Intellectual Ventures v. Hewlett Packard: Consent Judgment after 418 Days
Intellectual Ventures Management LLC brought a patent infringement action against Hewlett-Packard Co. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US7822841B2 covering methods and systems for hosting multiple, customized computing clusters. The case resolved by consent judgment 418 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
IV's computing-cluster patent claim ends in agreed court judgment
Intellectual Ventures Management LLC filed suit against Hewlett-Packard Co. on 15 December 2021 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01298), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted infringement of US7822841B2, a patent directed to a method and system for hosting multiple, customized computing clusters — technology directly relevant to enterprise cloud and managed infrastructure offerings.
The case closed on 6 February 2023 via a consent judgment, the recorded basis of termination. The docket order is styled as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party agreeing to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The consent judgment was entered subject to court approval, rendering it a binding, court-entered resolution. The specific substantive terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
At 418 days, the case resolved well before any trial setting would typically arise in the Western District of Texas, suggesting the parties reached agreement at an early-to-mid litigation stage. What drove the resolution — whether claim scope, validity concerns, or commercial considerations — is not apparent from the public record. The dismissal with prejudice means Intellectual Ventures cannot reassert the same claims against Hewlett-Packard on the same patent.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 418 days
418 days from filing to consent judgment — typical W.D. Texas patent cases run 18–24 months to trial
US7822841B2 — Hosting multiple, customized computing clusters
Any company developing or commercialising products involving the provisioning, management, or isolation of multiple computing clusters — including public cloud platforms, HPC orchestration tools, container orchestration layers, and managed hosting services — should assess exposure to US7822841B2. The patent remains in force following this consent judgment and is held by an active assertion entity with a track record of multi-defendant campaigns.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order recites an agreed dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own litigation costs. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. A with-prejudice disposition forecloses any future assertion by IV of the same claims against Hewlett-Packard under US7822841B2, while leaving the patent itself intact and enforceable against the broader market.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered final disposition
A consent judgment reflects terms agreed by both parties and then entered by the court as a formal judgment — distinct from a private settlement that closes without court imprimatur. Here the underlying stipulation was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Once entered, the consent judgment carries the same enforceability as any court judgment. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-entered, binding resolutionIV exits with prejudice — reassertion of these claims is barred
Intellectual Ventures agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of all its claims. This means IV cannot refile the same infringement claims under US7822841B2 against Hewlett-Packard in a future action. The consent judgment forecloses that avenue permanently. Whether any value was exchanged as part of the agreed resolution is not apparent from the public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceHP exits without a cost award — counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Hewlett-Packard secured dismissal of all of IV's claims with prejudice and bears no adverse cost award — each party carries its own fees and expenses. HP's counterclaims, if any, were also dismissed with prejudice under the agreed terms. The consent judgment removes the litigation risk posed by US7822841B2, though the patent itself remains in force against third parties.
No cost liability, claims resolvedUS7822841B2 remains live — exposure persists for other cluster infrastructure players
The consent judgment disposes of this specific action but does not invalidate US7822841B2. Intellectual Ventures retains the patent and is free to assert it against other parties in the enterprise computing cluster and managed infrastructure space. Companies operating in adjacent areas — multi-tenant cloud orchestration, HPC cluster management, and virtualised infrastructure — should track this patent's enforcement posture.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7822841B2 covering customized computing cluster hostingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | Hewlett-Packard Co. — multinational enterprise technology and infrastructure companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian M. Seeve | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek T. Gilliland | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan DeBlois | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karl Anthony Rupp | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Vella | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole J. Cocozza | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert R. Gilman | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas R. Fulford | Attorney | Counsel for Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sorey & Gilliland, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sorey & Hoover LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intellectual Ventures Management, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Deck | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dawn M. Jenkins | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin P. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Helena D. Kiepura | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey Reuben Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan H. Hicks | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael G. Strapp | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nancy Braman | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean C. Cunningham | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Jesse Hindman | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Edleson, Rezzo & Hindman | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the computing cluster and cloud infrastructure space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from IV's assertion of US7822841B2 against Hewlett-Packard — relevant for infrastructure, cloud, and HPC product teams.
