PACSEC3 v. Rapid7: Consent Judgment in Packet Flooding Defense Patent Case
PACSEC3, LLC filed suit against cybersecurity firm Rapid7, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US7523497B2 covering a packet flooding defense system. The case resolved by consent judgment after 419 days, with plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice as to the asserted patent and defendant's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs.
Packet Flooding Patent Ends in Consent Judgment After 14 Months
On February 17, 2022, PACSEC3, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Rapid7, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting US7523497B2, which covers a packet flooding defense system — a network security technology designed to detect and mitigate denial-of-service style packet flood attacks. Rapid7 is a publicly traded cybersecurity company known for its vulnerability management and threat detection platforms.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B), the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal of all of PACSEC3's claims with prejudice as to the asserted patent, while Rapid7's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on April 12, 2023, roughly 14 months after filing — a timeline consistent with pre-trial resolution in W.D. Texas. What drove the parties to this agreed resolution, and whether any commercial arrangement underpins it, is not disclosed in the public record. The asymmetric prejudice structure — plaintiff's claims extinguished with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims preserved without prejudice — is a notable feature that practitioners should note.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 419 days
419 days — above the median for patent cases resolved before trial in W.D. Texas
US7523497B2 — Packet Flooding Defense System
Any company developing or deploying packet flooding defense systems, DDoS mitigation platforms, intrusion prevention systems, or network traffic anomaly detection tools should assess freedom-to-operate against US7523497B2. The patent remains valid and enforceable following this case, and PACSEC3's enforcement history in W.D. Texas indicates a willingness to assert it against well-resourced defendants.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation, filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), creates an asymmetric prejudice structure: PACSEC3's infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice as to US7523497B2, foreclosing re-assertion against Rapid7, while Rapid7's counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving but not adjudicating its invalidity and non-infringement positions. No costs were awarded. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment; the docket order is styled as a Rule 41 stipulated dismissal — the specific terms underlying the agreed resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a court-entered, binding judgment on terms agreed by both parties. Unlike a bare stipulated dismissal, it carries the full weight of a judicial order, making it enforceable by the court. Here, the parties filed a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The specific agreed terms beyond the dismissal structure are not disclosed in the available record.
Binding court-entered resolutionPACSEC3's claims dismissed with prejudice as to the patent
PACSEC3's infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice specifically as to the asserted patent, US7523497B2. This means PACSEC3 cannot re-assert this patent against Rapid7 in a future action. The with-prejudice bar is limited to the asserted patent in this case; any broader implications for PACSEC3's enforcement posture are not determinable from the public record.
Claims barred — with prejudiceRapid7's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
Rapid7's counterclaims, defenses, and claims for relief — including any invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims — are dismissed without prejudice. This means Rapid7 retains the theoretical ability to reassert those positions in a future proceeding. Whether Rapid7 obtained any other benefit from the resolution is not disclosed in the available record.
Counterclaims preserved — without prejudiceAsymmetric prejudice structure signals a negotiated exit
The asymmetric outcome — plaintiff barred with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims left open — is consistent with a negotiated resolution where the patent holder agrees to forfeit enforcement rights against this defendant. Companies operating packet flooding defense or DDoS-mitigation technologies should note that US7523497B2 remains an active patent asset in PACSEC3's portfolio, potentially enforceable against other parties.
Patent enforceable vs. other partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PACSEC3, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7523497B2 (packet flooding defense system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rapid7, Inc. | Company | Rapid7, Inc. — publicly traded cybersecurity firm, vulnerability management and threat detectionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric A. Buresh | Attorney | Counsel for Rapid7, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Chase Callahan | Attorney | Counsel for Rapid7, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Rapid7, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Erise, IP PA | Law Firm | Representing Rapid7, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the packet flooding defense and network security space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from PACSEC3 v. Rapid7 — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in DDoS mitigation and network defense technologies.
PACSEC3's enforcement portfolio beyond US7523497B2
PACSEC3 appears to be a focused patent assertion entity. Mapping its full portfolio — including any continuation patents, divisionals, or related family members originating from application US10/841064 — can reveal additional claim coverage that may extend beyond the single asserted patent and pose risk to adjacent product categories in network security.
PAE portfolio mappingDDoS mitigation patent filing trends: who is building IP here?
Patent filing activity in packet flood detection, traffic rate-limiting, and adaptive DDoS mitigation has accelerated as cloud and edge infrastructure has scaled. Identifying which companies — incumbents like Cloudflare, Akamai, and Cisco, as well as emerging players — are building patent positions in this space helps R&D teams anticipate collision points and design-around opportunities.
DDoS mitigation filing trendsRapid7's patent portfolio in network threat detection
Rapid7's R&D investment in vulnerability management, SIEM, and threat detection is reflected in its patent filings. Understanding the depth and direction of Rapid7's own IP portfolio — including any patents covering intrusion detection, network anomaly analysis, or packet inspection — signals where the company sees competitive differentiation and potential cross-licensing leverage.
Rapid7 IP strategyAdjacent innovation space: AI-driven packet anomaly detection
The claim space around rule-based packet flooding defense (as covered by US7523497B2) suggests white space in ML-driven and behavioral anomaly detection for DDoS mitigation — an area where traditional claim coverage is thinner. R&D teams developing adaptive, model-based network defense architectures may find patentable ground and reduced infringement risk relative to legacy rule-based approaches.
AI network defense white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in network security — W.D. Texas
Cases involving network security and DDoS mitigation patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, resolved by consent judgment or pre-trial settlement.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
This consent judgment highlights active assertion of network defense patents in W.D. Texas and the strategic choices defendants face in resolving such claims.
W.D. Texas remains a magnet for network security patent assertions
Judge Albright's docket continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting cybersecurity vendors. Companies in the packet filtering, DDoS mitigation, and network intrusion detection space should maintain active watch on US7523497B2 and related portfolio filings by PACSEC3 to anticipate future enforcement activity.
With-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff's claims caps exposure for Rapid7
By securing a with-prejudice bar on PACSEC3's claims as to this specific patent, Rapid7 eliminates re-litigation risk on US7523497B2. However, the without-prejudice treatment of its own counterclaims means Rapid7 did not obtain a formal invalidity ruling — leaving the patent's validity technically intact for future enforcement against other defendants.
PACSEC3 v Rapid7 — key questions answered
The case ended by consent judgment on April 12, 2023, after 419 days of litigation. PACSEC3's infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice as to the asserted patent (US7523497B2), while Rapid7's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys' fees.
The with-prejudice dismissal of PACSEC3's claims as to US7523497B2 means PACSEC3 is barred from re-asserting that patent against Rapid7 in future litigation. However, no invalidity ruling was issued, so US7523497B2 retains its presumption of validity and remains enforceable against other parties in the market.
The joint stipulation expressly provides that Rapid7's counterclaims, defenses, and claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not adjudicated on the merits. This structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution. The specific reasons and any underlying terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
US7523497B2 (application number US10/841064) covers a packet flooding defense system — network security technology directed at detecting and mitigating packet flood attacks, consistent with denial-of-service defense mechanisms. The patent is assigned to PACSEC3, LLC and was the sole patent asserted in this action.
Companies deploying packet flooding defense, DDoS mitigation, or network intrusion prevention technologies should monitor PACSEC3's portfolio. US7523497B2 was not invalidated in this case, and PACSEC3's enforcement action against a major cybersecurity vendor in W.D. Texas suggests an active assertion posture. An FTO analysis and IPR petition assessment are prudent steps for at-risk companies.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.