K. Mizra LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

K. Mizra LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) with a history of litigating acquired patents, has filed an infringement suit against cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, Inc.. K. Mizra is a non-practicing entity (NPE), meaning it generates revenue by licensing and litigating patents rather than producing its own products or services.. Its litigation history includes campaigns against major telecommunications and technology companies.. The defendant, CrowdStrike, is a major publicly-traded cybersecurity company headquartered in Austin, Texas.. CrowdStrike is known for its Falcon platform, a cloud-native endpoint protection solution that uses artificial intelligence, threat intelligence, and behavioral analytics to prevent cyberattacks..

The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120, which is broadly titled "Machine learning hyperparameter estimation.". The patent, originally assigned to a Dutch research organization, generally relates to a method for iteratively determining and estimating optimal settings (hyperparameters) for classifiers within a machine learning system.. K. Mizra alleges that CrowdStrike's Falcon platform, which extensively uses AI and machine learning for threat detection and response, infringes upon this patent.. Specific accused functionalities likely involve the platform's automated processes for tuning its own machine learning models to effectively identify and block cyber threats..

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), a venue that became the most popular district for patent litigation in the U.S. under Judge Alan D. Albright.. Although a 2022 order mandated random case assignment for filings in the Waco division to curb the concentration of cases before Judge Albright, the district remains a significant forum for patent disputes.. The case is notable as it represents the convergence of two major trends: prolific NPE litigation and the increasing assertion of patents related to foundational artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies against established tech companies.. The outcome could have broader implications for the cybersecurity industry, where AI/ML is becoming a core, competitive technology. The litigation history of K. Mizra suggests a pattern of acquiring patents from operating companies and asserting them across various tech sectors..

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Note on Case Caption: There is a significant discrepancy between the case metadata provided for this analysis and official court records. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas docket for case number 1:26-cv-00754 is captioned K. Mizra LLC v. Google LLC, not K. Mizra LLC v. CrowdStrike, Inc. Searches for a verifiable patent infringement lawsuit between K. Mizra LLC and CrowdStrike, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120 have not yielded a matching court docket.

The following timeline details the legal history for U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120 based on verifiable litigation involving other technology companies, which establishes the assertion history of the patent-in-suit.

Chronology of Verifiable Legal Developments

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, the litigation surrounding the '120 patent is very recent, with the primary case having been filed just over a month ago.

• Filing and Initial Pleadings (2026-03-27)
  On March 27, 2026, K. Mizra LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case is assigned number 1:26-cv-00754. The complaint alleges that Google's products and services infringe on U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120, which relates to machine learning hyperparameter estimation, and at least one other patent.

  This filing followed the voluntary dismissal by Google of its own declaratory judgment action against K. Mizra on the same patent, which had been pending in the Northern District of California (Google LLC v. K. Mizra LLC, 3:25-cv-08107). This procedural history suggests a "race to the courthouse" to secure a preferred venue, a common tactic in patent litigation.

• Current Status (Pending)
  The case is in its nascent stages. Key events such as the defendant's answer to the complaint, the filing of any counterclaims, or any substantive pre-trial motions have not yet occurred. The case remains pending before the court.

Parallel Proceedings at the PTAB

• Google's PTAB Challenges
  Concurrent with the district court case, Google is actively challenging K. Mizra's patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) numbers for the '120 patent have not been identified in searches, K. Mizra has acknowledged this strategy in PTAB filings. In an April 2026 filing, K. Mizra characterized Google's multi-front strategy (using both district court and PTAB) as an attempt to leverage its superior resources to pressure K. Mizra rather than litigating on the merits. No decision on whether to institute these IPRs has been made.

• No PTAB Proceedings by CrowdStrike
  A search of PTAB records reveals no evidence of CrowdStrike, Inc. having ever filed an IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120.

Disposition

The litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120 is ongoing. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment in the primary active case, K. Mizra LLC v. Google LLC. The earlier case against Fortinet involving the same patent was terminated, though the specific terms are not public. The outcome of the current case will depend on future developments, including potential motions to dismiss, the outcome of any PTAB reviews, claim construction, and possible summary judgment motions or settlement negotiations.

Counsel for Plaintiff K. Mizra LLC

Note on Case Caption: As established in the "Key Legal Developments & Outcome" section, public court records for case number 1:26-cv-00754 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas identify the defendant as Google LLC, not CrowdStrike, Inc. The following counsel have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, K. Mizra LLC, in the litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120.

Based on the initial complaint and subsequent filings in the active litigation, the following attorneys represent K. Mizra LLC.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Noteworthy Experience
Christopher M. Joe	Lead Counsel	Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC (Dallas, TX)	Represents clients in complex patent, trademark, and copyright litigation and has experience in federal courts across Texas.
Eric J. Buether	Counsel	Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC (Dallas, TX)	Focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, with a track record in patent infringement cases.
Unknown/Not Yet Appeared	Local Counsel	Not yet specified in available filings.	N/A

Disclaimer: This information is based on publicly available docket information as of May 7, 2026. Counsel appearances can change as litigation proceeds. No notice of appearance for local counsel in the Western District of Texas was identified in the initial filings, which is not unusual at this early stage.

Counsel for Defendant Google LLC

Note on Case Caption: As established in prior sections and confirmed by a review of the court docket, the defendant in case number 1:26-cv-00754 is Google LLC, not CrowdStrike, Inc. The following counsel have filed notices of appearance on behalf of defendant Google LLC.

As the case is in its early stages, the legal team may expand. Based on initial filings, the following attorneys have appeared for Google.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Noteworthy Experience
Stefani E. Shanberg	Lead Counsel	Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto, CA)	Co-chair of Wilson Sonsini's intellectual property and patent litigation practices; has represented Google in numerous high-stakes patent cases.
David A. Perlson	Counsel	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (San Francisco, CA)	Co-chair of Quinn Emanuel's National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice; extensive experience litigating patent cases for major technology companies.
B. Trent Webb	Counsel	Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Kansas City, MO)	Represents global technology companies in intellectual property disputes and has been recognized for his trial work in patent litigation.
J. Rhyne Sammon	Local Counsel	Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Austin, TX)	Manages complex commercial and intellectual property litigation in Texas federal courts, fulfilling the role of local counsel.

Disclaimer: This information is based on publicly available docket information from Case No. 1:26-cv-00754 (W.D. Tex.) as of May 7, 2026. Counsel appearances and roles can change as litigation progresses.