Lionra Technologies, Ltd. v. CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 7 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Nov 2023, with US9264441B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9264441B2
- Application no.
- US12/079013
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00928
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- David Alan Ezra
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Aug 2023 – 6 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 91 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- CrowdStrike Falcon Platform
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
System and method for securing a network from zero-day vulnerability exploits
A method of securing a network from vulnerability exploits, including the steps of a traffic analysis engine receiving a plurality of packets destined for an internal operating system; the traffic analysis engine selectively forwarding the packets to at least one virtual machine emulating the internal operating system; the virtual machine processing each forwarded packet; a rapid analysis engine identifying a malicious packet from the processed packets; and the rapid analysis engine creating a new signature to identify the malicious packet.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 16 Feb 2016
- Est. expiry
- 24 Sep 2032
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019384 · EPR · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- TODD, MICHAEL · KOSTER, SCOTT ROBERT · WONG, PATRICK CHOY MING
- Classification
- G06F7/04H04L29/06G06F21/53G06F21/55G06F21/56G06F21/57
- Prosecution counsel
- Atlantic IP
- Examiner
- SHOLEMAN, ABU
Parties of record
Lionra Technologies, Ltd.
- Core tech
- G06F7/04H04L29/06G06F21/53G06F21/55
- Counsel
- Brett E. Cooper · Drew B. Hollander · Jonathan Randy Yim · Seth Raymond Hasenour
- Firm
- BC Law Group PC, BC Law Group, PC
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Briggs Colby Howe · C. Luke Nelson · Christopher T. Bovenkamp · Steven Chase Callahan
- Firm
- Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC, Riney Ronquillo Soule, PLLC
- Also named
- CrowdStrike, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brett E. Cooper | Lionra Technologies, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Drew B. Hollander | Lionra Technologies, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan Randy Yim | Lionra Technologies, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Seth Raymond Hasenour | Lionra Technologies, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Briggs Colby Howe | CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | Defendant |
| C. Luke Nelson | CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | Defendant |
| Christopher T. Bovenkamp | CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | Defendant |
| Steven Chase Callahan | CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Court has before it the Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies LTD, filed on November 3, 2023. (Dkt. # 19.) After consideration, the Court is of the opinion that such Notice is well taken and should be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the individual claims and causes of action brought by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies LTD against Defendant Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc., and Crowdstrike, Inc. in the above-captioned lawsuit are DISMISSED in their entirety WITHOUT prejudice”
Case 1:23-cv-00928 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 November 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-00928?
1:23-cv-00928 is a patent infringement action brought by Lionra Technologies, Ltd. against CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., filed on 7 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00928?
US9264441B2 (“System and method for securing a network from zero-day vulnerability exploits”), assigned to LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists CrowdStrike Falcon Platform.
How was case 1:23-cv-00928 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “The Court has before it the Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies LTD, filed on November 3, 2023. (Dkt. # 19.) After consideration, the Court is of the opinion that such Notice is well taken and should be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the individual claims and causes of action brought by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies LTD against Defendant Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc., and Crowdstrike, Inc. in the above-captioned lawsuit are DISMISSED in their entirety WITHOUT prejudice”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:23-cv-00928 take?
91 calendar days, from filing on 7 Aug 2023 to closure on 6 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00928?
Chief Judge David Alan Ezra presided. Brett E. Cooper, Drew B. Hollander, Jonathan Randy Yim and Seth Raymond Hasenour are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lionra Technologies. Briggs Colby Howe, C. Luke Nelson, Christopher T. Bovenkamp and Steven Chase Callahan appear for defendant CrowdStrike.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00928 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.