Lionra Technologies v. Fortinet & Cisco: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Lionra Technologies Ltd. pursued a Federal Circuit appeal against network security giants Fortinet and Cisco Systems over two processor-related patents — US9264441B2 and US7623518B2. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed in just 122 days, with each party bearing its own costs, leaving the underlying merits unresolved at the appellate level.
A Federal Circuit exit with no merits verdict — and open questions
Lionra Technologies Ltd., an IP licensing entity and holder of patents US9264441B2 and US7623518B2, filed Appeal No. 24-2173 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 5 August 2024, naming Fortinet Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. as defendants. The patents relate to processor-based network security architecture — technology directly relevant to the hardware acceleration methods used in enterprise firewall and routing products associated with Intel and AMD processors.
The Federal Circuit granted a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on 5 December 2024, acting under Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court’s order arose from a November 21, 2024 filing in the related Appeal No. 2024-2153, which the court construed as a motion to dismiss this companion appeal. No merits panel ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own appellate costs, suggesting a negotiated or strategic exit rather than a contested termination.
At 122 days from filing to closure, the appeal resolved far faster than a typical Federal Circuit merits proceeding. The simultaneous handling across two related appeal numbers — 2024-2153 and 2024-2173 — suggests coordinated resolution, possibly linked to settlement or licensing discussions in the parallel proceeding. The public record does not disclose whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal, leaving the enforceability of both patents formally unresolved at appellate level.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 122 days
122 days — faster than the typical Federal Circuit merits resolution of 12–18 months
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
Rule 42(b)(2): voluntary dismissal at the appellant’s election
Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits an appellant to dismiss its own appeal, typically by stipulation or unopposed motion. Here, the Federal Circuit construed a filing in the companion appeal (No. 2024-2153) as a motion to dismiss this appeal and granted it. No merits briefing was completed and no panel opinion was issued — the dismissal is purely procedural.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The court’s order records a voluntary dismissal but does not expressly specify whether it is with or without prejudice. Under Federal Circuit practice, Rule 42(b) dismissals are generally without prejudice to refiling unless the order states otherwise — but this order does not confirm that. Patent professionals should not assume either position. The distinction matters significantly: a with-prejudice dismissal would bar Lionra from re-appealing the same issues; without prejudice preserves that option.
Prejudice status unconfirmedFortinet and Cisco escape appellate scrutiny — for now
With the appeal dismissed and no merits ruling, Fortinet and Cisco obtain closure on this specific Federal Circuit proceeding without a court finding on infringement or validity. The cost-neutral order — each side bears its own costs — suggests neither party extracted a clear concession. However, the companion appeal (No. 2024-2153) remains relevant context; any resolution there may have driven the strategic decision to exit this appeal.
No infringement findingPatents survive challenge but appellate clarity is deferred
Because no appellate merits ruling was issued, the validity and scope of US9264441B2 and US7623518B2 remain legally uncertain at the Federal Circuit level. For competitors and licensees in the network security processor space, this means the patents retain their enforcement potential. Third parties evaluating freedom-to-operate against Lionra’s portfolio cannot rely on this dismissal as a validity or non-infringement determination.
Enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US9264441B2 and US7623518B2 (network security processor patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fortinet, Inc. | Company | Fortinet Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. — enterprise network security and routing hardware vendorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Christopher Gaudet. | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s December 2024 order is narrow in scope: it grants dismissal under Rule 42(b)(2) and orders cost neutrality — nothing more. The court issues no claim construction, no validity determination, and no infringement finding. The procedural linkage to companion Appeal No. 2024-2153 is significant: the court construed a filing in that separate appeal as the operative motion here, suggesting the two proceedings were being resolved in tandem. For both parties, the order provides appellate closure on this docket number without creating any precedent or estoppel on the underlying patent claims.
