Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Forcepoint: Dismissed With Prejudice in 114 Days
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC asserted US9118712B2 — a patent covering network communication systems with improved security — against cybersecurity firm Forcepoint, LLC in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after just 114 days, before the defendant filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
A network security patent suit that ended before Forcepoint filed an answer
On November 26, 2024, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed an infringement action against Forcepoint, LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00305). The asserted patent, US9118712B2, covers a network communication system with improved security, a technology squarely within Forcepoint’s core cybersecurity product portfolio. Garteiser Honea PLLC, a firm with an established track record in NPE litigation in Texas, represented the plaintiff.
On March 19, 2025 — just 113 days after filing — Touchpoint filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Forcepoint had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating and required no court order. The dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes Touchpoint’s right to re-assert these specific claims against Forcepoint on US9118712B2. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorney fees, and expenses.
The 114-day resolution is notably swift for a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas. The pre-answer timing suggests the parties may have reached a private agreement — potentially a license or a covenant not to sue — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The with-prejudice designation forecloses future litigation on this patent by Touchpoint against Forcepoint, which is commercially significant given Forcepoint’s position in the enterprise network security market.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 114 days
114 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating, no court approval needed
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Forcepoint had done neither, Touchpoint’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing, as confirmed by the Fifth Circuit in In re Amerijet Int’l. The court’s order formalised closure but was not legally required.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice bars Touchpoint from ever re-suing Forcepoint on this patent
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Touchpoint permanently surrenders its right to assert US9118712B2 against Forcepoint in any future action. This is the most consequential distinction from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would have preserved the option to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, license, or other agreement underlies the with-prejudice election, but the outcome forecloses future risk to Forcepoint from this specific patent.
Permanent bar on refilingForcepoint exits litigation without conceding infringement or validity
Forcepoint secured dismissal with prejudice without serving an answer, without filing a summary judgment motion, and without any merits adjudication. There is no court finding that Forcepoint’s products infringed US9118712B2, nor any ruling on the patent’s validity. Forcepoint also avoids any awarded costs or fees under the court’s order. From a public record standpoint, Forcepoint’s legal position is clean — a strategically valuable outcome in a sector where reputational exposure matters.
No merits finding; costs neutralOther network security defendants facing this patent should note the with-prejudice scope
The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to Forcepoint. US9118712B2 remains a live, enforceable patent that Touchpoint could assert against other network security vendors. Companies operating in adjacent spaces — network access control, secure web gateways, DLP platforms — should monitor this patent. The quick resolution before discovery may reflect a licensing resolution, suggesting Touchpoint views the patent as commercially viable for assertion against other targets in the sector.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9118712B2 covering network security systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Forcepoint, LLC | Company | Forcepoint, LLC — enterprise cybersecurity company specialising in network security and data protectionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch 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 Conley Green | Attorney | Counsel for Forcepoint, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | Law Firm | Representing Forcepoint, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was procedurally clean: Forcepoint had not served an answer or summary judgment motion, making Touchpoint’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice self-effectuating per Fifth Circuit precedent. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact — it bars any future action by Touchpoint against Forcepoint on these claims. Critically, the order contains no merits ruling, no validity finding, and no infringement determination. The cost-neutrality provision is standard for pre-answer agreed dispositions and does not indicate which party held the stronger negotiating position.
US9118712B2 — network communication system with improved security
US9118712B2 (application no. US12/982504) protects a network communication system with improved security. The patent sits within the network security and communications domain, covering architectural or methodological improvements to how data is transmitted and secured across networked environments. Its grant reflects examination-stage validation of novelty and non-obviousness in a field that underpins a wide range of enterprise cybersecurity products, from secure web gateways to network access control platforms.
For a cybersecurity specialist like Forcepoint — whose product portfolio spans network security, data loss prevention, and insider threat management — a patent claiming improved network communication security represents a structurally relevant assertion. The patent’s application date context and claim scope will determine how broadly it reads on modern architectures, including cloud-delivered security platforms. Its continued enforceability post-dismissal makes it a live risk for any vendor whose products involve secure network communication layers.
Should your team run an FTO against US9118712B2?
Any company developing or commercialising network security infrastructure — including secure web gateways, SD-WAN appliances, SASE platforms, network access control systems, or enterprise firewalls — should assess exposure to US9118712B2. The fact that Touchpoint chose Forcepoint, a major cybersecurity vendor, as its first public defendant suggests confidence in the patent’s claim breadth. A formal FTO review is warranted before product launch or M&A due diligence in this space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claims of US9118712B2 against your product architecture in minutes. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies claim elements most likely to be asserted, and flags prosecution history estoppel points that could limit the patent’s reach. For teams monitoring Touchpoint’s assertion activity, Eureka’s litigation tracking alerts you to new filings before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network security patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving network security and communication system patents filed in the Western District of Texas by NPE plaintiffs.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in the W.D. Texas rarely means the patent is exhausted — it often means one defendant settled quietly.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal a private licensing deal
When plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss with prejudice before a defendant even files an answer, it consistently suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a retreat. Touchpoint’s 114-day campaign against Forcepoint fits this pattern. Network security vendors receiving demand letters referencing US9118712B2 should treat this outcome as a signal that the patent holder views the asset as commercially viable, not abandoned.
US9118712B2 is still enforceable — monitor for new filings against sector peers
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only Touchpoint’s claims against Forcepoint. Competitors in network communication security — particularly those with overlapping architectures around session management, access control, or communication filtering — remain exposed. Patent teams should run a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9118712B2 and track Touchpoint’s filing activity across district courts.
Touchpoint v Forcepoint — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Touchpoint Projection Innovations cannot re-assert US9118712B2 against Forcepoint in any future action. However, the patent remains enforceable against all other parties — the bar applies only to the specific plaintiff-defendant relationship in this case.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without court approval if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Forcepoint had done neither at the time of Touchpoint’s March 19, 2025 notice, the dismissal took effect automatically upon filing, per Fifth Circuit precedent in In re Amerijet Int’l, 785 F.3d 967 (5th Cir. 2015).
US9118712B2 (application US12/982504) is a granted U.S. patent covering a network communication system with improved security. It sits within the network security domain and may cover architectural or methodological improvements to secured data transmission across networked environments, relevant to enterprise cybersecurity product categories including firewalls, DLP, and access control systems.
No. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice contains no ruling on the validity or invalidity of US9118712B2. The patent was neither adjudicated nor found unenforceable. It remains a live, enforceable asset that Touchpoint could assert against other defendants in the network security space.
Touchpoint Projection Innovations was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, with attorneys Christopher A. Honea, M. Scott Fuller, and Randall T. Garteiser. Forcepoint was represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, with attorney Eric Conley Green. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00305).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.