SecurityProfiling, LLC v. VMware, Inc. — 8 Patents, 102-Day Dismissal
SecurityProfiling, LLC brought an eight-patent infringement action against VMware in the Western District of Texas, asserting claims covering anti-vulnerability systems, multi-path remediation, and real-time vulnerability monitoring. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after just 102 days, consistent with a confidential settlement agreement reached between the parties.
Eight-patent cybersecurity portfolio asserted against VMware, resolved in under four months
On 10 November 2023, SecurityProfiling, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00768) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted eight US patents — covering anti-vulnerability systems, multi-path remediation computer program products, and real-time vulnerability monitoring — against VMware, Inc., one of the world’s largest virtualisation and cloud infrastructure vendors.
The case closed on 20 February 2024, just 102 days after filing. SecurityProfiling filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), explicitly referencing ‘the terms of a separate agreement with the Defendant.’ Each party agreed to bear its own costs. Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes SecurityProfiling’s right to reassert these specific claims against VMware in any future proceeding.
A 102-day resolution on an eight-patent assertion is notably fast and suggests either an early licensing agreement or a negotiated lump-sum settlement before substantive claim construction briefing. The ‘separate agreement’ language in the dismissal notice is standard for confidential settlements; no financial terms are publicly available. What remains unknown is whether VMware received a licence to the asserted portfolio or simply bought freedom from further litigation.
Filing to dismissal in 102 days
102 days — well under the median resolution time for multi-patent district court infringement actions
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) and private agreement
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — no court order required
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal requires only a signed notice by all parties — no judicial approval needed. Filing it with prejudice is a deliberate choice by the plaintiff, permanently barring re-litigation of the same claims. Here, SecurityProfiling’s explicit reference to a ‘separate agreement’ confirms the dismissal was negotiated, not unilateral.
Plaintiff-initiated, prejudice-finalEach party bears its own fees — no fee-shifting order
The dismissal notice expressly allocates all attorney fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses to the party that incurred them. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical of negotiated resolutions and suggests neither party had leverage for a fee-shifting award. It also signals the case was resolved before significant discovery or expert costs had accumulated on VMware’s side.
Mutual cost-bearingEight patents spanning the vulnerability-management stack
The asserted portfolio spans application numbers from US14/499230 through US16/740961, covering anti-vulnerability system architecture, multi-path remediation workflows, and real-time monitoring. The breadth of eight patents across multiple application families signals a purposeful assertion strategy — likely intended to maximise licensing pressure rather than litigate a single narrow claim.
8-patent assertion portfolioWDTX / Judge Albright — a deliberate plaintiff choice
The Western District of Texas under Judge Alan Albright remains a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs despite recent venue-transfer scrutiny. Filing here typically signals a plaintiff seeking scheduling-order certainty and an established patent litigation docket. The case resolved before any substantive Albright-specific procedural milestones such as a Markman hearing, suggesting VMware moved quickly to resolve.
WDTX — plaintiff-friendly venueFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SecurityProfiling, LLC | Company | Cybersecurity patent licensing entity — holder of an 8-patent anti-vulnerability and remediation portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VMware, Inc. | Company | VMware, Inc. — global virtualisation and cloud infrastructure software vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian K. Buss | Attorney | Counsel for SecurityProfiling, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Benefield | Attorney | Counsel for SecurityProfiling, 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 dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and explicitly cites a ‘separate agreement’ with VMware — standard language indicating a confidential licence or settlement. The with-prejudice designation means SecurityProfiling permanently waives the right to sue VMware on these eight patents. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests the financial terms were folded into the private agreement rather than adjudicated. No claim construction or infringement finding was made; the patents’ validity and scope remain legally untested in this proceeding.
US10609063B1 and 7 further patents — anti-vulnerability and real-time remediation systems
The eight asserted patents share a common technical domain: automated detection, scoring, and multi-path remediation of software and network vulnerabilities. Application numbers span the US14 through US16 series, indicating a continuation prosecution strategy that layered new claim sets onto core disclosures over roughly five years. The portfolio covers both system-level architecture (anti-vulnerability apparatus) and method and computer program product claims, providing multiple infringement theories against a single accused product.
For vendors in the cloud security, endpoint protection, or vulnerability management space, this portfolio represents a credible assertion risk precisely because it spans multiple claim types and filing generations. VMware’s virtualisation and cloud infrastructure products — including tools with security posture and compliance monitoring functions — sit squarely in the accused product categories described in the complaint. The portfolio’s breadth is consistent with a licensing programme targeting the entire vulnerability-management vendor ecosystem, not a single product line.
Should your team run an FTO against SecurityProfiling’s vulnerability-management portfolio?
Any company offering anti-vulnerability scanning, automated remediation workflows, or real-time security monitoring as part of a cloud, endpoint, or network security product should treat this portfolio as a live FTO risk. SecurityProfiling’s eight patents cover both system architecture and software product claims — meaning SaaS vendors, on-premise security appliance makers, and managed security service providers could all fall within the asserted scope. The VMware settlement did not produce a claim construction ruling, so the patents’ scope remains untested and potentially broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the independent claims of all eight asserted patents, flag continuation applications still in prosecution, and monitor the SecurityProfiling portfolio for new grants or assignments. Given the continuation filing strategy evident in this portfolio, claim monitoring is as important as point-in-time FTO clearance — a new continuation could introduce claims tailored to your specific product architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10609063B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cybersecurity NPE patent cases in WDTX and related jurisdictions
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 cybersecurity IP enforcement landscape
A fast, prejudice-final resolution on an eight-patent cybersecurity portfolio reveals how sophisticated defendants respond to licensing pressure in the vulnerability-management sector.
Patent licensing entities are building deep portfolios in the vulnerability-management space
SecurityProfiling’s eight-patent assertion across anti-vulnerability, remediation, and monitoring technologies reflects a maturing NPE strategy: assemble broad, layered portfolios that are expensive to design around. Vendors offering endpoint protection, vulnerability scanning, or cloud security posture management should audit exposure before receiving a complaint.
Fast resolution before Markman is a rational VMware-style response to broad NPE assertions
Resolving in 102 days — before substantive claim construction — limits total litigation spend and avoids public claim interpretation rulings that could complicate other proceedings. Large software defendants with extensive product portfolios often find early licensing commercially preferable to full-blown litigation, even when validity or non-infringement defences appear strong.
SecurityProfiling v VMware — key questions answered
SecurityProfiling asserted eight US patents: US10609063B1, US10873595B1, US10154055B2, US9118711B2, US10075466B1, US10547631B1, US9100431B2, and US10893066B1. The patents cover anti-vulnerability systems, multi-path remediation methods, and real-time vulnerability monitoring computer program products.
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 20 February 2024 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal notice referenced a separate private agreement with VMware. Each party agreed to bear its own attorney fees and litigation costs. No financial terms were made public.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars SecurityProfiling from reasserting the same eight patents against VMware in any future litigation. It is a final disposition on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion, even though no court ruling on infringement or validity was made.
The Western District of Texas, particularly before Judge Alan D. Albright, is a frequently chosen venue for patent plaintiffs due to its established patent litigation docket and predictable scheduling orders. Filing in WDTX is consistent with an NPE enforcement strategy seeking scheduling certainty and an experienced patent judge.
The settlement does not directly bind third parties. However, because the case was resolved before any claim construction ruling, the patents’ scope remains legally untested. Companies offering vulnerability management, automated remediation, or real-time security monitoring products should independently assess their exposure to the SecurityProfiling portfolio, including any pending continuation applications.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.