Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Imperva: Dismissed With Prejudice After 194 Days
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC asserted US8265089B2 — covering network edge routing and DoS protection — against cybersecurity provider Imperva, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice after just 194 days, each bearing their own costs.
A fast-tracked cybersecurity patent dispute ends by mutual agreement
On May 8, 2024, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed suit against Imperva, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00345), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, US8265089B2, covers the routing of data packets (MPDUs) through network edge infrastructure — technology directly relevant to Imperva’s cybersecurity and denial-of-service protection services. Touchpoint alleged that Imperva’s edge routing and DoS protection product lines infringed the claimed network architecture.
The case ended on November 18, 2024 — just 194 days after filing — when both parties filed a Joint Motion for Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(a)(1)(B). The court acknowledged and accepted the stipulation, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and all pending relief requests were denied as moot. Dismissal with prejudice means Touchpoint is permanently barred from reasserting these same claims against Imperva.
Resolution within 194 days — before significant discovery or claim construction — suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution, potentially a licensing arrangement or a negotiated exit, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The speed of resolution and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a litigation victory for either side. What remains unknown is whether a license was granted, whether Imperva made any payment, or whether the dismissal reflects a purely strategic withdrawal by the plaintiff.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 194 days
194 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year Eastern District of Texas patent trial lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice: the claim is permanently closed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismissal without a court order. Here, both parties agreed and the court accepted. The ‘with prejudice’ designation under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) is critical: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing Touchpoint’s right to re-sue Imperva on these same patent claims.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) & (B)Touchpoint cannot re-assert US8265089B2 against Imperva
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses any future action by Touchpoint against Imperva on the asserted claims of US8265089B2. However, Touchpoint retains the patent and may assert it against other parties in the cybersecurity and network edge routing space. The public record does not disclose whether a license fee or settlement payment was received — the actual commercial outcome for Touchpoint is unknown.
Patent retained, re-filing barredImperva gains finality — but the patent remains active
For Imperva, dismissal with prejudice provides certainty: Touchpoint cannot revive this specific lawsuit. However, US8265089B2 itself has not been invalidated. Imperva’s freedom to operate depends on whether any license was granted as part of a settlement — something the public record does not confirm. Competing cybersecurity vendors remain exposed to assertion of this patent by Touchpoint.
Claim-specific finality onlyUS8265089B2 remains a live risk for the broader cybersecurity sector
The rapid, with-prejudice dismissal — combined with each party bearing its own costs — is a pattern consistent with private settlement in NPE litigation. US8265089B2 covers edge routing and DoS protection architecture relevant to cloud-delivered cybersecurity platforms broadly. Other vendors offering similar network edge or DDoS mitigation services should treat this patent as an ongoing assertion risk given Touchpoint’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas.
Ongoing assertion risk for CDN/DDoS vendorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | NPE patent assertion entity — holder of US8265089B2 covering network edge routingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Imperva, Inc. | Company | Imperva, Inc. — cybersecurity provider offering DoS protection and edge network servicesSearch 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 | Robert Patrick Hart | Attorney | Counsel for Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | AddyHart P C – Chicago | Law Firm | Representing Imperva, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural acceptance of a joint stipulation — no merits finding was made on infringement or validity. The ‘dismissed with prejudice’ language carries substantive weight: it operates as a final judgment, permanently barring Touchpoint from re-litigating the same claims against Imperva. The order’s silence on financial terms is standard for stipulated dismissals and does not indicate the absence of a private settlement. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no outstanding motions were resolved on substance.
US8265089B2 — Network edge routing and DoS protection architecture
US8265089B2 (application number US12/636955) covers the routing of data packets — specifically MPDUs — through edge routers acting as network gateways connecting customer end-users to connection-based networks such as the internet. The patent’s technical claims sit at the intersection of network architecture and cybersecurity, addressing how traffic is handled and filtered at the network perimeter. Its application context makes it directly relevant to cloud-delivered cybersecurity platforms, particularly those providing DoS and DDoS mitigation at the network edge.
Strategically, this patent is a meaningful asset in the NPE arsenal targeting the cybersecurity industry. The proliferation of cloud-native edge security platforms — spanning CDN providers, DDoS mitigation specialists, and secure access service edge (SASE) vendors — means the addressable defendant pool is large. The patent’s architecture-level claims, if broadly construed, could read on a wide range of commercial implementations. For competitors of Imperva operating similar edge infrastructure, this patent warrants careful claim mapping against product architecture.
Should you run an FTO against US8265089B2?
Any organisation deploying edge routing infrastructure, DoS protection, or cloud-delivered network security services should assess their exposure to US8265089B2. This is particularly relevant for CDN providers, DDoS mitigation platforms, SASE vendors, and enterprise firewall/gateway operators whose products route MPDUs through gateway nodes. The fact that Touchpoint has already demonstrated willingness to assert this patent in E.D. Texas makes a proactive FTO analysis commercially prudent before launching or expanding edge security product lines.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8265089B2 against your product architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag related patents in Touchpoint’s portfolio that may present additional assertion risk. Eureka’s litigation intelligence layer also surfaces co-pending cases involving the same plaintiff counsel, enabling your team to anticipate coordinated assertion campaigns before they materialise.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8265089B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network edge and cybersecurity patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore NPE-driven patent infringement cases involving network edge routing, DoS protection, and cybersecurity infrastructure litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and network edge IP landscape
A fast NPE exit in E.D. Texas on a network edge patent has implications beyond Imperva — here is what IP teams should take away.
NPE assertion of network edge patents in E.D. Texas remains active
Touchpoint’s willingness to file in the Eastern District of Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — signals continued NPE pressure on cybersecurity vendors with edge routing or DoS protection products. The 194-day lifecycle suggests the defendant engaged quickly, consistent with early settlement dynamics common in this venue.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Imperva but leaves peers exposed
The dismissal with prejudice only binds Touchpoint and Imperva. US8265089B2 is not invalidated and remains fully enforceable against the rest of the market. Cloud security, CDN, and DDoS mitigation providers should assess their exposure to this patent’s claims around MPDU-based edge routing architecture.
Touchpoint v Imperva — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on November 18, 2024, approximately 194 days after filing. Both parties agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits determination was made.
Touchpoint asserted US8265089B2 (application no. US12/636955), which covers the routing of data packets (MPDUs) through network edge routers acting as gateways connecting end-users to connection-based networks. The patent’s claims were alleged to cover Imperva’s cybersecurity services, including its DoS protection and edge network infrastructure products.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 means only that Touchpoint cannot re-assert these specific claims against Imperva. US8265089B2 remains in force and fully enforceable against other parties. No court ruled on the validity or infringement of the patent — the public record reflects a negotiated exit, not a judicial finding on the merits.
The public record does not confirm a financial settlement. The joint motion for dismissal with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution, but no settlement terms were disclosed in court filings. The actual commercial outcome — including whether any licence fee was exchanged — remains unknown from public documents.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00345) and presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the United States. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent infringement litigation, particularly for NPE assertors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.