Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Broadcom: Dismissed With Prejudice After 127 Days
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed suit against Broadcom, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9118712B2 against Broadcom’s Symantec Web Isolation product. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both the lead and member cases with prejudice within 127 days, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
A quick exit: Broadcom’s web isolation product escapes patent assertion
In November 2024, Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC — filed suit against Broadcom, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted US9118712B2, a patent covering methods of connecting a user’s browser to the internet via a disposable cloud container, directly targeting Broadcom’s Symantec Web Isolation product.
The case closed on April 3, 2025, when the plaintiff filed two Notices of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — one for the lead case and one for the member case. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged both dismissals. Critically, the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning Touchpoint Projection Innovations is permanently barred from re-asserting these claims against Broadcom on the same patent. All parties were ordered to bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
At 127 days, the case resolved faster than the typical E.D. Texas patent litigation trajectory, which often extends through claim construction and beyond. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached or consideration exchanged — the fee-bearing arrangement and the speed of resolution are consistent with either a confidential licence agreement or a strategic decision to abandon the assertion. The absence of any publicly filed settlement agreement leaves the commercial terms, if any, unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 127 days
127 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what this closing order means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal before answer or summary judgment
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, the plaintiff explicitly added ‘with prejudice’ — converting what would be a default without-prejudice dismissal into a permanent bar. The court accepted and acknowledged both notices, closing the lead and member cases simultaneously.
Voluntary — with prejudiceWith prejudice forecloses any re-filing on these claims against Broadcom
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits, permanently preventing the plaintiff from reasserting the same patent claims against the same defendant. A dismissal without prejudice would have preserved Touchpoint’s right to re-file. By voluntarily choosing the stronger ‘with prejudice’ designation, Touchpoint effectively surrendered any future claim against Broadcom under US9118712B2 — a notable concession that typically suggests a resolution was reached or the assertion was abandoned.
No re-filing against BroadcomBroadcom’s Symantec Web Isolation exits litigation with no public adverse finding
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Broadcom a strong litigation shield: Touchpoint cannot revive these specific claims. The court made no finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity of US9118712B2, so no precedent was set on the merits. However, the patent itself remains in force and could be asserted against other parties in the browser isolation and cloud security markets.
No merits ruling; patent survivesFee-bearing arrangement suggests commercial resolution or strategic withdrawal
The order requiring each party to bear its own costs is consistent with either a confidential licensing arrangement — where the defendant pays consideration that offsets counsel fees — or an outright strategic retreat by the plaintiff. Either scenario leaves US9118712B2 available for future enforcement against other vendors in the secure web gateway and remote browser isolation space, making FTO analysis relevant for any competitor whose products route user traffic through cloud-based disposable containers.
Confidential terms possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9118712B2 covering browser isolation methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Broadcom, Inc. | Company | Broadcom, Inc. — global semiconductor and infrastructure software company; maker of Symantec Web IsolationSearch 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 | Kristopher L. Reed | Attorney | Counsel for Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Holland & Knight, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadcom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closing order accepted dual Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices covering both the lead and member cases. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, barring Touchpoint from re-asserting US9118712B2 against Broadcom. No merits finding was made on infringement or validity. The fee-bearing arrangement — each party paying its own costs — is neutral on its face but may mask underlying commercial terms not visible in the public record.
US9118712B2 — remote browser isolation via disposable cloud container
US9118712B2 (application number US12/982504) covers a method of connecting a user’s browser to the internet by routing sessions through a disposable cloud container, isolating the endpoint device from direct web content exposure. The application was filed in the early period of cloud infrastructure maturity and granted under the ‘712 number. The technology sits within the remote browser isolation (RBI) domain — a category now central to zero-trust and SASE architectures.
Strategically, this patent targets a product category that has seen significant commercial growth since its filing. Symantec Web Isolation — now part of Broadcom’s infrastructure software portfolio following its acquisition of Symantec’s enterprise security assets — is a direct commercial embodiment of the disposable cloud container concept. Competitors in the RBI and secure web gateway space, including vendors offering similar cloud-rendered browsing sessions, should treat this patent as live and assertable. The absence of any invalidity ruling means it carries full presumption of validity into any future enforcement action.
Should your product run an FTO against US9118712B2?
Any R&D team or product manager building or procuring technology that routes user browser sessions through cloud-based virtual environments — including remote browser isolation platforms, secure web gateways, and zero-trust network access tools — should assess exposure to US9118712B2. The patent’s claim scope around ‘disposable cloud containers’ is broad enough to encompass a range of architectural implementations, not just Broadcom’s specific Symantec product.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9118712B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR or ex parte reexamination challenge, and flag related patents in the same family or by the same assignee. Given the patent assertion entity context of this case, proactive clearance work before product launch — or before a demand letter arrives — is significantly less costly than reactive litigation in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118712B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in cloud security and remote browser isolation
Explore related infringement actions involving cloud browser isolation, secure web gateway, and cybersecurity software patents in the Eastern District of Texas and beyond.
What this case signals for the cloud browser isolation IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas suggests this assertion played out quickly — and the patent is still live.
US9118712B2 remains enforceable after this dismissal
Because no invalidity finding was made and the dismissal was plaintiff-initiated, US9118712B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Any vendor offering remote browser isolation, secure web gateway, or disposable cloud container browsing should treat this patent as an active risk — especially those who are not Broadcom.
E.D. Texas before Judge Gilstrap: a high-volume patent docket
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is one of the most active patent litigation venues in the US. Cases that resolve this quickly — particularly with prejudice — often reflect early-stage settlement dynamics or rapid cost-benefit analysis by patent assertion entities. Defendants here should expect aggressive early scheduling orders.
Touchpoint v Broadcom — key questions answered
Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Broadcom, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9118712B2 against the Symantec Web Isolation product. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed both the lead case (2:24-CV-980) and member case (2:24-CV-982) with prejudice on April 3, 2025, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All parties were ordered to bear their own costs and fees.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Touchpoint Projection Innovations is permanently barred from re-asserting US9118712B2 against Broadcom on the same claims. It cannot re-file in E.D. Texas or any other federal court on this patent against this defendant. The patent itself, however, remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
US9118712B2 (application US12/982504) is a patent covering a method of connecting a user’s browser to the internet through a disposable cloud container, thereby isolating the endpoint from direct web content. This is the foundational concept behind remote browser isolation (RBI) technology, a category used in zero-trust and SASE security architectures. The patent was asserted against Broadcom’s Symantec Web Isolation product.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The plaintiff filed voluntary dismissal notices under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with each party bearing its own costs. This arrangement is consistent with either a confidential licensing or settlement agreement or an outright decision to abandon the assertion. No settlement agreement is publicly filed in the docket.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars reassertion against Broadcom. No invalidity finding was made, so US9118712B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Vendors offering remote browser isolation, cloud-rendered browsing, or disposable container-based secure web access — particularly those not party to this litigation — remain potential targets for future assertion by Touchpoint Projection Innovations or any future assignee of the patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.