CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, CrowdStrike, Inc. v. Skysong Innovations, LLC (IPR2025-01397), centered on a patent validity challenge brought before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner, CrowdStrike, Inc., is a prominent American cybersecurity technology company known for its cloud-based endpoint security, threat intelligence, and cyberattack response services, particularly its Falcon platform. The patent owner, Skysong Innovations, LLC, serves as the exclusive intellectual property management and technology transfer organization for Arizona State University (ASU), focusing on commercializing ASU's discoveries and inventions across various sectors. The IPR specifically targeted U.S. Patent No. 10,313,385, which is titled "Systems and methods for data driven game theoretic cyber threat mitigation." This patent describes a security framework designed to model attackers with access to exploit markets and defenders of IT infrastructure, leveraging real-world "darknet" exploit market data to develop optimal defense strategies.

The IPR was filed by CrowdStrike in the context of an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al (7:25-cv-00040), initiated by Skysong in the Western District of Texas on January 31, 2025. In that district court litigation, Skysong Innovations accused CrowdStrike's Falcon Platform of infringing several patents, including the '385 patent. The PTAB venue is significant as it provides an alternative, often faster, forum for challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation. However, this particular IPR was terminated as "Not Instituted - Procedural" on December 11, 2025, after CrowdStrike filed a "Notice of Sotera Plus Stipulation."

The termination of the IPR via a "Sotera Plus Stipulation" is notable. This type of stipulation is a strategic maneuver used by petitioners to influence the PTAB's discretionary denial analysis under Fintiv, which aims to avoid duplicative proceedings between the PTAB and district courts. By filing a "Sotera Plus Stipulation," CrowdStrike likely committed not to assert in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised during the IPR, potentially extending to grounds based on "system art" if coextensive with IPR references. This strategic withdrawal typically aims to preserve certain invalidity arguments for the district court while demonstrating to the PTAB that institution would not lead to significant overlap or inefficiency, although in this instance, it led to a procedural termination without institution. The case highlights the complex interplay between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings, especially concerning estoppel and the strategic use of stipulations to manage patent challenges.

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. The key legal developments and outcome are as follows:

1. Filing of IPR Petition (2025-08-15)
CrowdStrike, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed an IPR petition challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,313,385 ("the '385 patent"), owned by Skysong Innovations, LLC ("Patent Owner"). The petition was assigned case number IPR2025-01397.

2. Petitioner's "Notice of Sotera Plus Stipulation"
During the pre-institution phase of the IPR, CrowdStrike filed a "Notice of Sotera Plus Stipulation." This type of stipulation is typically filed when parties in a parallel district court litigation have reached a settlement or agreement that resolves the dispute concerning the patent challenged in the IPR. The "Sotera Plus" refers to the precedent set by Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., where the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's discretion to deny institution when the parties have settled the underlying district court litigation. Such a stipulation usually indicates that the petitioner will not pursue the IPR further.

3. Termination of IPR (2025-12-11)
On December 11, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board terminated the IPR proceeding. The termination was categorized as "Not Instituted - Procedural." This outcome signifies that the Board did not reach a decision on the merits of instituting the IPR, but rather terminated it based on a procedural ground, specifically the "Notice of Sotera Plus Stipulation" filed by CrowdStrike.

Outcome:
The IPR was terminated without a decision on institution due to the procedural action taken by CrowdStrike. This means the patentability of the '385 patent was not reviewed on its merits by the PTAB in this particular IPR proceeding. There were no claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions as the IPR was terminated pre-institution. There is no public record of an appeal to the Federal Circuit for this terminated IPR. There is no information from the provided data or search results indicating an active parallel district court patent infringement litigation for the '385 patent involving these parties.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
This case, IPR2025-01397, was itself a PTAB IPR proceeding. No other parallel PTAB or PGR proceedings on the '385 patent were identified in connection with these parties. The termination of this IPR means it did not have any further effect on potential future litigation, as it was not instituted.

CrowdStrike, Inc. was represented by the following counsel in IPR2025-01397:

• Paul R. Hart (Counsel)

  • Firm: Erise IP PA
  • Office Location: Likely Kansas City, MO, where Erise IP PA has its primary office.
  • Note: Paul R. Hart is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 59,646) and is listed as counsel for CrowdStrike in this and a related IPR. He is a founding partner of Erise IP and focuses his practice on patent, trademark, and copyright litigation.

• Adam P. Seitz (Counsel)

  • Firm: Erise IP PA
  • Office Location: Likely Kansas City, MO, where Erise IP PA has its primary office.
  • Note: Adam P. Seitz is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 52,206) and is listed as counsel for CrowdStrike in this and a related IPR. He is also a founding partner of Erise IP and handles intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and trademark matters.

• Hunter A. Horton (Pro Hac Vice Counsel)

  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but typically attorneys admitted pro hac vice are from firms outside the jurisdiction (in this case, outside the immediate PTAB area or primary office location of the main counsel).
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Note: Hunter A. Horton was admitted pro hac vice in this case, indicating he is likely from a different firm or office than the primary counsel.

While Morrison & Foerster LLP is listed as representing CrowdStrike Inc. in a related district court case (Skysong Innovations, LLC v. CrowdStrike Inc. et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00040-DC-DTG), the IPR filings explicitly name Paul R. Hart, Adam P. Seitz, and Hunter A. Horton as counsel for the petitioner, CrowdStrike, Inc. in IPR2025-01397. Erise IP PA is also listed as a firm representing CrowdStrike in a different IPR (IPR2025-01400) alongside Paul R. Hart and Adam P. Seitz, suggesting it is their firm.

Skysong Innovations, LLC was represented by both outside counsel and in-house counsel in IPR2025-01397.

Outside Counsel:

• Jay P. Kesan - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Key IP Law Group PLLC (also known as Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC) - Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Dr. Kesan is a highly experienced patent attorney with over 25 years in the field. He has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous patent lawsuits in federal district courts and has been lead counsel in over 30 inter partes reviews (IPRs), arguing multiple times before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). His experience spans all aspects of patent enforcement, strategy, and licensing, and he has a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering. He has also served as a technical expert in patent litigation for various technologies including wireless technology, semiconductors, and software.

In-House Counsel (Skysong Innovations, LLC):

• Augustine V. Cheng, J.D. - CEO & Chief Legal Officer

  • Firm: Skysong Innovations, LLC (Tempe, AZ)
  • Experience: Augustine Cheng has been the CEO and Chief Legal Officer of Skysong Innovations since July 2007. Prior to this, he founded and led the Patent & Licensing Group in the Office of the General Counsel at Columbia University, where he oversaw legal affairs related to patent protection, licensing programs, and litigation. He has extensive experience in IP licensing, research agreements, and has private practice experience as a litigation attorney in New York law firms Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Schulte Roth & Zabel.

• Todd Glenn, J.D. - General Counsel

  • Firm: Skysong Innovations, LLC (Tempe, AZ)
  • Experience: Todd Glenn joined Skysong Innovations in January 2013 and is responsible for contractual, litigation, intellectual property, corporate governance, and compliance matters. His prior experience at local law firms included supporting litigation and intellectual property matters involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and licensing.

• Mason McCarty, J.D. - Assistant General Counsel

  • Firm: Skysong Innovations, LLC (Tempe, AZ)
  • Experience: Mason McCarty joined Skysong Innovations in September 2022. His responsibilities include licensing and technology transactions, compliance, complex commercial contracts, and litigation. Before joining Skysong, he was an attorney at Messner Reeves, LLP, focusing on Complex Commercial Litigation. He also completed an intellectual property emphasis in law school and was an inventor on five U.S. patents prior to his legal career.