Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Check Point Software: RBI Patent Dismissed
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC asserted US9118712B2 — a patent covering remote browser isolation technology — against Check Point Software Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in just 71 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
RBI Patent Suit Against Check Point Exits E.D. Tex. in 71 Days
On November 27, 2024, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed suit against Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00981), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted infringement of US9118712B2 (App. No. 12/982504), a patent directed at remote browser isolation (RBI) technology. Check Point’s accused product is its Remote Browser Isolation solution, a cloud-based web security platform designed to protect enterprise users from internet-borne threats.
On February 6, 2025 — just 71 days after filing — Touchpoint filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, terminating all pending relief as moot. Critically, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Touchpoint retains the right to refile the claims against Check Point or other defendants in the future. The order also directed each party to bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
A dismissal of this speed — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction activity — typically signals that the parties reached an informal resolution, or that the plaintiff reassessed the merits or venue strategy ahead of any court-ordered deadlines. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement underlies the exit. The without-prejudice posture preserves Touchpoint’s optionality, and the absence of a fee-shifting order leaves no public indicator of bad faith or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 71 days
71 days — well below the median patent case lifecycle in E.D. Tex., suggesting early resolution
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and cleanest exit ramp in federal civil procedure. The court’s role is purely administrative — Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal rather than granting it. No merits determination was made.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: the distinction that matters most
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. Touchpoint retains the right to refile suit on US9118712B2 against Check Point or any other party at a later date, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. By contrast, a dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling permanently. The public record is silent on whether any side agreement — such as a license or covenant not to sue — was reached, but the without-prejudice label signals that Touchpoint has not surrendered its enforcement position.
Refiling remains possibleCheck Point escapes judgment — but patent risk persists
Check Point obtains an immediate exit from this litigation without any court finding on infringement, validity, or damages. No injunction was entered and no royalty was awarded. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Check Point cannot treat this as a final resolution of its exposure to US9118712B2. If no license was secured, the threat of re-assertion remains live. Check Point also bears its own legal costs, which — given the 71-day duration — are likely modest.
No final adjudicationRBI vendors face unresolved patent exposure on US9118712B2
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the validity and scope of US9118712B2 entirely untested by the courts. Other vendors deploying remote browser isolation or similar web content rendering technology — including competitors to Check Point in the enterprise security market — cannot rely on this case as a precedent clearing the patent. The patent remains in force, and the speed of this exit is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement strategy that may target additional RBI players.
Patent still active and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9118712B2 covering remote browser isolation technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. | Company | Check Point Software Technologies — enterprise cybersecurity provider, maker of Remote Browser Isolation (RBI)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural mechanism that requires no judicial merits analysis. The phrase ‘dismissed without prejudice’ is legally operative: no claim, defense, or counterclaim was adjudicated, and US9118712B2’s validity and infringement remain entirely open questions. The cost-bearing provision — each party pays its own fees — is standard in Rule 41 exits and does not reflect any finding of misconduct or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US9118712B2 — Remote Browser Isolation and Web Security Technology
US9118712B2 (App. No. 12/982504) is directed at remote browser isolation technology — a web security architecture in which web content is rendered in an isolated, remote environment rather than on the end-user’s device, thereby preventing malware, ransomware, and exploit-kit payloads from reaching enterprise endpoints. The patent’s application date reflects development during the early maturation of cloud-delivered security models, predating the mainstream enterprise adoption of RBI as a Zero Trust network access (ZTNA) component.
Remote browser isolation has become a strategically significant technology category in enterprise cybersecurity, with adoption accelerating post-2020 as distributed workforces increased exposure to web-based threats. US9118712B2’s position in this space — asserted against Check Point, one of the leading enterprise security vendors globally — suggests the patent holder views the claims as potentially covering core architectural approaches used across the RBI market. With no invalidity ruling or claim construction order on record, the patent’s enforceability against other vendors remains unresolved and commercially relevant.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9118712B2?
Any organisation developing, licensing, or deploying remote browser isolation, cloud-rendered browsing, DOM isolation, or secure web gateway solutions should treat US9118712B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent was sufficient to support a filing against Check Point in a plaintiff-friendly venue, and the without-prejudice dismissal leaves it fully enforceable. Product teams integrating RBI capabilities into endpoint security, SASE platforms, or Zero Trust architectures face direct exposure if their implementations overlap with the patent’s claim language.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9118712B2 against your specific product architecture, flag relevant prior art, and surface related continuations or family members that may present additional risk. Because no court has construed the claims or found any claim invalid, the scope question is entirely open — making a professional FTO analysis especially high-value before committing to a product architecture or entering a market where Touchpoint Projection Innovations is actively asserting.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RBI and Web Security Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving remote browser isolation, web security, and cloud-rendered browsing patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and related patent tribunals.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and RBI IP landscape
A 71-day voluntary dismissal without prejudice in E.D. Tex. raises pointed questions about enforcement strategy and licensing intent across the RBI market.
Without-prejudice dismissals are enforcement tools, not endings
When a plaintiff exits this quickly under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with no fee award and no merits ruling, it typically suggests one of two things: a licensing deal was quietly reached, or the plaintiff is repositioning for a stronger filing. Either way, US9118712B2 remains a live threat. RBI vendors should treat this dismissal as a signal to audit their exposure, not a clearance.
E.D. Tex. and Judge Gilstrap: a venue that concentrates patent risk
The Eastern District of Texas remains the dominant venue for patent licensing assertions. Filing before Judge Gilstrap — one of the most experienced patent jurists in the country — sends a credibility signal to defendants. Even a short-lived filing in this court carries implicit settlement pressure. Defendants in the RBI and web security space should monitor new filings in this district closely.
Touchpoint v Check — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. On February 6, 2025, Touchpoint filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and Judge Gilstrap accepted the dismissal without prejudice. This means Touchpoint retains the right to refile claims based on US9118712B2 against Check Point or other parties in the future.
The asserted patent is US9118712B2 (Application No. 12/982504), directed at remote browser isolation (RBI) technology. The accused product was Check Point’s Remote Browser Isolation solution, a web security platform that protects enterprise users from internet-borne threats by rendering web content in an isolated environment.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is a unilateral procedural exit by the plaintiff before the defendant has answered. It carries no merits determination — no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The patent US9118712B2 remains in force and fully enforceable. Without prejudice means no estoppel attaches, and the plaintiff can refile the same claims.
Plaintiff Touchpoint Projection Innovations was represented by Randall T. Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PLLC. Defendant Check Point Software was represented by Eric Hugh Findlay of Findlay Craft PC. Both firms have substantial E.D. Texas patent litigation experience. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Touchpoint Projection Innovations is not barred from refiling against Check Point on the same patent, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No license, covenant not to sue, or settlement terms are disclosed in the public record. Check Point and other RBI vendors should assess their exposure to US9118712B2 independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.