Untitled case

GoSecure, Inc., a cybersecurity firm specializing in Managed Extended Detection and Response (MXDR) services, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc., a prominent cybersecurity technology company known for its cloud-native Falcon platform. GoSecure operates on a subscription-based business model, offering continuous monitoring, threat detection, and rapid incident response to clients, generating revenue through recurring subscriptions and professional services. CrowdStrike similarly provides cloud-delivered protection across endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data, with its revenue primarily driven by subscriptions to its Falcon platform and cloud modules. The lawsuit alleges infringement of US Patent No. 9,954,872 and US Patent No. 9,106,697. While a precise one-line technical sketch of US9954872 from its abstract is not directly available, the patent is generally related to identifying unauthorized activities on a computer system attached to a computer network, with claims focusing on detecting and preventing malicious behaviors. The allegedly infringing products are CrowdStrike's endpoint security software, specifically its various Falcon-series products.

The case, docketed as 1:24-cv-00526, was filed in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and is presided over by Judge Robert Pitman, with Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower handling certain motions. This venue, while no longer offering the near-certainty of assignment to Judge Alan Albright in Waco due to district-wide random assignment changes in 2022, remains a significant forum for patent litigation. The Western District of Texas is known for judges and juries experienced in complex semiconductor and networking cases, offering credible trial timelines that can influence broader resolution strategies. However, the ability for defendants to transfer cases out of Texas has been made more difficult by recent Fifth Circuit decisions that increased the burden to show a new venue is "significantly and actually more convenient."

This litigation is notable for several reasons, including its status as a direct legal confrontation between two competing cybersecurity operating companies. The case has been stayed since December 11, 2024, pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by CrowdStrike against the asserted patents, including 9,954,872, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CrowdStrike's strategy of filing multiple IPR petitions challenging the same patent claims was initially granted institution by the PTAB but later vacated by the USPTO Director, who emphasized that typically "one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent." The lawsuit also highlights GoSecure's active strategy in enforcing its intellectual property rights, with the complaint outlining alleged past interactions between GoSecure and CrowdStrike's founders and claiming knowledge of the asserted patents dating back to their issuance.

GoSecure, Inc. v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-00526, W.D. Tex.) is a patent infringement lawsuit concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872 and another patent. The case is currently stayed pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2024-05-16: Complaint Filed. GoSecure, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,954,872 and 9,106,697.
• 2024-07-25: Motion to Dismiss Filed. CrowdStrike filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint.
• 2024-08-16: Initial Discovery Served. GoSecure served CrowdStrike with 59 Requests for Production and 8 Interrogatories. CrowdStrike, however, did not provide meaningful discovery before the case was stayed.
• 2024-10-17: Motion to Dismiss Referred. The Motion to Dismiss was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower. It remained pending at the time the case was stayed.
• 2024-10-31: IPR Petitions Filed. CrowdStrike filed four petitions for Inter Partes Review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging all claims of the asserted patents, including 9,954,872.
• 2024-11-05: Motion to Stay Filed. CrowdStrike filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the IPRs.
• 2024-12-11: Case Stayed Pending IPR. The Western District of Texas granted CrowdStrike's motion to stay the case. The court found that a stay would likely simplify the issues, not unduly prejudice GoSecure, and that the litigation was in an early stage (e.g., claim construction was not set to begin until January 2025, and trial until November 2026). The order requires the parties to file quarterly status reports on the IPR proceedings, with the first report due by March 10, 2025.
• 2025-06-25: PTAB Director Review Vacates IPR Institution. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued an "informative" decision granting Director Review and vacating the PTAB's institution of two IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070) challenging Patent 9,954,872 B2. The Director found that CrowdStrike's strategy of filing separate petitions based primarily on alternative claim constructions for the term "association" was an abuse of discretion, as it effectively circumvented word count limitations and placed an unnecessary burden on the Board and patent owner. The case was remanded to the PTAB with instructions for the parties to submit claim construction briefs to consider moving forward with a single IPR.
• 2025-08-25: GoSecure Requests Director Review in IPR. GoSecure, as the Patent Owner, filed a request for Director Review in IPR2025-00070, seeking to terminate the proceeding. GoSecure argued that termination was warranted for administrative efficiency and that further discovery related to objective indicia of nonobviousness would be more efficient in the district court, noting CrowdStrike's refusal to provide discovery before the district court case was stayed.

Current Posture:
The district court litigation (1:24-cv-00526) remains stayed as of the date of this report. The parallel PTAB proceedings involving patent 9,954,872 are ongoing, with a Director Review having vacated the initial institution of two IPRs and a subsequent request by GoSecure for termination of the IPR.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff GoSecure, Inc.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, GoSecure, Inc., is represented by attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. The case is currently stayed as of December 11, 2024, pending the resolution of inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by the defendant, CrowdStrike.

Based on available information, the following counsel are involved:

Latham & Watkins LLP

• Specific attorneys and their roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) require further detailed docket review beyond currently available snippets.
• Firm Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets for this particular case, but Latham & Watkins has numerous offices globally.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Latham & Watkins LLP is a prominent global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation, representing clients in various technology sectors. The firm has been noted in other patent litigation matters.

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

• Specific attorneys and their roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) require further detailed docket review beyond currently available snippets.
• Firm Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets for this particular case, but Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP is a global law firm with offices in major legal centers.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP is also a highly regarded firm with a significant intellectual property litigation practice. The firm's involvement in this case indicates their expertise in patent disputes.

Given that the case was stayed at an early stage (December 11, 2024), detailed appearances and specific roles for all counsel may not be extensively documented in publicly available summary dockets. A thorough PACER review would be necessary to identify all individual attorneys and their designated roles, especially local counsel if different from the primary firms.

The defendant in GoSecure, Inc. v. CrowdStrike, Inc. (1:24-cv-00526) is CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.. Counsel of record representing the defendant in this patent infringement case include attorneys from Erise IP, P.A..

The identified counsel for CrowdStrike are:

• Paul R. Hart (Role: Counsel)

  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Denver, Colorado
  • Experience Note: Paul Hart has two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation, focusing on complex patent and copyright disputes. He handles all stages of patent litigation in district courts across the country, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is consistently ranked among the most active attorneys representing petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His work spans various technologies, including consumer electronics, communication standards, video games, turbine technology, and circuit designs, and he is also a named inventor on five patents.

• Adam P. Seitz (Role: Counsel)

  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
  • Office Location: Overland Park, Kansas
  • Experience Note: Adam Seitz is a founding member of Erise IP and an established trial lawyer with experience in over 100 intellectual property matters in district courts nationwide, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He has been lead counsel on more than 187 IPRs and 26 Federal Circuit appeals, consistently ranked among the top 10 most active and best-performing PTAB attorneys for petitioners. His notable cases include securing a complete defense verdict of noninfringement for Garmin in a patent case related to smartwatches and fitness tracking, and obtaining a defense verdict for Coca-Cola in a trademark case.

While Erise IP attorneys are noted in connection with the Western District of Texas patent case and related IPR proceedings, specific lead counsel designation for the district court case beyond "counsel" is not explicitly detailed in the publicly available search results. No filings are explicitly sealed according to the provided snippets, but a complete listing of all counsel with specific roles (e.g., local counsel) would typically require direct PACER access.