Trend Micro v. Open Text & Webroot: Dismissed Without Prejudice After 404 Days
Trend Micro filed suit against Open Text, Webroot, and two affiliates in Virginia's Eastern District asserting three cybersecurity patents covering URL classification, reputation analysis, and pattern-matching technologies. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 404 days, leaving the door open for future action.
Trend Micro's three-patent cybersecurity suit ends without a merits ruling
On 16 September 2022, Trend Micro, Inc. filed an infringement action in the Virginia Eastern District Court against Open Text, Inc., Webroot, Inc., Open Text Public Sector Solutions, Inc., and Open Text Corp., asserting three US patents — US8161548B1, US8045808B2, and US8505094B1 — against the Open Text and Webroot product lines. The asserted patents relate to cybersecurity technologies including URL classification, internet-object reputation analysis using parallel classifiers, and character-block pattern matching for search-term recognition.
The case closed on 25 October 2023, 404 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal, entered by the court on the parties' joint stipulation. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, the claims were not adjudicated on the merits and Trend Micro retains the ability to refile. The specific terms underlying the parties' stipulation are not disclosed in the available public record.
The 404-day duration suggests the case proceeded through at least some substantive activity before the parties reached their stipulated resolution. What drove the parties to seek a joint dismissal at this stage — whether related to licensing discussions, claim scope concerns, or other commercial considerations — is not disclosed in the available record. The absence of a merits ruling means no judicial determination was made on the validity or infringement of any of the three asserted patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 404 days
404 days — from filing to dismissal, a relatively swift resolution for a multi-patent infringement action
US8161548B1, US8045808B2 & US8505094B1 — cybersecurity classification patents
Any R&D team or product manager building URL classification, reputation scoring, parallel-classifier, or internet-object categorization features into a cybersecurity product should treat these three patents as active FTO considerations. The dismissal without prejudice in this case means no court has ruled these patents invalid or non-infringed — they remain fully enforceable against new targets. Companies in endpoint security, web filtering, threat intelligence, and network security are the most directly at risk.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order records a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal entered on the parties' joint stipulation, styled as dismissal without prejudice. This is consistent with the recorded Basis of Termination of 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' No merits determination — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — was made. The without-prejudice designation leaves the three asserted patents enforceable and the underlying claims capable of being refiled.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal without prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is entered by the court on the joint stipulation of all appearing parties. The 'without prejudice' designation means the action is terminated without any adjudication on the merits — no finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity. The plaintiff is not barred from bringing the same claims again in a future action. The specific terms agreed by the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
No merits adjudicationTrend Micro retains the right to refile on all three patents
A dismissal without prejudice preserves Trend Micro's ability to assert US8161548B1, US8045808B2, and US8505094B1 in future proceedings against Open Text, Webroot, or other parties. The patents' enforceability has not been challenged to a judicial conclusion. Statutes of limitations and any terms agreed in the underlying stipulation — not publicly disclosed — may, however, affect the practical scope of that option.
Refiling option preservedOpen Text and Webroot face no judgment — but remain exposed
Open Text, Webroot, and the named affiliates exit this action without any adverse judgment. No infringement finding, damages award, or injunction was entered. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, they face ongoing exposure to reassertion of the same patents. The absence of an invalidity ruling means the three asserted patents remain intact and enforceable.
No adverse judgment enteredUnresolved patent risk in the cybersecurity classification sector
The dismissal without prejudice leaves the validity and scope of Trend Micro's three cybersecurity patents undetermined. Competitors and adjacent players in URL reputation analysis, parallel classifier architectures, and pattern-matching technologies remain exposed to the same IP. Companies operating in these spaces should treat the unresolved status of these patents as an active freedom-to-operate consideration, rather than a cleared risk.
FTO risk remains openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Trend Micro, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Open Text, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Webroot, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Open Text Public Sector Solutions, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Open Text, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allan M. Soobert | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anna Balishina Naydonov | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Vincent Razick | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Songer | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip Ou | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yar R. Chaikovsky | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings, LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings, LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | White & Case LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | White & Case, LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Eutermoser | Attorney | Counsel for Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Britton Frederic Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Charles Campbell | Attorney | Counsel for Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey D. Mills | Attorney | Counsel for Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | King & Spalding, LLP (CO-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | King & Spalding, LLP (TX-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Open Text, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the cybersecurity classification IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Trend Micro's assertion of URL reputation and classifier patents against Open Text and Webroot.
