CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc.

This case, CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc. (IPR2025-00068), involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of a patent owned by GoSecure. CrowdStrike, Inc. is a leading cloud-native cybersecurity company known for its Falcon platform, which provides endpoint protection, threat intelligence, and managed security services through a subscription-based software-as-a-service (SaaS) model. GoSecure, Inc. is also a cybersecurity firm, specializing in Managed Extended Detection and Response (MXDR) services, including its GoSecure Titan® MXDR platform, and operates on a similar subscription model. Both entities are operating companies, making this a competitor-on-competitor dispute within the cybersecurity industry.

The IPR is directly linked to a patent infringement lawsuit, GoSecure, Inc. v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00526, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. In that district court case, GoSecure accused CrowdStrike of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872 (the "'872 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9,106,697 with its products and services, likely including CrowdStrike's Falcon Platform. The '872 patent, titled "System and method for detecting and preventing malware," describes methods for analyzing attack patterns and transmitting "fingerprints" of those attacks to protected networks. Key claims focus on identifying activities on a computer system, where each activity includes an activity source, an activity target, and an "association" between them. The district court litigation was stayed in December 2024, pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings.

The procedural posture of IPR2025-00068 is significant. CrowdStrike initially filed two parallel IPR petitions (IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070) challenging the same claims of the '872 patent, primarily advancing different claim constructions for the term "association." Although the PTAB initially granted institution for both, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, on Director Review, vacated and remanded these decisions in June 2025. The Director's ruling, designated as "informative," held that filing multiple petitions challenging the same claims based on alternative claim constructions unnecessarily burdens the Board and patent owner and effectively circumvents word count limitations. The Director clarified that the Board should construe the disputed claim term itself and, at most, institute review of one petition. This decision is notable for providing crucial guidance on PTAB practice regarding parallel petitions and claim construction, influencing future IPR strategies for petitioners. The Western District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often chosen by patent owners, which adds a layer of strategic importance to the parallel IPR challenge.

The inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc. (IPR2025-00068), challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872, arose in the context of a co-pending patent infringement lawsuit.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Parallel District Court Litigation

• 2024-05-16: GoSecure, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against CrowdStrike, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:24-cv-00526), asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,954,872 and 9,106,697.
• 2024-11-05: CrowdStrike filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of its newly filed IPR petitions.
• 2024-12-11: The Western District of Texas granted CrowdStrike's motion, staying the district court case pending the conclusion of the IPRs, reasoning that a stay was likely to simplify the issues.

IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070)

• 2024-10-31: CrowdStrike, Inc. filed two parallel IPR petitions, IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, challenging the validity of GoSecure's U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872. CrowdStrike's strategy involved presenting two distinct claim constructions for the term "association"—a broader interpretation in one petition and a narrower interpretation in the other.
• Initial Institution Decisions: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially granted institution for both IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070.
• Director Review (Vacated and Remanded): GoSecure subsequently filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the Board abused its discretion by instituting two separate proceedings against the same claims of the same patent without exceptional circumstances.
• 2025-06-25: Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the USPTO, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued an informative decision, finding that the Board abused its discretion in granting institution of both petitions. The Director emphasized that typically "one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations" and that multiple petitions are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.
• The Director's decision vacated the institution decisions for both IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070 and remanded the cases to the Board. The Board was instructed to first construe the disputed claim term "association" and then determine which of the two proceedings, if any, to institute. This ruling clarifies that the Board should resolve claim construction issues rather than allowing parallel proceedings to advance with different constructions for the same claim terms.

The case currently remains "On Director Review (Vacated and Remanded)," awaiting further proceedings at the PTAB following the Director's instructions.

Despite an extensive review of available public records and news articles concerning IPR2025-00068 (CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc.), the specific counsel of record representing CrowdStrike, Inc. (the plaintiff/petitioner) in this Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding could not be definitively identified.

Information located pertains to:

• Counsel for GoSecure, Inc. (Patent Owner): S. Giri Pathmanaban of Latham & Watkins LLP, located in Austin, TX, is identified as counsel for GoSecure, Inc..
• Authors discussing the case: Greg Cordrey, a patent trial lawyer at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, is noted as a contact for an article discussing the Director Review in this case. However, this does not indicate his firm represents CrowdStrike in the IPR proceeding itself.
• CrowdStrike's In-House Counsel: Job descriptions for CrowdStrike's Assistant General Counsel, IP Strategy, outline responsibilities for managing global patent prosecution and IP strategy, but do not name specific individuals involved in this particular IPR.
• Counsel in parallel district court litigation: In a related district court case, GoSecure, Inc. v. CrowdStrike, Inc. et al (1:25-cv-02088) in the Western District of Texas, attorneys Su Li and Erik C. Olson have appeared on behalf of CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. and CrowdStrike, Inc. However, appearances in district court do not automatically translate to representation in a PTAB IPR.

Without direct access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2025-00068, which would list the counsel of record, the specific attorneys representing CrowdStrike, Inc. in this IPR cannot be identified from the available public search results. It is possible that the filings listing counsel are sealed, or that the names of counsel are not widely reported in the public summaries of the Director Review decision.

GoSecure, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in the IPR2025-00068 proceedings. The counsel of record identified are:

• Clement Naples

  • Role: Practitioner for Patent Owner (GoSecure, Inc.) before the PTAB.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, One Liberty Plaza, New York, New York 10006.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Mr. Naples is involved in patent matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Steven W. Peters

  • Role: Practitioner for Patent Owner (GoSecure, Inc.) before the PTAB.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, 2112 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Mr. Peters is involved in patent matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Daniel S. Todd

  • Role: Practitioner for Patent Owner (GoSecure, Inc.) before the PTAB.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, 2112 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Mr. Todd is involved in patent matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.