Sulaco v. Check Point Software: Dismissed with Prejudice in 122 Days
Sulaco Enterprises LLC asserted US8990942B2 against Check Point Software's CloudGuard portfolio — spanning network security, cloud posture, and WAF products — in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was dismissed with prejudice just 122 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
CloudGuard Infringement Suit Ends at Plaintiff's Initiative
Sulaco Enterprises LLC filed this infringement action on 5 December 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US8990942B2 against Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. The accused products span Check Point's CloudGuard suite, including CloudGuard CDR, CNAPP, Code Security, Network Security, Posture Management, WAF, Wiz, and Workload, as well as Developer Security and Quantum Network Products.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that Plaintiff Sulaco filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, which the Court accepted, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant with prejudice. The Court further ordered that the parties bear their own costs and attorneys' fees, and denied all pending requests for relief as moot.
Resolution in 122 days — before any substantive merits ruling is on record — suggests the matter concluded at plaintiff's initiative and without publicly disclosed negotiated terms. What drove Sulaco's decision to dismiss with prejudice at this stage, and whether any collateral arrangement exists between the parties, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 122 days
122 days — resolved well within the average E.D. Texas patent lifecycle
US8990942B2 — cybersecurity patent at the centre of CloudGuard dispute
Any company developing or commercialising cloud-native application protection platforms, network security gateways, web application firewalls, or cloud posture management tools should treat US8990942B2 as an active risk. The breadth of Check Point products named in this suit — from CDR to developer security — suggests the patent may be read broadly across cloud-security architectures. No court has construed or narrowed its claims.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order reflects acceptance of a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal with prejudice under the notice procedure, resulting in no merits adjudication on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The own-costs ruling is neutral — neither party was awarded fees — and all pending motions were denied as moot, leaving the substantive questions raised by the complaint entirely unresolved on the record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice bars all future claims on US8990942B2
A Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. By filing the Notice and having it accepted by the court, Sulaco permanently surrendered its right to re-assert these specific infringement claims against Check Point. The dismissal order also denied all pending relief as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.
Claim-preclusive dismissalSulaco forfeits right to re-sue Check Point on this patent
Dismissal with prejudice means Sulaco Enterprises cannot refile this action or relitigate the same infringement claims against Check Point Software on US8990942B2. The patent itself remains in force, and Sulaco may still assert it against third parties, but Check Point gains substantial protection from this specific litigation record.
No re-filing against defendantCheck Point secures a preclusive bar without a merits ruling
Check Point Software achieves closure on this action without any admission of infringement or a finding on the validity or scope of US8990942B2. The with-prejudice dismissal and the own-costs order mean Check Point avoids both ongoing litigation exposure and fee-shifting risk. No defendant agents appear on record, consistent with early resolution.
No liability findingCloudGuard suite cleared of record — but patent remains live
US8990942B2 survives this litigation unscathed in terms of validity — no IPR, no invalidity ruling, no claim construction occurred. Other CloudGuard competitors or cloud-security vendors operating in adjacent spaces should note that Sulaco retains the patent and may assert it elsewhere. The early dismissal leaves the patent's enforceability posture and commercial reach unresolved by any court.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sulaco Enterprises LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Sulaco Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Sulaco Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Sulaco Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sulaco Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the cloud security and CNAPP patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Sulaco v. Check Point action — relevant to cloud-security vendors, CNAPP developers, and network-security R&D teams.
Sulaco Enterprises' cybersecurity patent filing activity
Sulaco Enterprises LLC's assertion of US8990942B2 against a major cloud-security vendor suggests a focused patent portfolio in the cybersecurity domain. Mapping Sulaco's full portfolio — including continuations, divisionals, and related applications — can reveal whether additional patents are positioned for assertion against cloud-security, CNAPP, or network-protection products.
PAE portfolio monitoringFiling trends in cloud-native application protection (CNAPP)
The CNAPP and cloud posture management space is attracting growing patent activity from both operating companies and assertion entities. Tracking filing trends around cloud workload protection, CDR, and WAF technologies can identify emerging whitespace and crowded claim areas before products ship — reducing downstream assertion risk from patents like US8990942B2.
CNAPP IP landscapeCheck Point Software's defensive patent position in cloud security
Check Point Software is one of the largest cybersecurity IP holders globally. Analysing Check Point's own patent portfolio in cloud posture management, network security, and WAF domains reveals its defensive moat and any cross-licensing leverage it could deploy in future assertion scenarios. Their Quantum and CloudGuard filing clusters are particularly relevant.
Defensive portfolio analysisAdjacent innovation gaps near US8990942B2's claim space
With US8990942B2's claims never construed by a court, the boundaries of its coverage remain commercially undefined. Performing a prior-art landscape and white-space analysis around its application date (US13/893943) can surface unclaimed adjacent areas in cloud-security architecture — representing R&D filing opportunities or freedom-to-operate corridors for competing vendors.
IP white space mappingSimilar cloud-security patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting cybersecurity and cloud-protection patents in the Eastern District of Texas — the same court and technology domain as this Sulaco case.
What this case signals for the cloud security IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas leaves Check Point cleared but the patent live — signalling continued assertion risk for cloud-security vendors.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Check Point but not the broader market
The claim-preclusive dismissal shields Check Point specifically. However, US8990942B2 remains active and unlitigated on the merits. Competing cloud-security and CNAPP vendors should assess whether their product architectures share the technical characteristics targeted in this suit.
E.D. Texas and Judge Gilstrap remain a venue risk for cybersecurity defendants
Sulaco's choice of the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Gilstrap is consistent with established plaintiff-friendly venue strategy for patent assertion entities. Cloud-security companies without a Texas nexus should monitor assertion patterns here and ensure venue-transfer options are preserved from day one.
Sulaco v Check — key questions answered
Sulaco Enterprises LLC filed patent infringement claims against Check Point Software Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas on 5 December 2025, asserting US8990942B2. The case was dismissed with prejudice on 6 April 2026 — 122 days after filing — following Sulaco's filing of a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
The complaint named CloudGuard CDR, CloudGuard CNAPP, CloudGuard Code Security, CloudGuard Network Security, CloudGuard Posture Management, CloudGuard WAF, CloudGuard Wiz, CloudGuard Workload, Developer Security, and Quantum Network Products as accused products.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Sulaco Enterprises is permanently barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Check Point Software on US8990942B2. No liability finding was made against Check Point, and the own-costs order means no attorneys' fees were awarded to either party.
No. The case was dismissed before any claim construction, summary judgment, or invalidity proceedings. US8990942B2 was not adjudicated on the merits. Its claims remain judicially undefined, meaning the patent is still active and its scope untested against the accused CloudGuard product architecture.
US8990942B2 remains valid and enforceable following this dismissal. No prior art was found invalid and no claims were narrowed. Competitors operating in the CNAPP, cloud posture, WAF, and network-security segments should assess their exposure to this patent independently, as the dismissal only precludes further claims by Sulaco against Check Point specifically.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.