Trend Micro's broader cybersecurity classification filing activity
Trend Micro's assertion of three patents across URL classification, parallel-classifier reputation analysis, and pattern matching suggests a structured portfolio strategy in foundational cybersecurity detection architecture. Mapping the full extent of Trend Micro's filing activity in these sub-domains can reveal which adjacent technologies are covered and where assertion risk is highest for competing vendors.
Portfolio mapping signalFiling trends in URL reputation and parallel classifier technologies
The technical space described in the asserted patents — parallel classifiers operating across URLs, internet-object categorization, and pattern-based search-term matching — has seen sustained R&D investment across the cybersecurity sector. Tracking filing velocity in this area can reveal which players are building defensive or offensive portfolios and where white space exists for design-around innovation.
High-activity filing areaOpen Text and Webroot's patent position in threat detection
As defendants in a three-patent infringement action targeting their core classifier and URL analysis products, Open Text and Webroot's own patent portfolios in threat detection and endpoint security are relevant to assessing their defensive IP depth. Understanding their filing activity in these domains helps gauge whether they hold cross-licensing leverage or remain exposure-heavy in this technology space.
Defensive portfolio signalDesign-around and adjacent innovation near the asserted claims
The specific claim language around candidate character-block sequences and 500+ parallel classifier architectures suggests there may be adjacent technical approaches — such as transformer-based or graph-neural-network-based URL classification — not captured by the asserted patents. R&D teams looking to differentiate from legacy classifier architectures may find patentable white space in next-generation threat-intelligence methodologies.
Design-around opportunitySimilar cybersecurity patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving cybersecurity classification, URL reputation, and threat-detection technologies litigated in US federal district courts.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity IP landscape
Three asserted cybersecurity patents, no merits ruling — the dispute's unresolved exit has direct implications for the sector.
Without-prejudice exits keep cybersecurity patent risk alive
A dismissal without prejudice is not a cleared risk. Trend Micro's three patents — covering URL classification, parallel reputation classifiers, and pattern matching — remain valid and enforceable. Any company whose products operate in these technical spaces should monitor Trend Micro's enforcement activity and maintain up-to-date FTO analysis against this portfolio.
Multi-defendant structures signal coordinated IP enforcement strategies
Naming Open Text, Inc., Webroot, Inc., Open Text Public Sector Solutions, and Open Text Corp. as co-defendants in a single action is consistent with a strategy to capture the full commercial footprint of an enterprise group. IP teams at multi-entity software companies should ensure that patent exposure is assessed at the group level, not entity by entity.
Trend v Open — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 25 October 2023, 404 days after filing. The dismissal was entered by the Virginia Eastern District Court on the parties' joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The specific terms of the parties' stipulation are not disclosed in the available public record.
Trend Micro asserted three US patents: US8161548B1 (application 11/204567), US8045808B2 (application 11/893921), and US8505094B1 (application 12/686458). The patents relate to cybersecurity technologies including URL and internet-object classification, parallel-classifier reputation analysis, and character-block pattern matching for search-term recognition.
A dismissal without prejudice means the action was terminated without any adjudication on the merits. Trend Micro is not barred from refiling the same claims against Open Text, Webroot, or other parties in a future action. The three asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. Applicable statutes of limitations and any terms in the underlying stipulation — not publicly disclosed — may affect the practical scope of any future action.
The complaint named Open Text, Inc., Webroot, Inc., Open Text Public Sector Solutions, Inc., and Open Text Corp. as co-defendants. The accused products are described as 'Open Text Products and Webroot Products,' suggesting Trend Micro sought to capture the full commercial group's product footprint within a single action. The specific basis for naming each entity is not detailed beyond this in the available public record.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents. No court ruled these patents invalid, unenforceable, or non-infringed. They remain active and can be asserted in future proceedings. Companies operating in URL classification, reputation analysis, or parallel-classifier cybersecurity architectures should treat these patents as live FTO considerations.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.