US9264441B2 & US7623518B2 — Network Security Processor Architecture Patents
US9264441B2 (Application No. 12/079013) and US7623518B2 (Application No. 10/822048) sit within the network security processor domain — covering methods and architectures for processing and classifying network traffic at the hardware level, as implemented on general-purpose Intel or AMD processor platforms. These patents address a technically significant layer: the intersection of commodity processor architecture and purpose-built network security functions such as firewall packet inspection and routing acceleration.
For the enterprise network security sector, processor-acceleration of security functions is a core competitive differentiator. Fortinet and Cisco both develop hardware appliances and software-defined security products that rely on optimised packet processing across Intel and AMD silicon. Lionra’s assertion of these patents signals continued pressure on vendors whose products leverage general-purpose processor pipelines for security workloads — a broad and commercially sensitive target category extending beyond these two defendants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9264441B2 and US7623518B2?
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, or distributing network security hardware or software that executes packet inspection, firewall processing, or traffic classification on Intel or AMD processors should assess freedom-to-operate against Lionra’s portfolio. The voluntary dismissal of this appeal does not extinguish the patent grants — it leaves the claims intact and enforceable. The risk is particularly acute for vendors whose products accelerate security functions at the processor level without purpose-built ASICs.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim scope across US9264441B2 and US7623518B2, identify prosecution history limitations, and surface prior art that may support IPR petitions. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks Lionra’s parallel Federal Circuit proceeding (No. 2024-2153) and any new district court filings, giving in-house IP teams real-time visibility into enforcement activity before it reaches their doorstep.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9264441B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in network security processor patent litigation
Cases at the Federal Circuit involving network security processor patents and voluntary dismissal outcomes — benchmarked against this Lionra Technologies appeal.
What this case signals for the network security patent IP landscape
A rapid Federal Circuit exit across linked appeals typically reflects off-court resolution — and keeps processor security patents in play.
Voluntary dismissal is not a cleared patent — monitor Lionra’s portfolio
The dismissal of Appeal No. 24-2173 issues no validity or non-infringement ruling. US9264441B2 and US7623518B2 remain enforceable grants. Network security vendors and their supply chains — particularly those using Intel or AMD processor architectures — should treat these patents as active litigation risk until a substantive merits decision or IPR cancellation is secured.
Companion appeal No. 2024-2153 is the proceeding to watch
The Federal Circuit itself linked these two appeals procedurally: the filing in 2024-2153 triggered dismissal here. Any merits ruling, settlement, or licensing outcome in 2024-2153 will likely set the commercial and legal terms that determined this exit. IP teams monitoring Lionra enforcement activity should track 2024-2153 as the primary indicator of portfolio strategy.
LIONRA v Fortinet — key questions answered
Appeal No. 24-2173 was voluntarily dismissed by the Federal Circuit on 5 December 2024 under Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court construed a filing in companion Appeal No. 2024-2153 as a motion to dismiss this appeal and granted it. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Lionra asserted US9264441B2 (Application No. 12/079013) and US7623518B2 (Application No. 10/822048). Both patents relate to network security processing architectures implemented on Intel or AMD processor platforms, covering methods for packet handling and security classification at the hardware level.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b)(2) carries no merits determination. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on validity or infringement of US9264441B2 or US7623518B2. Both patents remain granted and potentially enforceable. Third parties should not interpret this dismissal as a legal clearance against Lionra’s portfolio.
The Federal Circuit linked the two appeals procedurally: a filing in Appeal No. 2024-2153 was construed as the operative motion to dismiss Appeal No. 24-2173. This suggests coordinated resolution across both proceedings. Any merits outcome, licensing agreement, or strategic development in 2024-2153 is likely to be the primary driver of the commercial terms that led to this dismissal.
The order that each party bears its own appellate costs is consistent with a negotiated or agreed dismissal rather than a unilateral capitulation by either side. In contested voluntary dismissals, courts sometimes award costs to the non-moving party; the absence of any such award here suggests both Fortinet and Cisco either agreed to the exit or did not contest it — a pattern typically associated with parallel settlement or licensing discussions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.