Congruent Media Resourcing LLC v. Open Text Corp

Case Overview: NPE Asserts Application Security Patent Against OpenText in WDTX

On April 17, 2026, Congruent Media Resourcing LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Canadian enterprise software company Open Text Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Congruent alleges that OpenText's Fortify Application Defender and its Core Application Security RASP (Runtime Application Self-Protection) solution infringe at least one patent. The case is part of a broader assertion campaign by Congruent, which has filed similar suits in the same district against other technology companies like Cisco, Trend Micro, and Rapid7, asserting the same patent.

The defendant, Open Text Corp., is a major publicly-traded company specializing in information management software for large enterprises. The accused product, OpenText Fortify, is a suite of software security tools designed to help organizations develop, test, and run secure applications by identifying vulnerabilities and protecting them from attacks in real-time. The single patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,135,418, is titled "Method of operating secure applications on an enterprise mobile device" and generally relates to methods for generating and operating secure applications. Shortly before this case was filed, the patent's validity was challenged through an ex parte reexamination proceeding initiated on April 3, 2026, by Unified Patents, a patent quality advocacy group.

The case (7:26-cv-00156) was filed in the Western District of Texas, a venue that has been a hotbed for patent litigation, particularly cases filed by NPEs. For several years, the district, and specifically the Waco division under Judge Alan Albright, attracted a significant percentage of all U.S. patent cases due to procedures seen as favorable to plaintiffs, such as a fast track to trial and a reluctance to stay cases pending administrative review at the Patent Office. Although a 2022 order began randomly assigning patent cases filed in Waco among all judges in the district to curb judge-shopping, the venue remains a key battleground for high-stakes patent disputes. The notability of this case lies in its context within a multi-defendant NPE campaign targeting the lucrative application security market and the pre-existing validity challenge against the asserted patent.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is an analysis of the key legal developments in Congruent Media Resourcing LLC v. Open Text Corp., Case No. 7:26-cv-00156, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Case Posture (as of 2026-05-04): This case is in its very early stages. Filed on 2026-04-17, the litigation is likely still in the initial pleadings phase. A significant parallel proceeding has been initiated against the asserted patent, which could heavily influence the trajectory of this case. Detailed docket information beyond the initial filing is not yet widely available in public records, so this analysis is based on the complaint and standard patent litigation timelines.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological)

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed
  Plaintiff Congruent Media Resourcing LLC ("Congruent Media"), a patent assertion entity, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Open Text Corp. ("Open Text"). The complaint alleges that Open Text's Fortify Application Defender/Core Application Security RASP Solution, a product for generating secure applications, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 9,135,418. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas. A snippet of the filing indicates this was entered as Document 1 on the court's docket.

• Anticipated Next Steps: Answer and Counterclaims
  As of today's date, 2026-05-04, Open Text's responsive pleading to the complaint is likely due within the next few weeks. Typically, this would be an Answer, denying the allegations of infringement and asserting affirmative defenses (such as non-infringement and invalidity of the patent). It is also common for the defendant to file counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '418 patent.

Parallel USPTO Proceedings

• 2026-04-03: Ex Parte Reexamination of the '418 Patent
  Approximately two weeks before this lawsuit was filed, a third-party organization, Unified Patents, filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,135,418 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Unified Patents, which challenges patents asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs), is challenging the validity of the patent based on prior art. This proceeding could result in the USPTO confirming, narrowing, or canceling the claims of the patent.

  This reexamination is a critical development. If the USPTO finds the patent claims invalid, it could terminate Congruent Media's case against Open Text.

Potential Future Motions and Events

Based on the nature of the parties and the early filing of the USPTO reexamination, the following developments are likely:

• Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination: Open Text will almost certainly file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the ex parte reexamination. Courts often grant such stays to conserve judicial and party resources, as the outcome of the USPTO proceeding could simplify or even moot the district court case. The decision to grant a stay will likely depend on the stage of the litigation (which is very early) and whether the reexamination is likely to simplify the issues.

• Motion to Dismiss or Transfer: Open Text may file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, potentially arguing that the complaint's infringement allegations are not plausible. Alternatively, Open Text might file a motion to transfer the case to a more convenient venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a common early-stage motion in the Western District of Texas.

• Claim Construction (Markman Hearing): Should the case proceed without a stay, the parties will eventually engage in the claim construction process. This involves briefing and a Markman hearing where the court will determine the legal meaning of disputed terms in the patent's claims. This is a pivotal stage, as the court's interpretation of the claims often dictates the outcome of infringement and validity arguments.

Outcome and Present Posture

The case is designated as "Open" and remains in its infancy. The most immediate and impactful factor is the pending ex parte reexamination of the '418 patent. The court's decision on an anticipated motion to stay will determine whether the litigation proceeds in parallel with the reexamination or is put on hold. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As the case was recently filed, the attorneys listed on the initial complaint represent the counsel of record for Plaintiff Congruent Media Resourcing LLC. Analysis of this and parallel patent assertion campaigns filed by Congruent indicates that the company is represented by attorneys from Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC as lead counsel and The Stafford Davis Firm, PC as local counsel.

Lead Counsel: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC

Buether Joe & Carpenter is a Dallas-based intellectual property litigation boutique known for representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.

• Christopher M. Joe (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Joe is a founding partner of the firm and has extensive experience leading patent infringement campaigns for non-practicing entities in Texas district courts.

• Eric W. Buether (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: A veteran patent litigator, Buether has managed numerous intellectual property disputes for both plaintiffs and defendants across various technologies.

Local Counsel: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC

This Tyler-based firm is frequently retained as local counsel for patent cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, leveraging its familiarity with local court practices.

• J. Lucas Davis (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Davis often serves as local counsel for out-of-state firms, specializing in trial work for patent plaintiffs in Texas federal courts.

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, defense counsel for Open Text Corp. has not yet formally appeared on the docket in Congruent Media Resourcing LLC v. Open Text Corp., Case No. 7:26-cv-00156.

The case was filed on April 17, 2026. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond to a complaint after being served. Given this timeline, Open Text's attorneys are expected to file a notice of appearance or a responsive pleading, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss, in the coming weeks.

An analysis of Open Text's recent patent litigation history indicates the company frequently retains counsel from major national law firms with deep expertise in intellectual property defense. While it is premature to definitively name the attorneys for this specific case, firms that have represented Open Text in prior patent disputes include Sidley Austin LLP and Norton Rose Fulbright. It is common for a large corporation like Open Text to engage both national lead counsel and a Texas-based firm to serve as local counsel.

This section will be updated as soon as counsel for the defendant makes an appearance on the official court docket.