PACSEC3 v. RSA Federal LLC: Packet Flooding Defense Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
PACSEC3, LLC filed a patent infringement action against RSA Federal LLC in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7523497B2, a packet flooding defense system patent. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice just 111 days after filing, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Early voluntary exit in a network security patent dispute in E.D. Texas
On June 7, 2024, PACSEC3, LLC filed a patent infringement action against RSA Federal LLC in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 3:24-cv-01397) before Judge Ed Kinkeade. The suit asserted US7523497B2, a patent covering packet flooding defense systems — a network security technology designed to detect and mitigate denial-of-service style packet flood attacks. RSA Federal LLC, the defendant, is a federal-market technology solutions provider.
On September 26, 2024 — just 111 days after filing — PACSEC3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available as of right when the defendant has not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning PACSEC3 retains the ability to refile claims based on US7523497B2. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
A dismissal of this speed — before any substantive engagement from the defendant — is consistent with several possible scenarios: an early licensing resolution reached privately, a strategic decision to pursue claims in a different forum or against different defendants, or a reassessment of litigation strategy following preliminary case evaluation. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason, and no settlement terms were filed. The without-prejudice designation keeps all options open for PACSEC3 with respect to this patent.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 111 days
111 days — resolved before defendant’s first responsive pleading
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right before answer
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because RSA Federal had not yet responded, PACSEC3 could file a unilateral notice — no judicial approval required. The dismissal takes effect upon filing, making this one of the cleanest procedural exits available in federal litigation.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the distinction matters significantly
A without-prejudice dismissal means the action is terminated but the underlying claims are not extinguished. PACSEC3 expressly preserved its rights ‘as to the asserted patent,’ signalling that US7523497B2 remains an active enforcement asset. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not disclose whether any private resolution — such as a licence — was reached alongside this filing.
Claims preserved; patent still liveRSA Federal exits without liability — but exposure persists
RSA Federal LLC avoids any adverse finding on infringement, validity, or damages in this action. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means RSA Federal cannot rely on res judicata to block a future suit on the same patent. The agreed no-costs provision suggests neither party sought to characterise the outcome as a win or loss. RSA Federal should treat US7523497B2 as an ongoing risk until either a licence is confirmed or the patent expires or is invalidated.
No adjudication on meritsPacket flooding defence IP remains an active enforcement vector
The without-prejudice exit, combined with no fee award, suggests PACSEC3 retains both the patent and strategic flexibility to refile — whether against RSA Federal or other targets in the network security and federal IT space. Vendors of packet filtering, DDoS mitigation, and network intrusion prevention products operating in government-adjacent markets should treat this outcome as a signal to assess their exposure to US7523497B2 and related portfolio assets held by PACSEC3.
Refile risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PACSEC3, LLC | Company | Network security patent assertion entity — holder of US7523497B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | RSA Federal LLC | Company | RSA Federal LLC — federal-market technology and cybersecurity solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey E. Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirby Blair Drake | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirby Drake Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing PACSEC3, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. Mcnabnay | Attorney | Counsel for RSA Federal LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardsin PC | Law Firm | Representing RSA Federal LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ed Kinkeade | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and states dismissal is ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent.’ This phrasing is legally precise: it preserves PACSEC3’s right to refile on the same patent against the same or different defendants. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ clause forecloses any fee-shifting argument under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No merits ruling was reached, so US7523497B2’s validity and infringement remain unresolved.
US7523497B2 — Packet Flooding Defense System
US7523497B2 (application number US10/841064) covers a packet flooding defense system — technology designed to identify, classify, and respond to abnormal packet-volume events characteristic of denial-of-service and distributed denial-of-service attacks on networked infrastructure. The patent sits within the network security domain, specifically addressing real-time traffic analysis and automated defensive responses to flooding-type intrusion vectors. Its application date context places it in an era of rapid evolution in enterprise and government network perimeter defense.
For vendors supplying packet filtering, firewall, intrusion prevention, and DDoS mitigation products — particularly those serving US federal government and defence customers — US7523497B2 represents a potentially broad assertion risk. The asserted-patent-without-prejudice language in this dismissal signals that PACSEC3 views the patent as a continuing enforcement asset. Companies with products that perform packet-rate analysis, traffic shaping, or anomaly-based flood detection should evaluate their design-around and invalidity options proactively.
Should you run an FTO against US7523497B2?
Any organisation developing or selling packet flooding detection, DDoS mitigation, or network traffic anomaly systems — especially those targeting US federal or defence markets — should treat US7523497B2 as a priority FTO target. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case means the patent is unencumbered by any adverse ruling and could be asserted against new defendants at any time. The federal IT supply chain, including network security appliance vendors and cloud-based DDoS protection providers, faces the greatest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US7523497B2, identify related continuations and family members in the PACSEC3 portfolio, and benchmark your product’s feature set against the patent’s independent claims. Eureka’s prior art discovery tools can also surface invalidity candidates that could support an inter partes review petition — a proactive option worth evaluating given the patent’s pre-answer dismissal history.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7523497B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network security patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable packet flooding, DDoS mitigation, and network intrusion patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
A rapid Rule 41 exit without prejudice in E.D. Texas is rarely the end of the story for an asserted patent.
Without-prejudice dismissals are a tactical pause, not a surrender
When a plaintiff in a patent assertion action dismisses without prejudice before the defendant answers, it typically signals a strategic recalibration rather than abandonment. The patent remains enforceable and the plaintiff preserves full rights to refile. Companies in the network security space should monitor PACSEC3’s litigation activity for follow-on actions.
E.D. Texas remains a favoured venue for network security patent assertions
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract early-stage patent infringement filings, including in cybersecurity and network infrastructure. Even short-lived cases like this one reflect the jurisdiction’s draw for patent holders. Defendants operating in the federal IT and cybersecurity market should maintain standing E.D. Texas litigation readiness protocols.
PACSEC3 v RSA — key questions answered
The without-prejudice dismissal means PACSEC3 retains full rights to refile infringement claims based on US7523497B2 against RSA Federal or any other party. No merits determination was made, so the patent’s validity and the defendant’s infringement remain legally unresolved. PACSEC3 is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel from bringing future actions on this patent.
The case was dismissed before RSA Federal had filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, which is the earliest point at which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A 111-day timeline to dismissal at this procedural stage is consistent with early settlement negotiations, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision to redirect enforcement efforts — none of which are disclosed in the public record.
US7523497B2 covers a packet flooding defense system, a network security technology addressing denial-of-service and packet flood attack detection and mitigation. Vendors of DDoS protection appliances, network intrusion prevention systems, traffic anomaly detection platforms, and packet filtering products — particularly those serving US federal and defence customers — should assess their exposure to this patent’s claims.
Fish & Richardson is one of the leading patent litigation defence firms in the US, with extensive experience in E.D. Texas proceedings. Their early entry into the case before the defendant even filed an answer suggests RSA Federal mounted an active defence posture from the outset. This may have influenced PACSEC3’s decision to dismiss, though the public record does not confirm any causal link.
Yes. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice, PACSEC3 can refile claims based on US7523497B2 against RSA Federal at any time within the applicable statute of limitations, subject to any private agreement that may have been reached between the parties. A second voluntary dismissal without prejudice against the same defendant, however, would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.