Sectra & Columbitech v. Absolute Software: NetMotion Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Sectra Communications AB and Columbitech Inc. filed suit against Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic in the Western District of Washington, asserting US7797437B2 against the NetMotion Mobility and NetMotion Platform products. After 965 days of litigation — with both Baker Botts and McDermott Will & Emery on the plaintiffs’ side and Cooley LLP defending — the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
A Hard-Fought Mobile Networking IP Dispute Ends by Mutual Agreement
On 23 March 2022, Sectra Communications AB — a Swedish secure communications company — and its US affiliate Columbitech Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:22-cv-00353) before Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The defendants, Absolute Software Inc. and its subsidiary Mobile Sonic Inc., are the developers of the NetMotion Mobility and NetMotion Platform products, which provide persistent wireless connectivity and network management for enterprise mobile devices. The asserted patent, US7797437B2, covers technology related to maintaining continuous wireless network sessions across network transitions.
The case closed on 12 November 2024 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both sides agreed to drop all claims and counterclaims permanently, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: the plaintiffs are barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic based on the same patent and accused products. The mutual cost allocation suggests neither side extracted a clear financial concession in settlement negotiations.
At 965 days, this dispute ran for nearly three years — long enough for substantial discovery, claim construction proceedings, and likely inter partes review activity to have shaped the parties’ risk calculus. The simultaneous engagement of Baker Botts, McDermott Will & Emery, and Kirkland & Ellis on the plaintiffs’ side, against Cooley LLP’s multi-office team, signals high-value stakes. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal, which is common in with-prejudice stipulations of this nature.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 965 days
965 days — roughly 2.6 years, above the median for patent cases in W.D. Washington
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a bilateral, court-free exit
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties and takes effect without a court order. Because this dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Sectra and Columbitech are permanently barred from asserting the same claims against these defendants on this patent. The mechanism is commonly used when parties reach a negotiated resolution they wish to keep confidential.
Permanent bar on re-filingSectra & Columbitech forgo future claims against these defendants
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Sectra and Columbitech permanently surrendered their right to sue Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic on US7797437B2 for the accused NetMotion products. Whether this reflects a confidential licensing resolution, a commercial arrangement, or a litigation cost-benefit assessment is not disclosed in the public record. Plaintiffs retain the right to enforce US7797437B2 against unrelated third parties.
Claims extinguished as to these defendantsAbsolute Software secures permanent protection from these claims
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic a durable shield: the same plaintiffs cannot revive this specific patent action. The mutual cost allocation — each side bearing its own fees — suggests Absolute Software did not obtain a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would have required a finding that the case was ‘exceptional.’ The NetMotion products continue to operate without a court-imposed injunction or damages ruling.
No damages, no injunctionUS7797437B2 remains enforceable — but these defendants are clear
The dismissal does not invalidate or limit US7797437B2. Sectra and Columbitech retain full enforcement rights against any other party developing mobile wireless session-persistence technology. For competitors in the enterprise mobile networking space beyond Absolute Software, the patent continues to represent a live litigation risk. The nearly three-year duration and heavy representation on both sides suggests the technology area carries meaningful commercial value.
Patent still in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sectra Communications, AB | Individual | Secure wireless communications technology group — holder of US7797437B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Columbitech Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Absolute Software, Inc. | Company | Enterprise mobile security and connectivity software developer; maker of NetMotion Mobility platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Mobile Sonic, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander T Piala | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett Thompsen | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian Taylor Tatum | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David J Tobin | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jiaxiao Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin J. Meek | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Puneet Kohli | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samoneh Kadivar Schickel | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen M. Hash | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Syed K Fareed | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Randolph Squires , III | Attorney | Counsel for Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Corr Cronin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | KIRKLAND & ELLIS (CA) | Law Firm | Representing Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP (AUSTIN) | Law Firm | Representing Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP (DALLAS) | Law Firm | Representing Sectra Communications, ABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra Leeper | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher B. Durbin | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Heidi L. Keefe | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph E. Van Tassel | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Juan Pablo Gonzalez | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyung Taeck Minn | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lam Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Orion Armon | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reuben H Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | COOLEY LLP (DENVER) | Law Firm | Representing Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (PALO ALTO) | Law Firm | Representing Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (WA) | Law Firm | Representing Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP | Law Firm | Representing Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Absolute Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ricardo S. Martinez | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language is unambiguous: all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, and each party bears its own costs. The absence of any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 indicates the court made no ‘exceptional case’ finding. The bilateral consent structure under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means the dismissal carries the force of a final judgment on the merits without any judicial findings on infringement, validity, or damages — leaving the underlying patent US7797437B2 intact and its scope legally untested by this proceeding.
