Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Musarubra (Skyhigh Security): Dismissed With Prejudice
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC asserted US9118712B2 — a network communication security patent — against Musarubra US, LLC, the entity operating as Skyhigh Security, in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in 129 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Network security patent suit ends with prejudice in under five months
On June 23, 2025, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed suit against Musarubra US, LLC — operating under the trade name Skyhigh Security — in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00653), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole patent-in-suit was US9118712B2, directed to a network communication system with improved security, filed under application number US12/982504. Plaintiff was represented by Rene A. Vazquez of DNL Zito; Defendant by Anthony J. Begon of McAfee, Inc.
The case closed on October 30, 2025, after just 129 days, when Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, entering dismissal with prejudice as to all of Plaintiff’s claims against Musarubra. The court ordered that the parties bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, and denied all remaining pending requests for relief as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Touchpoint Projection Innovations is permanently barred from bringing these same claims against Musarubra based on the same patent.
The 129-day duration is notably short for an E.D. Texas infringement action, which typically does not reach trial within two years. This timeline suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution — potentially a license, cross-license, or business agreement — before significant motion practice or claim construction proceedings. The public record does not disclose the commercial terms, if any, that precipitated the dismissal. The cost-bearing arrangement is neutral and does not publicly signal which party achieved a more favorable outcome.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 129 days
129 days — resolved well before the typical E.D. Texas trial schedule
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar on re-filing
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action. When filed with prejudice, as here, the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. Touchpoint Projection Innovations cannot reassert these specific claims under US9118712B2 against Musarubra in any future action. The court’s acceptance and acknowledgment formalises this bar.
Rule 41(a) — with prejudicePlaintiff permanently relinquishes claims against this defendant
By accepting dismissal with prejudice, Touchpoint Projection Innovations has foreclosed any future infringement suit against Musarubra under US9118712B2 on the facts alleged here. This is a meaningful concession. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties — the dismissal only extinguishes claims as between these two specific parties.
Claims extinguished — patent survivesSkyhigh Security secures permanent release from this action
Musarubra US, LLC (Skyhigh Security) exits the litigation without any liability finding and with a prejudice bar protecting it from re-litigation of these claims under US9118712B2. The neutral cost order means Defendant did not recover its legal fees, which may suggest the matter resolved commercially rather than through Defendant prevailing on the merits.
No liability — costs not recoveredEarly resolution suggests a likely private agreement between the parties
The 129-day resolution before any substantive court rulings is consistent with a confidential settlement, license agreement, or strategic arrangement. For the network security sector, this pattern — assertion followed by rapid with-prejudice dismissal — is commonly associated with licensing resolutions. Competitors operating in the network security communication space should note that US9118712B2 remains active and has been asserted in litigation.
Possible licensing resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9118712B2 (network communication security)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Musarubra US, LLC | Company | Musarubra US, LLC d/b/a Skyhigh Security — cloud-native security solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rene A. Vazquez | Attorney | Counsel for Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony J. Begon | Attorney | Counsel for Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McAfee, Inc | Law Firm | Representing Musarubra US, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is procedural rather than substantive — Judge Gilstrap made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The operative effect is the prejudice bar: Touchpoint Projection Innovations is permanently foreclosed from re-asserting these claims against Musarubra. The neutral cost order — each party bearing its own fees — is standard for voluntary dismissals and does not publicly indicate which party extracted commercial concessions, if any.
US9118712B2 — Network communication system with improved security
US9118712B2, filed under application number US12/982504, protects a network communication system with improved security. The patent falls within the network security domain — a technology area encompassing secure data transmission, access control, and policy enforcement across networked systems. The B2 designation indicates the patent issued following examination, including any post-grant corrections. The application filing and grant timeline place this patent within the generation of network security innovations that preceded the cloud-native security era, giving it potentially broad claim coverage over foundational architectural patterns.
Network security communication patents of this character can present material risk to vendors offering cloud access security broker (CASB), secure web gateway, and data-loss prevention products — all areas squarely within Skyhigh Security’s portfolio. The assertion of US9118712B2 against a dedicated cloud security provider like Musarubra suggests the claims may read on network-level security processing or communication management methods. For competitors in cloud-native security, unified threat management, and network policy enforcement, this patent warrants close scrutiny as it remains enforceable following this dismissal.
Should you run an FTO against US9118712B2?
Any product team building or deploying network communication systems with integrated security functionality — including cloud security gateways, CASB platforms, secure DNS, or network policy enforcement engines — should evaluate their exposure to US9118712B2. The fact that this patent was asserted against a major cloud security operator like Skyhigh Security suggests the claims may cover broadly adopted network security architectures, not niche implementations. An FTO is particularly warranted before product launches or funding rounds.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map their product features against the claim language of US9118712B2, identify relevant prior art, and assess whether design-arounds are available. Eureka can also surface continuation applications from the US12/982504 family that may carry updated or broadened claims — critical intelligence for any network security company operating in the Eastern District of Texas’s enforcement shadow.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network security patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related network security patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable assertion patterns and dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas typically signals that the real action happened outside the courtroom.
US9118712B2 remains enforceable — other players are exposed
The dismissal only extinguishes Plaintiff’s claims against Musarubra. The patent-in-suit, US9118712B2, covering network communication systems with improved security, retains full validity and enforceability. Network security vendors and cloud security providers operating in adjacent spaces should treat this case as an enforcement signal, not a resolution of the patent’s reach.
E.D. Texas + Judge Gilstrap: a high-stakes litigation venue for security IP
The Eastern District of Texas under Judge Rodney Gilstrap remains one of the most active and plaintiff-friendly venues for patent assertion. A filing here signals seriousness of intent. The early dismissal does not diminish the venue risk for future defendants — early resolution in this court consistently reflects commercial pressure rather than weakness of the asserted patent.
Touchpoint v Musarubra — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Touchpoint Projection Innovations is permanently barred from re-filing these infringement claims against Musarubra (Skyhigh Security) under US9118712B2. The court accepted the voluntary notice on October 30, 2025. No merits ruling was issued — the patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
US9118712B2 is a U.S. patent filed under application number US12/982504, covering a network communication system with improved security. It falls within the network security domain and was asserted against Musarubra US, LLC (Skyhigh Security) in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent remains in force following this case’s dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The 129-day resolution before any substantive rulings is consistent with a confidential settlement or license agreement. The neutral cost order — parties bearing their own fees — neither confirms nor denies a commercial resolution. This pattern is common in E.D. Texas patent assertion actions.
The plaintiff is Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US9118712B2, represented by Rene A. Vazquez of DNL Zito. The defendant is Musarubra US, LLC, doing business as Skyhigh Security, a cloud-native security solutions provider, represented by Anthony J. Begon. The case was heard by Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes claims between the specific parties in that case. US9118712B2 remains valid and fully enforceable against any other party. Network security vendors not party to Case No. 2:25-cv-00653 retain full exposure to infringement assertions under this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.