Touchpoint Projection Innovations v. Authentic8: Voluntary Dismissal in Network Security 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. Authentic8, Inc. |
| Case Number | 3:25-cv-00867 |
| Court | Virginia Eastern District Court, Chief Judge David J. Novak |
| Duration | Oct 2025 – Feb 2026 109 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Withdrawal — Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Network communication system with improved security (Authentic8 Silo platform) |
Case Overview
A patent infringement lawsuit targeting network communication security technology concluded swiftly — and quietly — when the plaintiff walked away on its own terms. In *Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC v. Authentic8, Inc.* (Case No. 3:25-cv-00867), the Virginia Eastern District Court acknowledged a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 109 days after the complaint was filed, closing the matter without a damages award, injunction, or adjudicated ruling on the merits.
Filed on October 17, 2025, and closed February 3, 2026, this network security patent infringement case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 B2 — covering a “network communication system with improved security.” The swift, self-directed exit by plaintiff Touchpoint Projection Innovations raises meaningful questions for patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams about assertion strategy, licensing dynamics, and what voluntary dismissals with prejudice signal in the broader non-practicing entity (NPE) litigation landscape.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) whose portfolio centers on projection and communications technology. The company’s assertion of a network security patent against a cybersecurity-focused defendant suggests a deliberate targeting strategy aimed at the enterprise technology sector.
🛡️ Defendant
A cybersecurity company known for its Silo web isolation platform, which provides organizations with secure, cloud-based browser environments. Authentic8’s core product architecture sits squarely within the domain of “network communication systems with improved security.”
The Patent at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 B2, covering a network communication system with improved security. Patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional technology.
- • US 9,118,712 B2 — Network communication system with improved security
Developing network security solutions?
Check if your product architecture might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court acknowledged a voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The critical terms: each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No damages were awarded. No injunction was entered. No finding on patent validity or infringement was made. A dismissal **with prejudice** is final — Touchpoint Projection Innovations cannot re-file this same claim against Authentic8 based on US 9,118,712 B2.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The case was initiated as a straightforward **patent infringement action**. However, the absence of any adjudicated findings means the public record provides no insight into how the court might have resolved validity, infringement, or damages questions. Several plausible explanations exist for the rapid voluntary dismissal:
- Pre-litigation settlement or licensing agreement.
- Strength of defendant’s response, including potential IPR threat or robust non-infringement position.
- Claim construction risk or cost-benefit reassessment by the plaintiff.
The procedural vehicle — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — allowed Touchpoint to dismiss unilaterally without a court order, as Authentic8 had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment at the time of dismissal.
Legal Significance
Because the dismissal was with prejudice and no judicial findings were issued, this case establishes no binding precedent on the merits of network security patent infringement under US 9,118,712 B2. However, it contributes to the observable pattern of NPE assertions against cybersecurity companies resolving quickly — either through licensing or strategic withdrawal — when faced with sophisticated defense teams.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in network security technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in network security patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 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
Network isolation and secure communication systems
100+ Related Patents
In network security space
Design-Around Options
Available for many claim variations
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals with prejudice permanently bar re-assertion against the same defendant on the same patent.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Virginia’s expedited docket creates timeline pressure favoring defendants with immediate litigation readiness.
Explore precedents →Fee-shifting risk under Octane Fitness is a genuine deterrent in PAE cases facing well-resourced defendants.
View relevant rulings →No precedent on validity or infringement was established — US 9,118,712 B2 remains available for future assertions.
Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 9,118,712 B2 (Application No. 12/982,504), covering a network communication system with improved security.
Plaintiff Touchpoint Projection Innovations filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court acknowledged the dismissal with each party bearing its own costs. No settlement terms were publicly disclosed.
No. The patent’s validity was never adjudicated. It remains enforceable and may be asserted in future proceedings against other defendants.
Ready to Strengthen Your Network Security Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision in the cybersecurity space.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database – US9118712B2
- PACER Case Locator – Case 3:25-cv-00867
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.