ThroughPuter v. Microsoft: 11-Patent Cloud Computing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ThroughPuter, Inc. filed suit against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Washington, asserting 11 patents covering cloud computing task scheduling and resource allocation against Microsoft Azure. After 1,079 days of litigation, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that permanently extinguishes ThroughPuter’s infringement claims.
ThroughPuter’s 11-Patent Cloud Computing Assault on Microsoft Azure Ends Permanently
ThroughPuter, Inc. filed Case No. 2:22-cv-00344 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 23, 2022, asserting infringement of 11 U.S. patents directed at cloud computing task scheduling, GPU resource allocation, and dynamic workload management against Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform. The case was assigned to Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. The patent portfolio spans application filings from at least 2014 through 2021, covering a family of inventions relating to programmable hardware task scheduling across cloud infrastructure.
The case closed on March 6, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the parties agreed to dismissal with prejudice of all of ThroughPuter’s infringement claims — meaning ThroughPuter cannot re-file the same claims against Microsoft. The parties further agreed that costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees would be borne by the party that incurred them, with no fee award to either side. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation.
At 1,079 days — nearly three full years — the duration suggests the case progressed meaningfully through claim construction or discovery before resolution. The public record does not disclose whether a license, settlement payment, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal; the stipulation is silent on financial terms. The with-prejudice designation combined with no fee-shifting is a pattern typically consistent with a confidential settlement, though this cannot be confirmed from the docket alone. The survival of ThroughPuter’s broader patent portfolio outside this action remains an open commercial question for Microsoft and competing cloud providers.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1079 days
1,079 days — nearly three years of active litigation before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated termination means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties and, when entered with prejudice, operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. ThroughPuter cannot re-assert these 11 patent claims against Microsoft in any future action. This is the most final resolution short of a trial verdict, and it was entered voluntarily by both sides through counsel.
Permanent claim barThroughPuter’s infringement claims against Microsoft are permanently extinguished
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, ThroughPuter has permanently surrendered its right to sue Microsoft on all 11 asserted patents for the conduct at issue. While the patents themselves remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other defendants, ThroughPuter’s litigation leverage specifically against Microsoft Azure is eliminated. The no-fee-shifting term suggests neither party obtained a clear litigation win, consistent with a negotiated exit.
Claims barred vs. MicrosoftMicrosoft obtains a permanent shield against these 11 patents
Microsoft exits this litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — meaning res judicata protection against ThroughPuter re-asserting these specific patents for the same Azure functionalities. No damages were awarded and no injunction was entered. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure means Microsoft absorbed its own defence costs, which given its use of Fish & Richardson, Desmarais, and Morgan Lewis teams across multiple offices, was likely substantial. The commercial risk from this particular patent family is now neutralised.
Full res judicata protectionThroughPuter’s portfolio remains live — other cloud providers should take note
The 11 patents asserted here cover cloud task-scheduling and programmable hardware resource allocation — technology central to Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud alike. The dismissal resolves Microsoft’s exposure but does not extinguish the patents. Competing cloud platform operators and hyperscalers building dynamic workload distribution systems should assess FTO exposure against ThroughPuter’s portfolio, particularly given the breadth of the family spanning nine application filings from 2014 to 2021.
Portfolio risk remains for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ThroughPuter, Inc. | Company | Cloud computing task-scheduling patent holder — asserting 11 patents against AzureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Corporation — developer and operator of the Azure cloud computing platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chad Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cook Alciati | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dana Duane McDaniel | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Allen Lowe | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hugh McCoy Fain , III | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joanne S Richards | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence D. Graham | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maurice Francis Mullins | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Dorfman | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert J. Morad | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas F Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wayne Michael Helge | Attorney | Counsel for ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey LLP | Law Firm | Representing ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GARDELLA ALCIATI | Law Firm | Representing ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lowe Graham Jones, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spotts Fain PC | Law Firm | Representing ThroughPuter, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ahmed J. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ari M Sillman | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Betty H. Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Excylyn J Hardin-Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John S. Goetz | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nichole Buck Vanderslice | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patricia A. Eakes | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Per D. Jansen | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Christian & Barton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DESMARAIS LLP (SF) | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FISH & RICHARDSON PC (DALLAS) | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FISH & RICHARDSON PC (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FISH & RICHARDSON PC (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation expressly names all 11 patent numbers and confirms dismissal with prejudice of all infringement claims, leaving no ambiguity about scope. The phrasing ‘any and all of the parties’ claims’ and the enumeration of each patent number individually suggests counsel for both sides structured the dismissal to foreclose any argument that a claim was inadvertently preserved. The no-fee-shifting term is notable: in cases where one party capitulates entirely, fee-shifting is common; its absence here is consistent with a mutually negotiated commercial resolution, though the public record does not confirm this.
