Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Zscaler — Dismissed With Prejudice in 127 Days
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed suit against cybersecurity firm Zscaler in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9118712B2 against Zscaler’s Zero Trust Exchange platform and its Remote Browsing Isolation functionality. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both the lead and member cases with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after just 127 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
A rapid voluntary exit: Zscaler patent suit ends before substantive litigation
On November 27, 2024, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC — a Texas-based entity represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC — filed suit against Zscaler, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US9118712B2. The asserted patent was directed at technology allegedly embodied in Zscaler’s flagship Zero Trust Exchange platform, including its cloud-native architecture and Remote Browsing Isolation (RBI) functionality. This case was designated as a member case linked to Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-980-JRG, indicating a coordinated multi-case filing strategy.
The case closed on April 3, 2025, when Touchpoint filed two Notices of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice — one for each case — pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged both dismissals, formally terminating both the lead and member cases. The court’s order further dismissed all pending requests for relief as moot and directed each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no settlement payment was formally memorialized in the court record.
The 127-day lifespan of this case is notably brief even for pre-trial dispositions in the Eastern District of Texas. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — filed before any answer or summary judgment motion — suggests the plaintiff moved quickly once it became apparent the case would not proceed advantageously. The absence of a cost or fee award to the defendant is consistent with the voluntary nature of the exit. Whether a private resolution or licensing agreement occurred outside the public record remains unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 127 days
127 days from filing to dismissal — well below the median EDTX patent case lifespan
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before responsive pleading
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) may be filed by the plaintiff as of right before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Crucially, the plaintiff here chose to designate the dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ converting what would ordinarily be a no-cost exit into a permanent bar against re-asserting the same claims against Zscaler on US9118712B2 in any future action.
Voluntary — with prejudiceWith prejudice means the claims against Zscaler are gone permanently
Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Touchpoint cannot reassert US9118712B2 against Zscaler on the same claims in any future proceeding. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement, license, or other agreement accompanied this outcome.
Claim-preclusive dismissalTouchpoint exits without a damages award — and forfeits future claims
By dismissing with prejudice, Touchpoint Projection Innovations receives no court-ordered damages or injunctive relief against Zscaler. The with-prejudice designation — chosen by the plaintiff itself — suggests either a private resolution was reached or continued litigation was deemed untenable. The speed of the exit, 127 days in, indicates the case did not survive early strategic review.
No damages awardedZscaler avoids adjudication but bears its own legal costs
Zscaler secured a permanent end to this specific patent threat without a court ruling on validity or infringement of US9118712B2. However, the court’s ‘own costs’ order means Zscaler cannot recover the attorneys’ fees it incurred defending the suit. The case’s early closure before answer or discovery limits the precedential value for Zscaler but removes all litigation risk tied to this assertion.
No fee recovery for defendantFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9118712B2 covering cloud-based cybersecurity session technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zscaler | Individual | Zscaler — cloud-native cybersecurity company, developer of the Zero Trust Exchange platformSearch 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 | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for ZscalerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing ZscalerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges two plaintiff-filed Notices of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, formally closing both the lead case (2:24-CV-980) and member case (2:24-CV-982). Because dismissal was filed before any answer or summary judgment motion under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), no adjudication of infringement, validity, or damages occurred. The ‘with prejudice’ designation — chosen by the plaintiff — creates a claim-preclusive bar, effectively functioning as a final judgment on the merits for purposes of future litigation between these parties on this patent.
US9118712B2 — Cloud-native session management and remote browsing technology
US9118712B2 (application number US12/982504) was asserted against Zscaler’s Zero Trust Exchange platform and its Remote Browsing Isolation (RBI) functionality. The patent’s technical domain appears to encompass cloud-based session management, network traffic proxying, and browser-isolation architectures — technologies central to modern Zero Trust security frameworks. The asserted patent was filed as part of a coordinated multi-case strategy in the Eastern District of Texas, indicating plaintiff’s view that its claims map broadly across cloud-native security deployments.
US9118712B2 sits in a commercially significant space: Zero Trust network access and remote browser isolation are now core enterprise cybersecurity categories, with multiple major vendors — including Zscaler, Cloudflare, and Broadcom — competing for market share. The assertion against Zscaler’s flagship platform suggests the patent holder views the claims as broad enough to cover cloud-native proxy and session-isolation architectures. Any vendor offering comparable Zero Trust, SASE, or RBI capabilities should assess claim-level exposure, particularly given the patent remains in force.
Should your Zero Trust or RBI product be assessed against US9118712B2?
R&D and product teams building or deploying cloud-native Zero Trust network access, Secure Web Gateway, or Remote Browser Isolation solutions should consider whether US9118712B2 covers their session-management or traffic-proxying implementations. The plaintiff’s willingness to assert this patent in EDTX against a major vendor like Zscaler suggests active enforcement intent. Companies entering or expanding in these categories face a non-trivial risk of encountering this patent in future assertion campaigns.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9118712B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may affect validity, and surface related patents in Touchpoint’s portfolio that could represent additional exposure. Automated claim-charting and portfolio-monitoring tools allow IP teams to stay ahead of assertion risk before litigation is filed — particularly relevant for EDTX, where cases move quickly.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: Zero Trust and cloud cybersecurity in EDTX
Explore related patent infringement cases involving cloud cybersecurity, Zero Trust network access, and remote browsing isolation technology in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cloud cybersecurity IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in a Zero Trust patent case carries practical signals for IP teams monitoring cybersecurity enforcement trends.
EDTX remains a preferred venue for cybersecurity patent assertions
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting cloud and cybersecurity companies. Touchpoint’s coordinated lead-and-member case filing structure is consistent with a strategy designed to maximize settlement leverage. Companies in the Zero Trust and cloud security space should monitor EDTX dockets for related filings.
Pre-answer dismissals can signal private resolution or litigation risk reassessment
When a plaintiff voluntarily exits with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before any substantive court rulings — it typically signals either a confidential settlement or an early recognition that the case lacked forward momentum. In either scenario, the public record reveals no terms, leaving downstream observers unable to quantify exposure.
Touchpoint v Zscaler — key questions answered
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on April 3, 2025, just 127 days after filing. The dismissal covered both the member case (2:24-CV-982) and the lead case (2:24-CV-980) and was filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No infringement or invalidity ruling was issued.
A dismissal with prejudice is claim-preclusive — Touchpoint cannot re-assert US9118712B2 against Zscaler on these same claims in any future proceeding. While Zscaler avoids an adverse infringement finding, no court ruling on the patent’s validity was issued, meaning the patent itself remains enforceable against other parties. Zscaler also cannot recover its attorneys’ fees under the ‘own costs’ order.
US9118712B2 (application no. US12/982504) relates to cloud-based session management and remote browsing isolation technology. Touchpoint asserted it against Zscaler’s Zero Trust Exchange platform, including its Remote Browsing Isolation (RBI) feature, suggesting the plaintiff mapped the patent’s claims to cloud-native proxy and session-control architectures central to Zscaler’s product offering.
The public court record does not disclose any settlement agreement. The dismissal was filed by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Zscaler filed an answer, and the court’s order directed each party to bear its own costs. A confidential licensing or settlement arrangement may have been reached outside the court record, but this cannot be confirmed from publicly available filings.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent judges in the country. Touchpoint was represented by Randall T. Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PLLC, while Zscaler was represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.