Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Fortinet: Voluntary Dismissal in Remote Browser Isolation Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. |
| Case Number | 2:25-cv-00242 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Feb 2025 – May 2025 93 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Dismissed With Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Fortinet’s FortiIsolator remote browser isolation (RBI) platform |
Case Overview
In a case that closed almost as swiftly as it opened, a patent infringement lawsuit targeting one of cybersecurity’s leading vendors reached an abrupt but strategically significant conclusion. On May 30, 2025, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accepted a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC against Fortinet, Inc. — ending Case No. 2:25-cv-00242 just 93 days after it was filed.
At the center of the dispute was U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 B2, asserted against Fortinet’s FortiIsolator remote browser isolation (RBI) platform. The dismissal, entered before Fortinet filed any answer or motion, forecloses any future re-assertion of these specific claims against the same defendant — a consequence that carries real strategic weight.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Non-practicing entity (NPE) focused on patent monetization, leveraging patent rights against technology companies.
🛡️ Defendant
Publicly traded global cybersecurity leader, headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA, with a broad portfolio including network security and web security solutions.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 B2, which covers technology architectures that isolate web browsing sessions from endpoint devices. This technology is directly applicable to modern remote browser isolation (RBI) platforms designed to neutralize browser-borne threats.
- • US 9,118,712 B2 — Remote browser isolation, network-based content delivery, and session projection.
Developing similar cybersecurity technology?
Check if your product architecture might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Court accepted Touchpoint Projection Innovations’ **Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice** on May 30, 2025. All claims against Fortinet were dismissed with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. No claim construction rulings were issued.
Key Legal Issues
Because the dismissal occurred before any substantive judicial ruling, the court’s order does not illuminate the merits of the infringement allegations. This places the dismissal squarely under **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**. The **”with prejudice” election** by plaintiff means this operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring any future lawsuit between these specific parties on these specific claims. This is a binding, permanent bar — a significant concession for a patent holder to make voluntarily and unilaterally.
Protecting your software inventions?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in cybersecurity, particularly for remote browser isolation. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the strategic implications from this dismissal.
- Res judicata effect for Fortinet regarding US 9,118,712 B2
- The patent remains active and assertable against others
- Insights into NPE litigation patterns in E.D. Tex.
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Remote Browser Isolation (RBI) technology
Patent Active
US 9,118,712 B2 enforceable against other parties
No Merits Precedent
Claim scope untested by the court
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals with prejudice create permanent res judicata bars — confirm strategic intent before filing.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Texas, Judge Gilstrap’s docket, continues to attract NPE filings in emerging technology sectors including cybersecurity.
Explore precedents →No merits ruling means the ‘712 patent’s claim scope is untested — creating both opportunity and risk for future assertion.
Analyze this patent →For R&D Teams
Remote browser isolation architectures carry documented patent risk. Engage IP counsel for design-around analysis before product launch or feature expansion.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Document design decisions contemporaneously to support any future non-infringement or invalidity defenses.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.