Intellectual Ventures' cluster and cloud infrastructure patent activity
Intellectual Ventures holds one of the largest patent portfolios in enterprise computing. Beyond US7822841B2, IV's portfolio likely contains additional patents covering cluster orchestration, virtualisation, and multi-tenant hosting. Mapping IV's filing and assignment activity in this domain helps infrastructure vendors anticipate future assertion targets before litigation is initiated.
IV portfolio — cloud & clusterFiling trends in customised computing cluster provisioning
Patent filing activity around customised computing cluster hosting, cluster isolation, and per-tenant resource management has accelerated alongside the rise of HPC-as-a-service and hyperconverged infrastructure. Understanding which organisations are actively filing in this space — and where claim density is highest — reveals competitive pressure points and potential licensing exposure for new entrants.
Cluster provisioning filing trendsHewlett Packard's defensive patent position in cluster and cloud
Hewlett Packard Enterprise maintains a substantial patent portfolio in enterprise computing, including cluster management and cloud orchestration. Analysing HP's filing strategy in this domain — both for defensive positioning and cross-licensing leverage — provides insight into how large infrastructure vendors are building IP moats against PAE assertions and competitor claims in the managed cluster space.
HP Enterprise cluster IP defenceAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7822841B2's claim scope
The claim scope of US7822841B2 centres on hosting and customising multiple discrete computing clusters. Adjacent areas with potentially lower patent density include dynamic cluster recomposition using ML-driven scheduling, ephemeral cluster architectures for serverless HPC, and cross-cloud cluster federation. These represent potential R&D directions where new filings may face lower prior-art barriers.
Cluster IP white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases: computing cluster and cloud infrastructure
Explore related patent infringement actions in the W.D. Texas district court involving computing cluster, cloud orchestration, and managed infrastructure patents asserted by PAEs.
What this case signals for the enterprise cloud IP landscape
IV's assertion of a computing-cluster patent in W.D. Texas underscores continuing PAE activity targeting enterprise infrastructure providers.
W.D. Texas PAE filings remain a live risk for infrastructure vendors
Intellectual Ventures has a history of asserting computing and networking patents in plaintiff-friendly venues. Enterprise hardware and cloud vendors should audit exposure to IV's portfolio — particularly patents covering cluster management, virtualisation, and multi-tenant hosting architectures — before receiving a demand letter.
Dismissal with prejudice limits IV's options against HP — not the market
US7822841B2 survives this action fully enforceable. The with-prejudice bar applies only to Hewlett-Packard. Other infrastructure vendors, cloud orchestration providers, and HPC operators remain potential targets. An FTO analysis against this patent is advisable for any company commercialising customised computing cluster hosting.
Intellectual v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment entered on 6 February 2023, 418 days after filing. The docket order reflects a stipulated dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Intellectual Ventures asserted US7822841B2, filed under application number US11/927921. The patent covers a method and system for hosting multiple, customised computing clusters — technology directly relevant to enterprise cloud, managed hosting, and HPC orchestration environments.
No. The consent judgment disposes of the litigation between Intellectual Ventures and Hewlett-Packard but does not affect the validity or enforceability of US7822841B2. The patent remains in force and can be asserted against other parties operating in the computing cluster and cloud infrastructure space.
The dismissal with prejudice means Intellectual Ventures is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims under US7822841B2 against Hewlett-Packard in a future action. It does not, however, restrict IV from asserting the patent against other defendants in the enterprise infrastructure or managed cloud markets.
The Western District of Texas, and Judge Alan D. Albright's docket in particular, has been a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its historically fast scheduling, plaintiff-friendly case management, and high patent case volume. Intellectual Ventures' choice of this court is consistent with broader PAE filing patterns in that district during the 2021–2023 period.
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.