Athena Security, LLP v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Case Overview and Background

Filed on December 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, this patent infringement lawsuit is part of a multi-front litigation campaign initiated by the plaintiff, Athena Security, LLP. The defendant is Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE), a major multinational technology corporation that provides a wide range of hardware, software, and services to businesses, including servers, storage, networking equipment, and cloud solutions. The plaintiff, Athena Security, LLP, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquires patents to assert against technology companies. This action is characteristic of a broader trend where NPEs litigate patents formerly owned by operating companies; in this instance, Athena is asserting a portfolio of patents acquired from network security firm Fortinet. Public records indicate that Athena Security, LLP, is backed by an unnamed funder, a common feature of the patent monetization business model.

The lawsuit alleges that HPE's products and services infringe on at least one patent held by Athena. While the specific HPE products have not been publicly detailed in available court documents, the litigation campaign context provides strong indicators. In a parallel lawsuit against Google, Athena asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,969,880—the same patent at issue in the HPE case—against Google's Cloud VPN, datacenter switches, and security operations systems. This suggests the accused technologies in the instant case are likely HPE's analogous enterprise networking hardware, cybersecurity software, and related cloud infrastructure services. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,969,880, is titled "Method and apparatus for path switching in a computer network and program therefor" and generally relates to dynamically switching communication paths in a network to maintain quality of service.

The case (2:25-cv-01252) is situated in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has consistently ranked as the top district for patent litigation in the United States, particularly for lawsuits filed by NPEs. While a specific judge has not been publicly identified for this case in the available search results, many patent cases in the district are assigned to Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, who manages one of the largest patent dockets in the country. The venue's established procedures and judicial experience in handling complex patent disputes make it a preferred forum for patent holders. This case is notable as it represents a significant, ongoing patent assertion campaign targeting numerous major technology companies—including Cisco, Dell, Amazon, and Google in addition to HPE—with patents originating from a single, well-known cybersecurity company. Such campaigns have a broad impact on the high-tech sector, forcing multiple industry players to defend against similar infringement allegations simultaneously.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 7, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Athena Security, LLP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) is in its early stages in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case is being actively litigated, with the primary current dispute centering on the proper venue for the lawsuit. No dispositive rulings have been issued, and the case has not yet proceeded to claim construction or significant merits discovery.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (December 2025 - Early 2026)

• 2025-12-23: Complaint Filed: Athena Security, LLP filed its complaint (Dkt. 1) for patent infringement against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, initiating case 2:25-cv-01252. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint alleges that HPE's enterprise networking hardware, cybersecurity software, and related cloud infrastructure infringe on U.S. Patent No. 7,969,880. While the specific accused products are not detailed in available documents, they are understood to be HPE's enterprise networking and security solutions, analogous to those accused in Athena's parallel lawsuits against other technology companies like Cisco and Dell.
• Answer and Counterclaims: HPE's answer to the complaint, which would contain its formal defenses and any potential counterclaims for non-infringement or invalidity, has likely been filed, but its specific contents are not available in the public search results.

Substantive Pre-Trial Motions (April 2026 - Present)

The initial phase of the case has been defined by significant motion practice initiated by the defendant, HPE, challenging the venue and the sufficiency of the complaint.

• 2026-04-24: Motion to Transfer Venue: HPE filed a sealed motion to transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to a different venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 46). A redacted version of the motion was filed publicly (Dkt. 50). This motion is central to the current proceedings and argues that the Eastern District of Texas is an improper or inconvenient forum for the dispute.
• Motion to Dismiss: HPE also filed a motion to dismiss Athena's complaint (Dkt. 37), likely arguing that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief under federal pleading standards.
• 2026-05-01: Briefing on Motions: The parties have actively briefed these motions. Athena filed a sur-reply related to the motion to dismiss on May 1, 2026 (Dkt. 53), indicating robust debate over the pleadings.

Venue Discovery and Current Posture (May 2026)

• 2026-04-29: Joint Motion for Venue Discovery: The parties filed a joint motion for a scheduling order to govern discovery specifically related to the facts surrounding HPE's motion to transfer venue (Dkt. 52).
• 2026-05-01: Order Regarding Venue Discovery: Judge Gilstrap granted the parties' request in part, issuing an order that addresses the motion to seal and the joint motion for a venue discovery scheduling order (Dkt. 54). This order confirms that the court is allowing limited discovery focused on jurisdictional and venue issues before addressing the merits of the infringement claims.

As of early May 2026, the case is focused on resolving HPE's motion to transfer. The court has not yet scheduled a Markman hearing for claim construction, and broader discovery on infringement and validity appears to be on hold pending the resolution of the venue dispute.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A comprehensive search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no evidence that Hewlett Packard Enterprise or any other third party has filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 7,969,880. The absence of a parallel PTAB challenge is significant, as an IPR could otherwise lead to a stay of the district court proceedings. As it stands, the district court case is the sole forum for this dispute.

Outcome and Final Disposition

The case remains active and ongoing. The next key development is expected to be a ruling from Judge Gilstrap on HPE's motion to transfer venue. The outcome of this motion will determine whether the case proceeds in the Eastern District of Texas or is moved to another federal court for all future proceedings, including claim construction, discovery, and trial. No settlement has been reported.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings and public records, the plaintiff, Athena Security, LLP, is represented by attorneys from the law firm Russ August & Kabat. While specific roles such as "lead" or "local" counsel are not formally designated in the available documents, the team structure suggests that the Russ August & Kabat attorneys are serving as lead counsel. As of the current date, no separate local counsel from Texas has formally appeared on the docket for the plaintiff.

The known counsel for the plaintiff are:

Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

• Reza Mirzaie - Lead Counsel (presumed)

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: As Co-Chair of the firm's plaintiff's patent infringement litigation department, Mirzaie has secured over $600 million for clients and has a track record of trial wins against major tech companies like Samsung and Google.

• Adam S. Hoffman - Counsel

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: A partner in the intellectual property and litigation departments, Hoffman has litigated patent cases resulting in significant awards against companies such as Apple, Google, and Dell.

• James S. Tsuei - Counsel

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: A partner specializing in intellectual property litigation, Tsuei has represented clients in complex patent and trade secret disputes involving technologies like smartphones and OLED displays.

• Paul A. Kroeger - Counsel

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: A litigation partner, Kroeger's practice focuses on complex business and intellectual property litigation at the trial and appellate levels for a diverse range of clients.

• Jefferson E. Cummings - Counsel

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: A patent litigation associate, Cummings has experience in both patent litigation and prosecution and holds a degree in Engineering Physics.

• Daniel B. Kolko - Counsel

  • Firm & Location: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: A litigation associate, Kolko is a graduate of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and participates in the firm's patent and intellectual property litigation practices.

As of May 7, 2026, counsel has appeared on behalf of defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) in the patent infringement lawsuit Athena Security, LLP v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, 2:25-cv-01252, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Based on a review of court records, the following attorneys are representing HPE in this matter:

Counsel for Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

• Name: Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Office Location: Texarkana, Texas
  • Notable Experience: Doan has a significant track record of defending major technology companies in the Eastern District of Texas and secured a complete defense verdict for HPE in a notable 2017 patent infringement trial where she was co-lead trial counsel.

• Name: Joseph Edward Hillman

  • Role: Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan
  • Office Location: Texarkana, Texas
  • Notable Experience: Hillman is an attorney at Haltom & Doan, a firm frequently retained for patent litigation defense in the Eastern District of Texas.

No in-house counsel for HPE has formally filed a notice of appearance on the public docket at this time. The attorneys from Haltom & Doan are serving as local and lead counsel for the defendant.