PacSec3 v. Radware: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 148 Days
PacSec3, LLC filed suit against Radware, Ltd. in the Northern District of California asserting US7523497B2, a patent covering packet flooding defense systems. The case closed in under five months when PacSec3 filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — permanently extinguishing its infringement claims against Radware before the defendant had even answered.
A pre-answer exit: PacSec3 abandons network security claims for good
On April 10, 2024, PacSec3, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed a patent infringement action against Radware, Ltd. in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-02146), presided over by Judge Alex G. Tse. The sole patent asserted was US7523497B2, directed to a packet flooding defense system, a network security technology designed to mitigate denial-of-service and related flooding attacks.
The case closed on September 5, 2024, when PacSec3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available as a matter of right because Radware had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Critically, PacSec3 elected to dismiss with prejudice — meaning all infringement claims under US7523497B2 are permanently barred against Radware. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Resolution in 148 days, before any substantive defendant pleading, is consistent with early-stage settlement negotiations or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. The with-prejudice designation is notable: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, PacSec3 cannot re-file these claims against Radware. The public record does not disclose whether a monetary settlement was reached, and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement neither confirms nor rules out a confidential resolution.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 148 days
148 days — resolved before defendant answer or summary judgment motion
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before defendant responds
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. PacSec3 invoked this right, meaning no judicial approval was required. The additional election to dismiss with prejudice is the plaintiff’s own choice — and a permanent one, operating as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion.
Voluntary — no court order requiredWith-prejudice filing permanently bars PacSec3 from re-asserting against Radware
By specifying ‘with prejudice,’ PacSec3 has foreclosed any future action against Radware under US7523497B2. This is an unusually final outcome for a pre-answer dismissal. PAEs typically prefer without-prejudice exits to preserve optionality. The with-prejudice choice suggests PacSec3 either reached a satisfactory resolution with Radware or made a deliberate strategic decision to close this litigation permanently — the public record does not confirm which.
Claims extinguished as to RadwareRadware exits without admitting liability or incurring a cost award
Radware, Ltd. never filed an answer, meaning it made no admissions and incurred no adverse ruling. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Radware absorbs its own legal costs but pays nothing to PacSec3 — and receives no fee award despite being the defending party. Radware is now shielded from any future suit by PacSec3 on this patent, which is a commercially meaningful outcome for a company whose core product line overlaps directly with the asserted technology.
No liability, no cost awardUS7523497B2 remains active — other network security vendors remain at risk
The dismissal with prejudice only binds PacSec3’s claims against Radware. US7523497B2 itself is not invalidated, and PacSec3 retains the right to assert it against other packet flooding defense and DDoS mitigation vendors. Companies in the network security space — particularly those offering products that detect or respond to packet flooding — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider FTO analysis accordingly.
Patent survives; sector risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PACSEC3, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7523497B2 covering packet flooding defenseSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Radware, Ltd. | Company | Radware, Ltd. — global provider of application delivery and cyber security solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S.Q. Kalra | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alex G. Tse | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and specifies that dismissal is with prejudice — language that carries significant legal weight. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice functions as a final judgment on the merits, triggering claim preclusion (res judicata) as to Radware. The mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses any future fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in this action. No infringement finding, invalidity ruling, or claim construction was issued — the merits of US7523497B2 remain formally undecided.
US7523497B2 — Packet flooding defense system
US7523497B2, filed under application number US10/841,064, protects a system for defending networks against packet flooding attacks — a class of denial-of-service technique that overwhelms network infrastructure by saturating bandwidth or exhausting connection resources. The patent sits at the intersection of network security and traffic management, covering detection and response mechanisms designed to identify and neutralise anomalous packet flows before they degrade service availability.
For the network security sector, this patent represents a commercially significant asset given the explosion of DDoS-as-a-service platforms and the growing frequency of volumetric attacks against enterprise and cloud infrastructure. Radware’s core product lines — including DefensePro and related DDoS mitigation appliances — operate in precisely the space this patent addresses, which explains why it was named as a defendant. The patent’s continued active status means any vendor offering packet flood detection, rate limiting, or traffic scrubbing functionality should assess their exposure.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7523497B2?
Any R&D or product team developing network security solutions that include packet flood detection, DDoS mitigation, traffic anomaly analysis, or connection-rate limiting should treat US7523497B2 as a live FTO concern. The dismissal of the Radware case does not narrow the patent’s claims, and PacSec3 retains full enforcement rights against other parties. This is particularly relevant for vendors building next-generation firewall, SD-WAN, or cloud-native DDoS protection products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7523497B2’s claim landscape against your product architecture in minutes — identifying claim elements that overlap with your implementation and flagging prior art that may support an invalidity argument. For in-house counsel and R&D leads working on packet-level security features, a targeted Eureka FTO analysis provides an early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7523497B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network security patent cases in N.D. California
Explore comparable PAE-driven infringement actions asserting network security and DDoS mitigation patents in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the network security IP enforcement landscape
A pre-answer with-prejudice exit is a rare and deliberate outcome — here is what it means for the sector.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal a quiet resolution
When a PAE files with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it typically signals one of two things: a confidential settlement has been reached, or the plaintiff concluded litigation was no longer commercially viable. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement neither confirms nor denies payment. Network security vendors facing similar assertions should note this pattern as a potential early negotiation signal.
US7523497B2 remains enforceable — other vendors are not protected by this dismissal
The with-prejudice dismissal is bilateral and case-specific: it extinguishes claims against Radware only. Any other company offering packet flooding defense or DDoS mitigation technology remains fully exposed to assertion under this patent. An FTO analysis against US7523497B2 is advisable for vendors in adjacent network security product categories.
PACSEC3 v Radware — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) operates as a final adjudication on the merits. PacSec3 cannot re-file infringement claims against Radware under US7523497B2. However, the patent itself is not invalidated, and PacSec3 retains the right to assert it against other defendants.
The public record does not confirm a monetary settlement. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs. This arrangement is consistent with a confidential resolution but equally consistent with a unilateral decision by PacSec3 to abandon the action — the record is silent on which occurred.
US7523497B2 covers a packet flooding defense system — technology designed to detect and mitigate network-layer denial-of-service attacks. Radware was named as a defendant because its core product portfolio, including DDoS mitigation appliances, operates in the same technical domain as the asserted patent claims.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only PacSec3’s claims against Radware. US7523497B2 remains a valid, enforceable patent and PacSec3 is free to assert it against any other party. Vendors in the DDoS mitigation and network security space should assess their exposure through an FTO analysis.
Ramey LLP, counsel for PacSec3, is a Texas-based firm known for representing patent assertion entities in high-volume infringement campaigns. Their cases frequently resolve at early stages before substantive defendant responses, which may reflect a litigation model oriented toward licensing settlements. Defendants served by Ramey LLP-represented plaintiffs often benefit from rapid prior art analysis and early IPR evaluation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.