SecurityProfiling v. Zoho: Four-Patent Cybersecurity Suit Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
SecurityProfiling, LLC asserted four US patents covering cybersecurity profiling and threat detection against Zoho Corporation’s ManageEngine systems in the Western District of Texas. The case closed after just 120 days via voluntary dismissal without prejudice — leaving the door open for future action.
Short-lived cybersecurity IP assault on Zoho’s ManageEngine platform
On 19 February 2024, SecurityProfiling, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Zoho Corporation in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00096), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted four issued US patents — US10609063B1, US10873595B1, US9118711B2, and US9100431B2 — against Zoho’s ManageEngine product suite, a widely deployed IT management and cybersecurity platform.
The case closed on 18 June 2024 — just 120 days after filing — when SecurityProfiling filed a unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal requires no court order and is available only before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment; the without-prejudice designation means SecurityProfiling retains the right to refile the same claims in a future action.
The speed of resolution — before substantive motion practice — suggests the parties may have reached an early-stage commercial accommodation, or that SecurityProfiling elected to regroup before Zoho mounted a formal defence. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing agreement, or reason for the withdrawal, and the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal leaves material strategic ambiguity for Zoho and the ManageEngine user ecosystem.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 120 days
120 days — resolved well before typical WDTX trial schedule
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral exit before answer filed
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The timing here — 120 days in — suggests Zoho had not yet filed a responsive pleading, giving SecurityProfiling a clean procedural exit requiring no judicial approval.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the critical distinction the public record confirms
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. Here, the dismissal notice expressly stated ‘without prejudice,’ meaning SecurityProfiling’s four patents remain available as enforcement tools. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently extinguish the claims. The public record is silent on whether any settlement or licensing arrangement accompanied the exit.
Claims may be refiledZoho wins the battle — but not necessarily the war
Zoho escaped this action without a merits adjudication, avoiding claim construction, discovery costs, and trial risk. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Zoho has received no ruling that its ManageEngine systems are non-infringing or that the asserted patents are invalid. The threat of re-litigation persists unless a confidential licence or covenant not to sue was obtained.
No invalidity ruling securedManageEngine ecosystem faces unresolved patent exposure
Zoho’s ManageEngine platform serves a large enterprise customer base globally. With four cybersecurity patents still alive and no court finding on their validity or scope, competitors, resellers, and enterprise customers building on ManageEngine face continuing FTO uncertainty. Other vendors offering overlapping IT security management functionality should treat these patents as active enforcement assets until licensed or invalidated.
FTO risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SecurityProfiling, LLC | Company | Cybersecurity patent licensing entity — holder of US10609063B1 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zoho Corporation | Company | Zoho Corporation — enterprise software vendor, developer of ManageEngine IT management systemsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Buss & Benefield, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SecurityProfiling, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darryl Adams | Attorney | Counsel for Zoho CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Phillip J. Haack | Attorney | Counsel for Zoho CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan J. Marton | Attorney | Counsel for Zoho CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zoho CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Zoho CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) verbatim and expressly designates the dismissal as without prejudice. This precise language is significant: it confirms no merits adjudication occurred, no consent from Zoho was required, and SecurityProfiling’s four asserted patents remain fully enforceable. The phrasing leaves no ambiguity about re-litigation rights, but provides no insight into whether a commercial resolution was reached outside the court record.
US10609063B1 — cybersecurity profiling and threat detection systems
The four asserted patents — US10609063B1 (App. No. 15/608,978), US10873595B1 (App. No. 16/740,961), US9118711B2 (App. No. 14/499,246), and US9100431B2 (App. No. 14/499,230) — relate to cybersecurity profiling, network vulnerability assessment, and automated threat detection. The family spans application dates from at least 2014 through 2019, suggesting a deliberately constructed multi-generation patent portfolio covering evolving security management methodologies.
ManageEngine by Zoho is among the most widely deployed IT security and operations management platforms globally, with modules covering SIEM, vulnerability management, endpoint security, and compliance. The breadth of functionality covered by ManageEngine makes it a commercially significant target for cybersecurity patent assertions. Any company developing or reselling overlapping security profiling or automated threat response capabilities should assess these four patents carefully, as the portfolio remains active and unresolved.
Should your team run an FTO against US10609063B1 and its related patents?
Any organisation developing, licensing, or deploying IT security management software with threat profiling, vulnerability scoring, or automated detection capabilities should treat this patent family as an active risk. SecurityProfiling’s willingness to litigate in WDTX and its four-patent assertion strategy indicate a structured enforcement posture. The without-prejudice dismissal means no court has limited the patents’ scope or invalidated any claim — the full enforcement envelope remains intact.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and product teams to map claim scope across US10609063B1, US10873595B1, US9118711B2, and US9100431B2 against your specific product architecture. Eureka surfaces prior art candidates, identifies design-around opportunities, and flags related continuation or divisional applications that could extend SecurityProfiling’s enforcement reach — helping R&D and legal teams make informed build-vs-licence decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10609063B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cybersecurity patent infringement cases in WDTX
Cases involving cybersecurity and IT management software patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas follow comparable filing and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity IT management IP landscape
A rapid without-prejudice exit in WDTX often signals strategic repositioning, not surrender — particularly with four patents still in play.
Early dismissal without prejudice is a classic PAE reset signal
When a plaintiff exits before the defendant answers, it typically indicates one of three scenarios: a pre-litigation settlement, a licensing deal, or a strategic recalibration. SecurityProfiling’s use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) preserves full optionality. Companies in the IT security management space should monitor SecurityProfiling’s portfolio for refiling activity against Zoho or analogous defendants.
WDTX and Judge Albright remain a high-stakes venue for software patent plaintiffs
Filing before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas signals plaintiff intent to leverage one of the most plaintiff-friendly patent dockets in the US. Even a short case here generates defendant costs and management distraction. The rapid closure here does not diminish the venue’s significance for future actions involving these or related patents.
SecurityProfiling v Zoho — key questions answered
SecurityProfiling asserted four patents: US10609063B1, US10873595B1, US9118711B2, and US9100431B2. All relate to cybersecurity profiling and threat detection and were asserted against Zoho’s ManageEngine product suite in the Western District of Texas.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice requires no court order and no explanation. Common drivers include early licensing discussions, strategic re-evaluation, or preparation to refile. The without-prejudice designation preserves SecurityProfiling’s right to bring the same claims again.
No. A without-prejudice dismissal carries no finding on the merits. No court ruled on whether ManageEngine infringes the asserted patents or whether those patents are valid. Zoho and ManageEngine users retain the same patent exposure they had before the suit was filed unless a separate licence or covenant not to sue was obtained privately.
Judge Albright’s docket in the Western District of Texas has historically been one of the most active patent litigation venues in the US, known for plaintiff-friendly scheduling orders and active case management. Filing in WDTX signals a plaintiff’s intent to pursue aggressive enforcement timelines, even if, as here, the case resolves before substantive proceedings.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), SecurityProfiling is not barred from asserting US10609063B1, US10873595B1, US9118711B2, or US9100431B2 against Zoho in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreement reached between the parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.