Introduction

In a significant development for cybersecurity patent litigation, a sprawling 11-patent infringement action filed by Webroot LLC and Open Text, Inc. against AO Kaspersky Lab and co-defendants—including Trend Micro, Inc.—concluded with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on April 9, 2024. Filed in the Western District of Texas on March 4, 2022, Case No. 6:22-cv-00243 spanned 767 days before the parties agreed to part ways, each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

The case centered on foundational cybersecurity technologies—endpoint security, threat detection, and network protection—making it a closely watched matter for IP professionals and R&D leaders operating in an increasingly litigious cybersecurity patent landscape. The mutual dismissal without a damages award or injunction reflects a litigation strategy that many sophisticated parties employ when continued litigation risk outweighs potential recovery. For patent attorneys and in-house counsel, this outcome carries nuanced lessons about multi-patent assertion strategies, venue selection, and settlement dynamics in high-stakes technology disputes.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The plaintiffs asserted eleven United States patents spanning critical cybersecurity technologies, including endpoint threat detection, behavioral analysis, network security monitoring, and malware classification.

• • US10284591B2 — Endpoint threat detection
• • US8856505B2 — Behavioral analysis
• • US8181244B2 — Network security monitoring
• • US10599844B2 — Malware classification
• • US11409869B2 — Advanced threat detection
• • US8201243B2 — Security event correlation
• • US10257224B2 — Cloud-based threat intelligence
• • US9578045B2 — File integrity monitoring
• • US8726389B2 — Data leakage prevention
• • US8719932B2 — Intrusion detection systems
• • US8418250B2 — Secure network access

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The complaint was filed on March 4, 2022, in the Western District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs. The case ran for 767 days—approximately two years and one month—before closing on April 9, 2024, at the first-instance district court level. This duration is consistent with complex multi-patent litigation involving international defendants, where claim construction briefing, inter partes review (IPR) petition timelines, and discovery disputes routinely extend proceedings beyond 24 months.

No trial date outcome, chief judge assignment details, or specific motion rulings are disclosed in the available record. The absence of reported summary judgment rulings or claim construction orders suggests the case may have resolved during or shortly after discovery, before dispositive motion practice concluded—a common inflection point at which parties reassess litigation economics.

Legal Representation

Plaintiffs retained a notably large litigation team across five firms: King & Spalding LLP, Jackson Walker LLP, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC, and Sprinkle IP Law Group PC. Lead attorneys included Angela C. Tarasi, Christopher C. Campbell, Mark D. Siegmund, and Gregory Phillip Love, among 22 attorneys of record.

Defendants were represented by Gillam & Smith LLP, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, and DeWitt LLP, with Harry Lee Gillam Jr.—a prominent Texas patent litigator—among the defense team.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), filed jointly by all parties. The operative terms:

• • All infringement claims and counterclaims: dismissed WITH PREJUDICE
• • All other defenses and counterclaims: dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE
• • Costs and attorneys’ fees: each party bears its own

No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. The with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims bars refiling of the same claims—a meaningful concession by the plaintiffs.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The cause of action was a standard patent infringement action. The specific legal reasoning leading to dismissal is not publicly detailed in the available record—which itself is analytically significant. Stipulated dismissals of this structure typically arise from one of several scenarios:

1. Settlement with confidential terms supplementing the public stipulation (the most common scenario in high-value IP disputes)
2. Litigation risk reassessment by plaintiffs following adverse claim construction rulings or IPR institution decisions
3. Business-driven resolution, particularly relevant here given Kaspersky’s geopolitical exposure following U.S. government restrictions on Kaspersky products beginning in 2022—the same year this suit was filed

The retention of “without prejudice” status on non-infringement counterclaims and defenses preserves defendants’ ability to pursue certain claims independently, suggesting the resolution was not a complete capitulation by either side.

Legal Significance

The with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims is the critical procedural outcome. Under Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., such dismissals carry claim-preclusive effect, preventing plaintiffs from reasserting the same patent claims against the same defendants in any forum. This protects Kaspersky and Trend Micro from future assertion of these eleven patents for the accused products.

The preservation of non-infringement defenses and counterclaims without prejudice is an unusual asymmetry worth noting. It suggests defendants may have had active validity challenges—potentially via IPR petitions at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—that they wished to preserve optionality around, even as the district court case closed.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The cybersecurity patent litigation landscape is intensifying. This case exemplifies a broader trend of established cybersecurity vendors leveraging acquired patent portfolios—Open Text expanded significantly through acquisitions including Carbonite (which acquired Webroot in 2019)—to assert rights against direct competitors.

The simultaneous targeting of both Kaspersky and Trend Micro suggests plaintiffs identified architectural similarities across competing endpoint security platforms, potentially tied to common approaches to behavioral threat detection or cloud-based threat intelligence sharing.

For the cybersecurity industry broadly, this litigation pattern signals that endpoint detection and response (EDR), XDR, and cloud workload security technologies are becoming hotly contested IP battlegrounds. Companies building or acquiring in these spaces should anticipate assertion risk and invest in robust patent prosecution strategies and defensive publication programs.

The resolution without public damages figures or injunctions also reflects the settlement confidentiality norms in enterprise cybersecurity—where business relationships, licensing ecosystems, and government contract considerations often make quiet resolution preferable to public adjudication.