Sulaco Enterprises LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
Infringement action filed 5 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 6 Apr 2026, with US8990942B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8990942B2
- Application no.
- US13/893943
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-01192
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 5 Dec 2025 – 6 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 122 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- CloudGuard CDR · CloudGuard CNAPP · CloudGuard Code Security · CloudGuard Network Security, · CloudGuard Posture Management · CloudGuard WAF · CloudGuard Wiz · CloudGuard Workload · Developer Security, Quantum Network Products,
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Methods and systems for API-level intrusion detection
This disclosure generally relates to computer security, and more particularly to methods and systems for application programming interface (API)-level intrusion detection. In some embodiments, a computer-readable medium is disclosed, storing instructions for: receiving an API call for a service at an API sandbox module; parsing the API call to extract at least one of: an API call name; and or one or more API call parameters; generating a copy of the at least one of: the API call name and or the one or more API call parameters; determining, via an intrusion detection rules execution engine, whether the API call violates one or more security rules obtained from a security rules object, using the copy of the at least one of: the API call name and or the one or more API call parameters; and providing an indication of whether the API call violates the one or more security rules.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 24 Mar 2015
- Earliest priority
- 18 Feb 2013
- Est. expiry
- 9 Jul 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- THAKADU, ANAND · BHATTACHARYA, ANIRBAN · SHETTY, KULDIP · PRASAD MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, KRISHNA · KUMBLE, RAVI UDAYA · BHATTACHARYA, SOURAV · ALURI, VENU · PATEL, VITESH
- Classification
- G06F21/00G06F21/52G06F21/55
- Prosecution counsel
- Stevens & Lee PC
- Examiner
- PWU, JEFFREY
Parties of record
Sulaco Enterprises LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alfred Ross Fabricant · Peter Lambrianakos · Vincent J. Rubino III
- Firm
- Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP
Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alfred Ross Fabricant | Sulaco Enterprises LLC | Plaintiff |
| Peter Lambrianakos | Sulaco Enterprises LLC | Plaintiff |
| Vincent J. Rubino III | Sulaco Enterprises LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Sulaco Enterprises LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 10). In the Notice, Plaintiff states that it dismisses its case against Defendant Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (“Defendant”) with prejudice. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief asserted by the parties in the case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case because no parties or disputes remain.”
Case 2:25-cv-01192 · E.D. Tex. · closed 6 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-01192?
2:25-cv-01192 is a patent infringement action brought by Sulaco Enterprises LLC against Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., filed on 5 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 6 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-01192?
US8990942B2 (“Methods and systems for API-level intrusion detection”), assigned to IP3 2024, SERIES 924 OF ALLIED SECURITY TRUST I, currently active. The record also lists CloudGuard CDR, CloudGuard CNAPP, CloudGuard Code Security, CloudGuard Network Security,, CloudGuard Posture Management, CloudGuard WAF, CloudGuard Wiz, CloudGuard Workload and Developer Security, Quantum Network Products,.
How was case 2:25-cv-01192 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Sulaco Enterprises LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 10). In the Notice, Plaintiff states that it dismisses its case against Defendant Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (“Defendant”) with prejudice. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief asserted by the parties
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-01192 take?
122 calendar days, from filing on 5 Dec 2025 to closure on 6 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01192?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Sulaco Enterprises.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01192 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.