Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Check Point Software: RBI Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC asserted US9118712B2 — covering cloud-hosted Remote Browser Isolation — against Check Point Software Technologies in the Northern District of Texas. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 64 days after filing, before Check Point filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
A rapid exit: RBI patent claim dropped before Check Point responded
On 4 February 2025, Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC filed suit against Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Karen Gren Scholer. The complaint asserted US9118712B2 (application no. US12/982504), a patent covering Remote Browser Isolation — a security architecture in which a cloud-hosted, sandboxed browser renders web content on behalf of end users to prevent malware from reaching local devices. Check Point’s accused product was its commercially deployed RBI solution within its web security portfolio.
The case closed on 9 April 2025 — just 64 days after filing — when Touchpoint filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Check Point had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Touchpoint was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing Touchpoint’s right to re-assert the same claims against Check Point on US9118712B2.
A 64-day lifecycle — from complaint to dismissal with prejudice — is notably short even by the standards of cases that settle early. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement, license, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal. The absence of any defendant filings suggests Check Point mounted no formal litigation response before the case was dropped. What drove Touchpoint’s decision to close with prejudice, rather than without, remains unknown from publicly available documents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 64 days
Resolved in 64 days — well under the district median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 closure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before any defence filing
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Touchpoint invoked this rule, confirming Check Point had filed neither. The plaintiff chose to take the dismissal with prejudice — a voluntary escalation beyond what the rule requires, converting a procedural exit into a final bar against re-litigation of the same claims.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) closureWith prejudice: Touchpoint cannot re-sue Check Point on this patent
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Touchpoint is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Check Point under US9118712B2. This goes further than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to re-file. The public record does not state why Touchpoint accepted this permanent bar — whether driven by a negotiated resolution, a strategic reassessment of claim strength, or another commercial factor is not disclosed.
Permanent claim barCheck Point exits without conceding liability or paying recorded damages
Check Point Software Technologies achieved a full exit from this litigation without filing a single pleading and without any recorded finding of infringement or damages award. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal also insulates Check Point from any future claim by Touchpoint on this patent. However, the dismissal does not affect the patent’s validity or Check Point’s exposure to claims from any other patent holder asserting related RBI technology.
No liability findingRBI patent risk remains live for the broader web security market
US9118712B2 survives this case fully intact — no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no merits ruling was issued. Other vendors deploying cloud-sandboxed Remote Browser Isolation architectures remain potential targets. The speed and finality of this dismissal provides no public signal about claim strength or infringement risk, leaving the patent’s enforceability an open question for competitors operating in the cloud-hosted web security space.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9118712B2 covering Remote Browser IsolationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. | Company | Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. — global cybersecurity vendor, RBI solution providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Karen Gren Scholer | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms Check Point had served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment — establishing the procedural precondition for a unilateral plaintiff exit. Critically, Touchpoint affirmatively designated the dismissal as with prejudice, a choice that forecloses any future infringement action by Touchpoint against Check Point under US9118712B2. No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity determination was made; the case closed entirely on procedural and party-consent grounds.
US9118712B2 — Remote Browser Isolation, cloud-sandboxed web rendering
US9118712B2 (application US12/982504) protects a Remote Browser Isolation architecture in which internet content requested by an end user is rendered inside a cloud-hosted browser operating within a sandboxed environment. The rendered output — rather than the raw web content — is delivered to the user’s device, preventing malware embedded in web pages from ever reaching the endpoint. This isolation-by-design approach represents a significant departure from traditional endpoint-based security filtering and reflects a broader architectural shift in enterprise web security.
Remote Browser Isolation has become a contested commercial space as enterprises seek zero-trust web access controls. US9118712B2 sits at the intersection of cloud infrastructure and endpoint security — two high-growth sectors — making it strategically valuable for assertion or licensing. Check Point is not the only vendor with commercially deployed RBI technology; the patent’s continued enforceability post-dismissal means any company with a cloud-sandboxed browsing product is a plausible future target for Touchpoint or any subsequent assignee of this patent.
Should your RBI product be cleared against US9118712B2?
Any R&D or product team building or deploying a cloud-hosted browser isolation solution — whether as a standalone product or as part of a secure web gateway or SASE platform — should treat US9118712B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent’s core claim covers the fundamental architecture of rendering web content in a remote sandboxed environment and delivering only the safe output to users. That description maps closely to the commercial design of most contemporary RBI products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and product teams to map US9118712B2’s independent claims against prior art and existing designs, identify potential design-arounds, and surface related family members or continuation risk. Given that this case resolved without any public claim construction, running a structured FTO now — before any complaint arrives — is the most cost-effective way to understand exposure in the cloud web security sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RBI and cloud web security patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving Remote Browser Isolation, sandboxed web rendering, and cloud security patents filed in the Northern District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit before any defence response raises questions about claim strategy and licensing intent in the RBI security sector.
With-prejudice dismissals before answer: read as a resolved dispute, not weakness
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant responds, it typically suggests the dispute has been commercially resolved — a licence, covenant not to sue, or negotiated exit — rather than an admission that the claims lacked merit. IP teams tracking enforcement patterns should treat this outcome as consistent with a private resolution rather than a failed assertion.
US9118712B2 remains a live enforcement risk for RBI vendors
No court ruled on the validity or scope of US9118712B2 in this case. Any company offering a cloud-hosted, sandboxed browser rendering architecture for web security should conduct an FTO review against this patent. The absence of prior art findings or claim construction means the patent enters any future dispute with its full presumption of validity intact.
Touchpoint v Check — key questions answered
It means Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC permanently relinquished its right to sue Check Point Software Technologies under US9118712B2. Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before Check Point served any answer — the with-prejudice designation converts the procedural exit into a final bar against re-litigation of the same claims. No merits ruling was issued.
US9118712B2 covers a Remote Browser Isolation architecture in which a cloud-hosted browser, operating in a sandboxed environment, renders internet content on behalf of a user. The rendered output — not the raw web content — is delivered to the user’s device, preventing malware from reaching the endpoint. Check Point’s accused product was its commercially deployed RBI web security solution.
The public record does not disclose a settlement. The case was closed by a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Touchpoint. The with-prejudice designation and the speed of resolution — 64 days — are consistent with a private commercial resolution, but no settlement terms, licence agreement, or payment have been publicly confirmed.
No. The dismissal was procedural and did not involve any merits determination. US9118712B2 retains its full presumption of validity. No claim construction ruling, invalidity finding, or prior art determination was made in this case. The patent remains fully enforceable against other parties in future proceedings.
Touchpoint was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, with attorneys Christopher A. Honea and Michael Scott Fuller listed as plaintiff agents. No defendant law firm or agents appear in the public case record, consistent with Check Point not having filed any formal response before the dismissal was entered.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.