company, maker of PA-series next-generation firewallsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amir H. Alavi | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Elizabeth Hayden | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Ryan Pinckney | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Connie Flores Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Demetrios Anaipakos | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Yee-Jin Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Masood Anjom | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Eire Og Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Betty Hong Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deborah Mariottini | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gabrielle Elizabeth Higgins | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jun Tong | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Paul Roesler | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tamir Packin | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais Llp – New York | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais, LLP – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by both parties, dismissing all claims with prejudice on the basis that the ‘member case has been resolved.’ The with-prejudice designation is significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring re-litigation of these specific claims between Eire Og and Palo Alto Networks. The mutual cost-bearing provision — each party covering its own fees — departs from a loser-pays outcome and is consistent with a negotiated resolution. Notably, the order directs the clerk to close only the member case while maintaining the lead case as open, indicating this action was part of a consolidated docket and that further proceedings on related matters may continue.
US8117399B2 — CPU cache and memory management architecture patents
The four asserted patents — US8117399B2 (App. No. 12/437115), US9436626B2 (App. No. 13/570874), US8504777B2 (App. No. 12/886641), and US9442870B2 (App. No. 13/570843) — cover CPU cache and memory management architecture. The application numbers span two filing waves, suggesting a continuation-based patent family developed to capture related memory hierarchy inventions. These patents are directed at a fundamental layer of processor design that underpins performance in compute-intensive appliances such as network security hardware.
The strategic significance of asserting these patents against Palo Alto Networks lies in the accused products: AMD Zen-based and Intel Haswell-generation CPUs embedded in PA-5000 and PA-5400 series next-generation firewalls. Because these CPU architectures are industry-standard across enterprise security hardware, the patents — if construed broadly — could affect a wide range of vendors beyond Palo Alto Networks. The absence of any invalidation or narrowing ruling from this litigation means the patents retain their full face validity and remain available for assertion against other defendants.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8117399B2 and its siblings?
Any organisation shipping next-generation firewalls, network appliances, or security hardware incorporating AMD Zen-based or Intel Haswell-generation (or newer) CPU architectures should treat these four Eire Og patents as live FTO considerations. The settlement with Palo Alto Networks did not produce a claim construction ruling or invalidity determination, which means the patents’ scope remains judicially untested and potentially expansive. Product teams planning next-generation appliance architectures based on current AMD or Intel CPU generations face the same underlying exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8117399B2, US9436626B2, US8504777B2, and US9442870B2 against your specific CPU and memory management implementations, identify claim elements most likely to read on current hardware architectures, and surface prior art that could support a validity challenge if needed. For IP counsel monitoring Eire Og’s enforcement activity, Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools can flag new filings referencing this patent family in real time.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8117399B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CPU cache and memory patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving CPU cache, memory management, and processor architecture patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas against enterprise hardware and network security vendors.
What this case signals for the network security hardware IP landscape
A 623-day E.D. Texas infringement action over CPU cache patents resolved privately — with zero public merits rulings. Here is what that means.
No claim construction ruling protects — and threatens — the broader market
Because the case settled before any claim construction order, the judicial scope of US8117399B2 and its siblings remains undefined. For competitors in the next-gen firewall space using AMD or Intel CPU architectures, this is a double-edged outcome: there is no adverse narrowing ruling, but also no public guidance on where the patent boundaries fall.
E.D. Texas continues to attract CPU-level patent assertions against enterprise hardware
The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for asserting hardware-layer patents against enterprise security vendors. The 623-day duration here — spanning filing through substantive litigation activity — is consistent with E.D. Texas cases that reach or approach the claim construction phase before settling, suggesting defendants face real cost pressure to resolve early.
Eire v Palo — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 17, 2025, pursuant to a joint motion filed by both parties. All claims and causes of action were extinguished, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal is consistent with a confidential resolution, though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
Eire Og asserted four U.S. patents: US8117399B2, US9436626B2, US8504777B2, and US9442870B2. These patents cover CPU cache and memory management architecture. They were asserted against Palo Alto Networks’ PA-5000 and PA-5400 series next-generation firewalls using AMD Zen-based and Intel Haswell-based CPU architectures.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Eire Og from re-asserting these specific infringement claims against Palo Alto Networks. However, it does not invalidate the patents themselves. The four asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants, meaning the patents continue to pose an FTO risk for other vendors in the network security hardware space.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically favoured venue for patent infringement actions due to its patent-friendly reputation, experienced patent judiciary, and established local rules. The court handled this matter as a member case within a consolidated lead case structure, suggesting Eire Og may have filed related actions against other defendants concurrently.
The dismissal does not bind third parties and produced no claim construction ruling or invalidity finding. Other vendors shipping AMD Zen-based or Intel Haswell-generation (and newer) CPU architectures in network appliances remain independently exposed to the four Eire Og patents. The lead case remaining open per the court order suggests additional enforcement activity by Eire Og may be ongoing.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.