Webroot & Open Text vs. Kaspersky & Trend Micro: Cybersecurity Patent Dispute Ends in Mutual Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Webroot LLC & Open Text Inc. v. AO Kaspersky Lab, et al. |
| Case Number | 6:22-cv-00243 |
| Court | Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Mar 2022 – Apr 2024 2 years 1 month (767 days) |
| Outcome | Mutual Dismissal With Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Kaspersky Endpoint Security, Trend Micro Apex Central, Apex One, Cloud One-Workload Security, Deep Discovery, Smart Protection Network |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Major players in enterprise cybersecurity and information management, with Webroot providing cloud-based endpoint protection and OpenText bolstering its IP portfolio through acquisition.
🛡️ Defendants
Leading global cybersecurity software companies, offering endpoint and cloud security solutions, targeted for alleged infringement of core cybersecurity technologies.
Patents at Issue
Plaintiffs asserted 11 U.S. patents covering core cybersecurity technologies vital to endpoint security, behavioral threat detection, network protection, and cloud-based security architectures. These patents are central to each defendant’s commercial product lines.
- • US10284591B2 — Endpoint security methodologies
- • US8856505B2 — Behavioral threat detection
- • US8181244B2 — Network protection systems
- • US10599844B2 — Cloud-based security architectures
- • US11409869B2 — Advanced threat prevention
- • US8201243B2 — Malware detection and analysis
- • US10257224B2 — Real-time threat intelligence
- • US9578045B2 — Data security and privacy
- • US8726389B2 — Behavioral analysis for security
- • US8719932B2 — Secure network communications
- • US8418250B2 — Cloud-based security management
Developing cybersecurity solutions?
Check if your product might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded via stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All infringement claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be re-litigated. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, indicating a negotiated resolution without a public monetary award.
Key Legal Issues
This dismissal highlights the complexity of multi-patent, multi-defendant litigation. Litigating 11 patents against several sophisticated defendants, each capable of robust invalidity challenges, creates substantial risk. The absence of a trial and public verdict suggests strategic calculus drove parties to a confidential settlement, likely involving licensing or cross-licensing agreements, rather than full courtroom exposure. Geopolitical factors concerning Kaspersky may also have influenced the urgency for a resolution.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Cybersecurity
This case highlights critical IP risks in the cybersecurity sector. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 11 asserted patents and their claims
- Analyze the patent landscape of Webroot/OpenText
- See competitive intelligence trends in endpoint security
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own cybersecurity technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Endpoint protection, cloud security intelligence
11 Asserted Patents
Remaining active in OpenText’s portfolio
Proactive FTO
Essential for R&D in cybersecurity
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals with prejudice in multi-patent cases often signal confidential licensing or settlements.
Search related case law →W.D. Texas remains a viable plaintiff forum for cybersecurity patent assertions, despite ongoing transfer jurisprudence.
Explore court analytics →Large portfolio assertions against multiple defendants can accelerate settlement timelines due to inherent claim construction and IPR exposure.
Analyze IPR trends →Frequently Asked Questions
Eleven U.S. patents were asserted, including US10284591B2, US8856505B2, US8181244B2, US10599844B2, US11409869B2, US8201243B2, US10257224B2, US9578045B2, US8726389B2, US8719932B2, and US8418250B2, covering endpoint security and cloud-based threat detection technologies.
All parties stipulated to dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Infringement claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, suggesting a negotiated resolution. Specific settlement terms were not disclosed publicly.
It reinforces that large-scale portfolio assertions against multiple defendants in W.D. Texas can drive settlement without trial, and that OpenText’s cybersecurity IP portfolio remains an active litigation asset warranting competitive monitoring.
Ready to Strengthen Your 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.
References
- PACER Case Lookup – 6:22-cv-00243
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
- 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.