QuickVault v. Forcepoint — 4-Patent DLP Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice in 143 Days
QuickVault, Inc. filed suit against Forcepoint, LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting four data-security patents against Forcepoint’s full DLP product suite. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice just 143 days after filing, with each side absorbing its own legal costs.
Four-patent DLP dispute resolved swiftly in Waco’s patent court
On 28 August 2023, QuickVault, Inc. filed an infringement action against Forcepoint, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 1:23-cv-01016, presided over by Chief Judge Alan D. Albright. QuickVault asserted four US patents — US10999300B2, US11637840B2, US9565200B2, and US9961092B2 — covering data security and access-control technologies. The accused products spanned Forcepoint’s entire DLP portfolio, including Forcepoint DLP – Cloud Applications, Endpoint, Network, and Discover, as well as Forcepoint Data Visibility, Forcepoint Insider Threat, and Risk Adaptive DLP.
The case closed on 18 January 2024, just 143 days after filing, when the court granted the parties’ agreed Motion for Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 15). All of QuickVault’s claims against Forcepoint were dismissed with prejudice, meaning QuickVault is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims arising from the same patents against Forcepoint in future litigation. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation.
A 143-day lifecycle suggests the parties reached an accommodation well before any substantive court proceedings — no claim construction, no dispositive motions, and no trial. The agreed nature of the dismissal and the with-prejudice designation together suggest a private resolution of some kind, though the public record does not disclose settlement terms, licence agreements, or any payment. What drove the early resolution — whether licence, commercial agreement, or simply a decision to abandon — remains undisclosed.
Filing to dismissal in 143 days
143 days — faster than the typical district court patent case lifecycle
Agreed dismissal with prejudice — what the court order means for both sides
Agreed motion signals bilateral resolution, not unilateral retreat
The dismissal was filed as an agreed motion, meaning both QuickVault and Forcepoint jointly petitioned the court to close the case. This is procedurally distinct from a defendant winning a motion to dismiss or a plaintiff voluntarily withdrawing. The bilateral framing consistently signals that the parties reached some form of accommodation, even if its terms are not public.
Joint agreed motion — ECF No. 15With-prejudice dismissal permanently bars QuickVault from refiling
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. QuickVault cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Forcepoint based on the four asserted patents. This provides Forcepoint with durable legal certainty over its DLP product suite for the asserted patent family. The with-prejudice designation, agreed to by QuickVault, typically implies the plaintiff received something of value in exchange.
Permanent bar on refiling — FRCP 41Each side bears own costs — neutral fee outcome consistent with settlement
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In patent litigation, this is the most common cost outcome in agreed dismissals and is consistent with a negotiated resolution. It avoids the exceptional-case fee-shifting analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and neither party is formally disadvantaged in the cost record.
No fee-shifting — § 285 not invokedFour patents asserted across Forcepoint’s full DLP product line
QuickVault asserted four granted US patents spanning multiple application dates, targeting seven distinct Forcepoint products — from cloud-based DLP to endpoint, network, and insider-threat solutions. The breadth of the accused product list suggests the complaint was designed to maximise commercial pressure. The fact that all claims were resolved together in a single agreed order reflects a global resolution across the entire asserted portfolio.
4 patents — 7 accused product linesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | QuickVault, Inc. | Company | Data-security patent assertion entity — holder of US10999300B2 and three further DLP patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Forcepoint, LLC | Company | Forcepoint, LLC — enterprise cybersecurity company specialising in data-loss prevention productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett T. Cooke | Attorney | Counsel for QuickVault, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David K. Ludwig | Attorney | Counsel for QuickVault, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Henry Artoush Ohanian | Attorney | Counsel for QuickVault, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Hill | Attorney | Counsel for QuickVault, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gilbert Andrew Greene | Attorney | Counsel for Forcepoint, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Holly Elin Engelmann | Attorney | Counsel for Forcepoint, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Andrew Liddell | Attorney | Counsel for Forcepoint, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order grants the parties’ agreed motion in full: all of QuickVault’s claims are dismissed with prejudice and each side bears its own costs. The phrasing ‘agreed Motion for Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice’ signals a consensual, bilateral exit. For Forcepoint, the with-prejudice designation provides durable protection against re-assertion of the same claims. For QuickVault, the absence of any adverse cost award preserves its financial position, which is consistent with receiving consideration outside the public court record.