US7797437B2 — Mobile wireless session continuity and network persistence technology
US7797437B2, filed under application number US10/432547, covers technology directed at maintaining continuous network sessions for mobile devices as they transition across wireless networks — a core capability underlying enterprise mobile productivity platforms. The patent’s application context places it in the early-to-mid 2000s era of enterprise wireless networking, when maintaining persistent IP sessions across heterogeneous networks (Wi-Fi, cellular, VPN) was a technically challenging and commercially valuable problem. The patent is assigned through the Sectra/Columbitech chain, reflecting Columbitech’s heritage as a wireless VPN and mobility software developer.
For the enterprise mobile networking sector, US7797437B2 represents the type of foundational connectivity patent that can create broad enforcement exposure. The NetMotion Mobility and NetMotion Platform products — Absolute Software’s flagship enterprise connectivity offerings — were accused of infringing claims that likely relate to session handoff and persistent tunnelling mechanisms. With mobile workforce management software proliferating across logistics, healthcare, and public safety sectors, any platform that maintains application-layer connectivity through network changes is potentially within the patent’s claim scope. The patent’s continued validity post-dismissal means it remains a strategic asset for further monetisation.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7797437B2?
If your product maintains persistent wireless sessions, handles VPN tunnelling for mobile devices, or manages network handoffs for enterprise endpoints, US7797437B2 warrants direct attention. The patent survived a nearly three-year litigation without being adjudicated invalid — meaning no IPR or court ruling has narrowed or invalidated its claims in this proceeding. Product teams building mobile device management (MDM), secure enterprise connectivity, or wireless session-persistence layers should conduct a claim-by-claim FTO analysis before deployment or expansion into the US market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7797437B2 against your product’s technical architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and identify the full Sectra/Columbitech patent family for related exposure. Eureka also tracks litigation history across this patent family, so you can assess enforcement patterns and judge whether a licensing conversation or design-around strategy is the more commercially efficient path.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7797437B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless networking and mobile session-continuity patent cases
Cases involving enterprise wireless session-persistence patents litigated in W.D. Washington and comparable district courts, including related mobile VPN and MDM technology disputes.
What this case signals for the enterprise mobile networking IP landscape
A high-cost, multi-firm stipulated dismissal with prejudice in W.D. Washington raises pointed questions for mobile connectivity patent holders and product developers alike.
With-prejudice exits often mask confidential licensing arrangements
When both sides absorb their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, a private licensing or cross-licensing deal is a common underlying driver. Patent holders and product counsel in the wireless networking space should monitor downstream licensing activity by Sectra and Columbitech as a signal of their continued enforcement strategy.
US7797437B2 remains a live risk for other NetMotion-adjacent technologies
The dismissal covers only Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic. Any other enterprise mobility platform that handles wireless session continuity across network transitions should treat US7797437B2 as an active enforcement asset. A freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent is advisable for products in the persistent mobile connectivity space.
AB v Absolute — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice bars Sectra Communications AB and Columbitech Inc. from re-filing infringement claims against Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic based on US7797437B2 and the NetMotion products. However, the patent itself is not invalidated and remains enforceable against other parties. No court findings were made on infringement or validity.
The co-counsel structure involving Baker Botts LLP, McDermott Will & Emery, and Kirkland & Ellis on the plaintiffs’ side suggests a well-resourced enforcement campaign. This arrangement is consistent with cases where a patent holder engages lead litigation counsel alongside specialised IP boutiques, though the specific division of work is not disclosed in public court records.
Not necessarily. The stipulation states each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs in the litigation, but this provision does not preclude a separate confidential licensing payment or commercial arrangement outside the court record. With-prejudice dismissals frequently accompany undisclosed settlements. The public record is silent on any financial terms beyond cost allocation.
The accused products were NetMotion Mobility and NetMotion Platform, both developed by Absolute Software (through its subsidiary Mobile Sonic). These are enterprise mobile connectivity and network management platforms that maintain persistent wireless sessions for field and mobile workers across heterogeneous network environments.
By Sectra and Columbitech — no. The with-prejudice stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently extinguishes the plaintiffs’ right to re-assert these specific claims against Absolute Software and Mobile Sonic. If US7797437B2 were assigned to a new owner, that party’s rights would depend on the terms of the assignment and the preclusive scope of the dismissal order.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.