PACSEC3 v. KnowBe4: Packet Flooding Defense Patent Dismissed With Prejudice in 47 Days
PACSEC3, LLC brought a patent infringement action against cybersecurity firm KnowBe4, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida, asserting US7523497B2 covering packet flooding defense technology. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 47 days after filing — before KnowBe4 had answered or moved for summary judgment — extinguishing PACSEC3’s right to re-assert the patent against KnowBe4.
Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Ends PACSEC3’s Infringement Claim Against KnowBe4
On April 12, 2024, PACSEC3, LLC filed a patent infringement action against KnowBe4, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The asserted patent, US7523497B2, covers a packet flooding defense system — a network security technology relevant to volumetric denial-of-service attack mitigation. KnowBe4, a prominent cybersecurity awareness and training platform, was named as the sole defendant.
On May 29, 2024 — just 47 days after filing — PACSEC3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the dismissal was expressly stated to be with prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning PACSEC3 permanently relinquished its right to assert US7523497B2 against KnowBe4. Each party was left to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses with no prevailing-party award.
The speed of resolution — under seven weeks — and the with-prejudice designation are notable. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is available only before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment, suggesting no substantive engagement from KnowBe4 on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached, a licensing arrangement was agreed, or PACSEC3 concluded it lacked a viable infringement theory. The with-prejudice election, however, signals that this specific dispute is permanently concluded.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 47 days
Resolved in 47 days — well below the median for patent cases in M.D. Fla., suggesting early resolution or strategic withdrawal.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before defendant responds
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. PACSEC3 exercised this right, but elected to make the dismissal with prejudice — going beyond what the rule requires. That election makes the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits against KnowBe4 for this patent.
Procedural dismissal, with-prejudice electionPACSEC3 permanently barred from re-asserting US7523497B2 against KnowBe4
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, PACSEC3 extinguished its own right to bring this patent claim against KnowBe4 again. This is a significant concession: the patent remains in force against the rest of the market, but KnowBe4 now holds an implicit res judicata shield. The public record does not confirm whether a confidential settlement or licensing payment accompanied the dismissal.
Patent survives; KnowBe4 claim barredKnowBe4 exits with no merits adjudication and full cost protection
KnowBe4 was never required to file an answer or substantive motion. The case resolved before any litigation costs were imposed on the defendant, and the parties’ agreement that each side bears its own fees means KnowBe4 incurred no fee liability. Practically, KnowBe4 is permanently shielded from re-litigation of US7523497B2, without having had to litigate the patent’s validity or infringement on the merits.
No merits finding; full cost insulationUS7523497B2 remains a live enforcement risk for other cybersecurity vendors
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only PACSEC3’s claim against KnowBe4. US7523497B2 remains enforceable and could be asserted against other network security or cybersecurity vendors whose products implicate packet flooding defense technology. The swift resolution and absence of any invalidity ruling mean no prior art or claim construction record was established — leaving the patent’s scope legally untested.
Patent scope untested; sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PACSEC3, LLC | Company | Network security patent holding entity — holder of US7523497B2, a packet flooding defense patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | KnowBe4, Inc. | Company | KnowBe4, Inc. — cybersecurity awareness training and simulated phishing platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Victoria Elisabeth Brieant | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant PA | Law Firm | Representing PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is explicit that the withdrawal is with prejudice ‘as to the asserted patent,’ language that goes beyond the default Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) effect. This phrasing confirms the parties’ intent to permanently resolve PACSEC3’s infringement claims against KnowBe4 under US7523497B2. No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding was issued. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause is consistent with either a mutual walkaway or an undisclosed settlement, but neither can be confirmed from the public docket alone.
US7523497B2 — Packet Flooding Defense System
US7523497B2 covers a packet flooding defense system — technology designed to detect, characterize, and respond to volumetric packet floods of the type used in denial-of-service and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. The application (US10/841064) was filed under a U.S. non-provisional patent application, and the issued patent reflects the early 2000s generation of network security innovation targeting infrastructure-level traffic management and flood mitigation techniques.
From a strategic standpoint, packet flooding defense patents occupy a commercially sensitive position: DDoS mitigation remains a high-value, high-growth segment of the cybersecurity market. Vendors offering network security appliances, cloud-based scrubbing, firewall-integrated rate limiting, or anycast-based mitigation architectures should assess whether their products’ technical implementations intersect with the claims of US7523497B2. The patent’s untested claim scope — given the absence of any litigation record — makes independent FTO analysis particularly important.
Should your network security product be assessed against US7523497B2?
Any organisation developing, selling, or licensing packet flooding defence technology, DDoS mitigation systems, or network traffic management products should consider whether US7523497B2 poses an infringement risk. The patent has now been asserted in live litigation, confirming PACSEC3’s willingness to enforce — and the absence of any invalidity ruling means the patent cannot be dismissed as commercially dormant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map US7523497B2’s claims against current product architectures, identify relevant prior art that could inform an invalidity position, and monitor PACSEC3’s broader portfolio for co-pending or continuation patents. Running a structured FTO now — before any demand letter — is the most cost-effective risk management step available to vendors in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7523497B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Network Security & DDoS Defense Litigation in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving network security and packet flooding defense patents litigated in U.S. district courts, with comparable NPE enforcement and early dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity patent enforcement landscape
A fast with-prejudice exit before any defendant response raises questions about enforcement strategy and the patent’s commercial reach.
With-prejudice voluntary dismissals often signal a confidential resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has answered, it typically signals either a confidential settlement or a strategic reassessment of claim viability. The election to dismiss with prejudice — rather than without — suggests PACSEC3 received something in return, or concluded re-litigation would not be productive. Neither scenario is confirmed by the public record.
No invalidity record created — US7523497B2’s claim scope remains untested
Because the case ended before any responsive pleading, no claim construction order, invalidity argument, or prior art record was generated. This leaves US7523497B2 in a legally ambiguous position: enforceable on its face, but untested against a sophisticated defendant’s invalidity arguments. Other potential targets should treat this as an unresolved enforcement risk.
PACSEC3 v KnowBe4 — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars PACSEC3 from re-asserting US7523497B2 against KnowBe4. However, the patent remains enforceable against all other parties. PACSEC3 retains the right to assert the same patent against different defendants in future litigation.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to file a notice of voluntary dismissal without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because KnowBe4 had not responded when PACSEC3 filed its notice on May 29, 2024, no court approval was needed.
No. The case ended before any substantive litigation milestones — no claim construction, no invalidity arguments on record, and no court ruling on the merits. US7523497B2’s claim scope remains legally untested, which means other defendants cannot rely on this case as prior art or estoppel.
US7523497B2 covers a packet flooding defense system, addressing network-layer techniques used to detect and mitigate volumetric denial-of-service attacks. Vendors offering DDoS mitigation, network traffic management, or security appliances with rate-limiting or flood detection functionality should assess their exposure against this patent’s claims.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The dismissal notice states each party bears its own costs, which is consistent with either a mutual walkaway or an undisclosed licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation suggests the matter was fully resolved, but no settlement agreement appears in the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.