Trend Micro v. Taasera Licensing: Declaratory Judgment Dismissed After Settlement
Trend Micro sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Taasera Licensing across nine cybersecurity patents covering endpoint, messaging, and web security products. The Eastern District of Texas case closed after 496 days when the parties reported a settlement, resulting in a split dismissal order.
Trend Micro's Declaratory Judgment Bid Ends in Split Dismissal
Trend Micro, Inc. filed this declaratory judgment action on August 5, 2022, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, seeking a declaration of non-infringement against Taasera Licensing, LLC across nine U.S. patents. The asserted patents relate broadly to cybersecurity technologies including endpoint protection, network threat detection, and messaging security. The products at issue included Apex One, Cloud App Security, Vision One, OfficeScan, and several InterScan and ScanMail product lines — a substantial portion of Trend Micro's commercial security portfolio.
The case closed on December 14, 2023, following a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by both parties, who represented to the court that they had settled their respective claims. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed'; the docket order states that Trend Micro's declaratory judgment claims were dismissed without prejudice, while all claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted by Taasera were dismissed with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
The 496-day duration suggests the parties reached resolution well before any trial date, consistent with pre-trial settlement dynamics common in the Eastern District of Texas. The asymmetric dismissal structure — Trend Micro's DJ claims without prejudice, Taasera's counterclaims with prejudice — is notable from a public record standpoint, though what drove that specific framing is not disclosed in the available record. The MDL proceeding (Case No. 2:22-md-03042-JRG) was explicitly maintained as open, indicating Taasera's broader multi-defendant litigation campaign continues in the same court.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 496 days
496 days from filing to closure — consistent with early settlement before trial in E.D. Texas patent cases
US9092616B2 and 8 further patents — cybersecurity threat detection and endpoint protection
Any vendor operating in endpoint detection and response (EDR), network access control, messaging security, or cloud security should treat Taasera's nine-patent portfolio as an active risk signal. The breadth of Trend Micro products implicated — eleven distinct product lines — suggests the portfolio's claim scope is interpreted broadly. With the MDL still open, new defendants could face assertion of the same patents under claim constructions shaped by ongoing proceedings.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order reflects a joint settlement-driven dismissal in which the two dismissal standards were applied asymmetrically: Trend Micro's declaratory judgment claims exit without prejudice while Taasera's counterclaims are extinguished with prejudice. The order also preserves the broader MDL docket, confirming that this resolution is case-specific to Trend Micro and does not close Taasera's ongoing multi-defendant enforcement campaign.
Case dismissed: what the split order means for both parties
A joint dismissal on agreed terms, entered by the court
The dismissal followed a Joint Motion representing that the parties had settled. The court entered the order granting that motion, resulting in a split disposition: Trend Micro's declaratory judgment claims were dismissed without prejudice, and Taasera's counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice. Each party bears its own fees and costs. The specific settlement terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Settlement-driven dismissalTrend Micro's DJ claims exit without prejudice
Trend Micro's declaratory judgment claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they are not barred from being re-filed. In practice, however, the settlement context suggests the parties reached a resolution that made re-filing unnecessary. The without-prejudice designation preserves Trend Micro's procedural options, but the specific terms driving that choice are not disclosed in the available record.
DJ claims: without prejudiceTaasera's counterclaims dismissed with prejudice
All of Taasera's claims, counterclaims, and defenses in this specific case were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be re-asserted against Trend Micro in this action. Notably, the MDL case (No. 2:22-md-03042-JRG) remains open, indicating Taasera continues to press its patent portfolio against other defendants in the same court.
Counterclaims: with prejudiceNine-patent portfolio remains live in active MDL proceedings
Taasera's cybersecurity patent portfolio — nine patents spanning endpoint protection, network security, and threat detection — continues to be asserted in the related MDL, which the court explicitly kept open. Competitors and vendors operating in the endpoint security and messaging security space should monitor the MDL docket for claim construction rulings and damages theories that may affect the broader market.
MDL remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Trend Micro, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Taasera Licensing, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brianna M. Vinci | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bruce S. Yen | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daryl Stuart Bartow | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | E. Leon Carter | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gilbert Andrew Greene | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holly Elin Engelmann | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Brooks Long | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Isaiah Charles Cox | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip Ou | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Breedlove | Attorney | Counsel for Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Andrew Liddell | 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 | Carter Arnett PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Duane Morris LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kelley Drye & Warren LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Paul Hastings LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | White & Case LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trend Micro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel James Shea , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Mercadante | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sam F. Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Taasera Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the cybersecurity endpoint and threat detection space
This case surfaces forward-looking intelligence on Taasera's portfolio, Trend Micro's filing activity, and white-space opportunities in endpoint security and network threat detection IP.