US10999300B2 and 3 further patents — data security and access control for DLP
The four asserted patents — US10999300B2, US11637840B2, US9565200B2, and US9961092B2 — span multiple generations of application filings, suggesting a continuation or continuation-in-part family structure built over time. The patents sit within the data security and access-control domain, with the accused products being enterprise data-loss prevention systems. The breadth of the family, covering both earlier-generation patents (US9565200B2, US9961092B2) and more recently granted continuations (US10999300B2, US11637840B2), indicates a portfolio likely developed to cover evolving DLP architectures including cloud and endpoint deployments.
For DLP vendors and cybersecurity platform companies, this patent family represents the type of assertion risk that is structurally difficult to design around: continuation families that update claim scope to track commercial product evolution. The fact that Forcepoint’s full suite — spanning cloud, network, endpoint, and insider-threat products — was accused suggests the claims may be drafted at a level of abstraction that maps to foundational DLP operations. Competitors offering similar DLP architectures should treat this family as a live monitoring priority regardless of the dismissal outcome.
Should you run an FTO against US10999300B2 and related DLP patents?
Any enterprise cybersecurity vendor offering DLP capabilities — particularly cloud-based, endpoint, or network data-loss prevention — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against QuickVault’s four-patent family. The fact that Forcepoint’s entire product suite was accused, and that the case resolved without any public claim construction narrowing the scope, means the patents’ operative boundaries remain judicially untested. R&D teams developing or extending DLP, data-visibility, or insider-threat products face non-trivial assertion risk from this family until it is reviewed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10999300B2, US11637840B2, US9565200B2, and US9961092B2 against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and flag continuation applications that may extend the family further. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools allow your IP team to receive alerts if QuickVault files additional continuations or asserts these patents in new litigation — keeping your risk posture current without manual docket monitoring.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10999300B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar DLP and data-security patent infringement cases in Texas federal courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the enterprise DLP patent landscape
A fast, agreed exit with prejudice in Albright’s court carries specific signals for DLP vendors and patent holders alike.
Broad product targeting in DLP suits creates early settlement pressure
By accusing Forcepoint’s entire DLP suite — cloud, endpoint, network, and insider threat — QuickVault maximised its commercial leverage from day one. Vendors facing multi-product assertions in Judge Albright’s court should treat early case evaluation as urgent: the Western District of Texas schedules move fast, and pre-discovery resolution windows close quickly.
Agreed with-prejudice dismissals are the expected exit in West Texas patent cases
The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright sees a disproportionate share of patent cases that settle before claim construction. A 143-day lifecycle with an agreed with-prejudice exit is consistent with that pattern. DLP vendors and data-security companies should assume West Texas filings are engineered for early commercial resolution, not full trial.
QuickVault v Forcepoint — key questions answered
QuickVault, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Forcepoint, LLC in the Western District of Texas on 28 August 2023, asserting four data-security patents against Forcepoint’s DLP product suite. The case was dismissed with prejudice by agreed motion on 18 January 2024, 143 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
QuickVault asserted four US patents: US10999300B2, US11637840B2, US9565200B2, and US9961092B2. These patents relate to data security and access-control technologies and were asserted against seven Forcepoint DLP products including Forcepoint DLP – Cloud Applications, Endpoint, Network, Discover, Data Visibility, Insider Threat, and Risk Adaptive DLP.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under FRCP 41. It permanently bars QuickVault from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Forcepoint based on the four asserted patents. QuickVault agreed to this designation, which typically suggests the plaintiff received some form of consideration, though the public record does not disclose any settlement terms.
QuickVault was represented by Brett T. Cooke (Brett T. Cooke Law Office), Steven G. Hill (Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP), and Henry Artoush Ohanian (Ohanianip), among others. Forcepoint was represented by Gilbert Andrew Greene, Holly Elin Engelmann, and William Andrew Liddell of Duane Morris, LLP.
The case resolved without any claim construction or substantive court ruling, meaning the operative scope of the four QuickVault patents remains judicially untested. Other DLP vendors offering comparable cloud, endpoint, or network data-loss prevention products should consider an FTO review against the QuickVault patent family, particularly given the continuation-based portfolio structure which may support further assertions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.