US9,424,090 and 10 further patents — cloud task scheduling & resource allocation
The 11 asserted patents — anchored by US9,424,090 (application filed 2014) and extending through US11,150,948 — form a coherent family directed at systems and methods for scheduling tasks across programmable hardware resources in cloud computing environments. The portfolio covers dynamic allocation of GPU and FPGA-type resources among competing application workloads, a technical domain central to modern cloud infrastructure. The filing timeline, spanning 2014 to 2021, reflects a deliberate continuation strategy to maintain prosecution pressure as cloud architectures evolved. The breadth of claim coverage across 11 grants is unusual and signals a well-resourced prosecution effort.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its alignment with the architecture underlying every major cloud platform’s GPU and accelerated computing layer. As AI inference and training workloads have made dynamic hardware scheduling central to hyperscaler differentiation, patents covering task arbitration and programmable resource allocation have appreciated in enforcement value. ThroughPuter’s decision to assert all 11 patents simultaneously against Azure — rather than a subset — suggests confidence in claim breadth and a strategy designed to maximise settlement pressure. Other cloud platform operators building GPU orchestration, serverless compute, and multi-tenant accelerated inference systems should assess their own exposure to this portfolio.
Should you run an FTO against ThroughPuter’s cloud scheduling patent family?
Any organisation developing or operating cloud computing infrastructure that dynamically allocates GPU, FPGA, or accelerated compute resources across concurrent workloads should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. ThroughPuter’s claims survived to a negotiated with-prejudice dismissal against Microsoft — meaning the patents were not invalidated or narrowed in public proceedings. Product teams building multi-tenant AI inference platforms, serverless GPU compute, or dynamic workload orchestration layers are operating in the direct claim scope suggested by this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map ThroughPuter’s 11-patent family against your specific product architecture, identify overlapping claim language, and surface prior art that could support design-around or invalidity positions. Eureka’s citation graph also identifies any pending continuation applications in the family — critical given the seven-year prosecution window — allowing teams to monitor claim amendments that could be tailored to emerging GPU orchestration architectures before grant.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9632833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cloud computing patent infringement cases in W.D. Washington
Cases involving cloud platform patent assertions — particularly GPU scheduling and resource allocation — litigated in the Western District of Washington before Judge Rothstein and peers.
What this case signals for the cloud computing IP landscape
Eleven asserted patents, three years of litigation, and a permanent dismissal — the ThroughPuter v. Microsoft outcome carries sector-wide implications for cloud platform IP risk.
With-prejudice dismissals after multi-year litigation typically signal settlement
When litigation runs nearly three years before a stipulated with-prejudice dismissal, the resolution pattern strongly suggests a confidential commercial arrangement. The public record is silent on any payment, but the no-fee-shifting term — where each side bears its own costs — is inconsistent with a simple surrender by ThroughPuter. IP teams monitoring enforcement signals should treat this as a likely negotiated exit.
Broad patent families covering cloud scheduling remain high-value enforcement tools
ThroughPuter’s 11-patent family, spanning application dates from 2014 to 2021, reflects a disciplined continuation strategy in cloud resource allocation and programmable hardware scheduling. This architecture of overlapping claims is designed to maximise assertion leverage across multiple platforms. Azure was the first public target, but the portfolio’s claims are not Microsoft-specific — every major hyperscaler operating dynamic GPU workload systems carries potential exposure.
ThroughPuter v Microsoft — key questions answered
ThroughPuter asserted 11 U.S. patents: US9,424,090; US9,632,833; US10,133,599; US10,310,902; US10,318,353; US10,430,242; US10,437,644; US10,620,998; US10,963,306; US11,036,556; and US11,150,948. All are directed at cloud computing task scheduling, dynamic resource allocation, and programmable hardware workload management, asserted against Microsoft Azure and its cloud computing functionalities.
The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning both sides agreed to the finality. A with-prejudice designation permanently bars ThroughPuter from re-asserting the same claims against Microsoft. This is typically associated with a negotiated resolution — whether a settlement payment, license, or other commercial arrangement — though the public record does not disclose financial terms.
No. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes ThroughPuter’s right to sue Microsoft on these specific claims but does not invalidate the patents themselves. The 11 patents remain in force and ThroughPuter retains the right to assert them against other defendants. Other cloud platform operators — AWS, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud — are not protected by this dismissal.
The stipulation provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, exceptional patent cases can result in fee awards to the prevailing party. The absence of fee-shifting here is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a decisive win for either side, suggesting the case ended on commercially agreed terms rather than after a dispositive ruling.
The case ran for 1,079 days, from March 23, 2022 to March 6, 2025. This duration — nearly three years — is consistent with a case that proceeded through substantial pre-trial activity, likely including claim construction briefing and significant discovery. Cases that settle at the outset typically resolve within 12–18 months; the extended duration here suggests the parties litigated meaningfully before reaching a resolution, which typically increases the probability that a commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.