Taasera's 9-patent enforcement portfolio: filing trends and claim scope
Taasera's asserted portfolio spans application filings from the early 2000s through the mid-2010s, covering behavioral endpoint monitoring, network access control, and dynamic malware analysis. Understanding the prosecution history and continuation filing patterns of this portfolio is critical for any vendor operating in the EDR or network security space facing potential assertion in the active MDL.
Taasera portfolio scopePatent filing trends in runtime behavioral threat detection
The patents at issue cover runtime behavior monitoring and zero-trust access control — domains seeing accelerating filing activity from both established vendors and emerging players. Tracking CPC classifications aligned with these patents can reveal which organizations are building adjacent IP and may represent future licensing or partnership opportunities in the EDR and XDR market.
Behavioral detection IP trendsTrend Micro's patent activity in endpoint and cloud security
Trend Micro's commercial portfolio spans Apex One, Vision One, and cloud-native security products implicated in this action. Analyzing Trend Micro's own patent filings in endpoint detection, cloud workload protection, and XDR can reveal the defensive IP depth it brings to licensing disputes and identify gaps that competitors or licensing entities may target next.
Trend Micro IP depthAdjacent R&D opportunities near Taasera's claim boundaries
The nine asserted patents concentrate on network-layer policy enforcement and host-based behavioral monitoring from the 2000s–2010s technology generation. Modern AI-driven threat detection, large-language-model-based anomaly detection, and hardware-rooted endpoint attestation may represent white-space R&D zones outside the claim scope of this portfolio — potential areas for differentiated innovation with reduced assertion risk.
AI-driven detection white spaceSimilar cybersecurity patent DJ actions in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore related declaratory judgment and infringement cases involving cybersecurity endpoint and network security patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity patent licensing landscape
Taasera's nine-patent campaign against Trend Micro illustrates the enforcement pressure facing established security vendors from licensing entities in the E.D. Texas.
Declaratory judgment as a proactive shield in multi-defendant patent campaigns
Trend Micro's choice to file a declaratory judgment action — rather than wait to be sued — reflects a growing strategy among enterprise software vendors facing licensing-entity campaigns. Filing in the same district (E.D. Texas) where the MDL is seated suggests coordination to resolve exposure efficiently while retaining procedural flexibility.
The active MDL creates ongoing risk for the endpoint security sector
With the MDL case (2:22-md-03042) explicitly kept open by Judge Gilstrap, Taasera's nine cybersecurity patents remain in active enforcement. Vendors with overlapping endpoint protection, web security, or messaging security products should assess their exposure to this portfolio, particularly given the breadth of products implicated in the Trend Micro action.
Trend v Taasera — key questions answered
Taasera Licensing asserted nine U.S. patents in this action: US9092616B2, US8850517B2, US8327441B2, US9608997B2, US7673137B2, US9923918B2, US8990948B2, US6842796B2, and US8955038B2. These patents cover cybersecurity technologies including endpoint behavioral monitoring, network threat detection, policy-based access control, and dynamic malware analysis.
The case closed on December 14, 2023, following a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by both parties who represented they had settled. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The court ordered Trend Micro's declaratory judgment claims dismissed without prejudice and all of Taasera's claims, counterclaims, and defenses dismissed with prejudice. Each party bears its own costs and fees. The specific settlement terms are not disclosed in the available record.
The available record does not disclose Trend Micro's strategic rationale. However, declaratory judgment actions are commonly used by technology vendors facing licensing-entity campaigns to gain procedural control, choose a favorable forum, and resolve uncertainty over their product portfolio. Filing in the Eastern District of Texas — where the related MDL was already seated — may have reflected a decision to consolidate proceedings.
Case No. 2:22-md-03042-JRG is a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gilstrap involving Taasera's cybersecurity patent portfolio against multiple defendants. The court's dismissal order in the Trend Micro case explicitly directed the clerk to maintain that MDL as open, indicating Taasera's enforcement campaign against other defendants continues. The specific parties and claims remaining in the MDL are not detailed in the available record for this case.
Eleven Trend Micro products were identified in the litigation: Apex One, Cloud App Security, IM Security for Microsoft Lync, InterScan Messaging Security, InterScan Web Security, Portal Protect for Microsoft SharePoint, ScanMail for Lotus Domino, ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange, Smart Protection for Endpoints & Complete, Trend Micro OfficeScan, and Vision One.
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.