PacSec3 vs. Lumen Technologies: Stipulated Dismissal in Network Security Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | PacSec3, LLC v. Lumen Technologies, Inc. |
| Case Number | 2:25-cv-00668 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | June 30, 2025 – March 2, 2026 245 days |
| Outcome | Stipulated Dismissal — No Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Lumen’s packet flooding defense system |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting intellectual property rights related to cybersecurity and network defense technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
Major U.S. telecommunications and managed services provider offering enterprise networking, cloud connectivity, and cybersecurity solutions globally.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case centered on **US Patent No. 7,523,497 B2**, covering a packet flooding defense system — a cybersecurity technology with direct relevance to telecommunications infrastructure. The patent protects systems and methods for defending against **packet flooding attacks**.
- • US7,523,497 B2 — Packet flooding defense system
Developing Network Security Solutions?
Check if your packet flooding defense system might infringe this or related patents before deployment.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On March 2, 2026, Chief Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 23), ordering: All of PacSec3’s claims dismissed with prejudice (meaning they cannot be re-filed) and all of Lumen’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice (meaning Lumen retains the right to reassert them). No damages award was entered, and no injunctive relief was granted. The case terminated entirely on stipulated terms.
Key Legal Issues
The dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims is the dispositive legal event here. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits — PacSec3 cannot reassert the same infringement claims against Lumen based on US7,523,497 B2 arising from this dispute period.
The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is tactically significant. Lumen preserved its counterclaims (likely including invalidity challenges and/or non-infringement declarations) without conceding them. The absence of fee-shifting suggests neither party sought nor obtained 35 U.S.C. § 285 “exceptional case” sanctions.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in Network Security
This case highlights critical IP risks in network security. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this network security litigation.
- View all related patents in this network defense space
- See which companies are most active in network security patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for packet flooding defense
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your network security technology or solution.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Packet flooding defense systems (DDoS mitigation)
15+ Related Patents
In network defense space
Design-Around Options
Available for most network defense claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Joint stipulations with asymmetric prejudice terms (plaintiff with prejudice / defendant without) are powerful negotiating outcomes in NPE defense.
Search related case law →The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred NPE venue; Judge Gilstrap’s docket management encourages early resolution.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved US Patent No. 7,523,497 B2 (Application No. US10/841,064), covering a packet flooding defense system — a network security technology relevant to DDoS attack mitigation.
The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under FRCP Rule 41. Dismissal with prejudice was agreed upon by both parties, permanently barring PacSec3 from re-asserting these claims against Lumen on this patent.
It reinforces that early, structured negotiation in E.D. Texas can efficiently resolve NPE assertions. Companies deploying packet flooding defense technologies should conduct FTO analysis against this patent family.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas — Case 2:25-cv-00668
- Google Patents — US7,523,497 B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 285
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Network Security
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.