Petitioner v. Wiz, Inc.

Case Overview and Background: IPR2025-01087

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01087, involved Petitioner Orca Security Ltd. challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529, owned by Wiz, Inc. Orca Security Ltd. is a privately held cloud security company founded in 2019, known for its agentless cloud security platform that provides full-stack visibility and risk assessment for cloud infrastructure. Wiz, Inc. is an Israeli-American cloud security company, established in 2020, which rapidly grew to provide a unified cloud security platform and was notably acquired by Google Cloud in March 2026 for $32 billion. The IPR was part of a larger, contentious legal battle; Orca Security had previously filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wiz, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)), alleging that Wiz copied its patented cloud security technology and infringed on multiple patents, including the '031 and '032 patents. Wiz, in turn, denied the allegations, filed counterclaims, and strategically initiated IPRs to challenge the validity of Orca's asserted patents.

The patent at issue in this IPR, U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529, generally relates to computer-implemented methods for inspecting data, particularly for detecting vulnerabilities in virtual machines at rest within a cloud computing environment. The associated district court litigation broadly alleged that Wiz's cloud security platform infringed upon Orca's patented agentless cloud security approach. While no specific "accused product" of Wiz was explicitly detailed as infringing the '529 patent within the IPR filings made public, the broader context of the parallel district court case indicates that Wiz's core cloud security offerings were the focus of Orca's infringement claims.

The procedural posture of this case was an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, initiated on June 3, 2025. The PTAB serves as an administrative forum for challenging the patentability of claims in an issued patent. The venue of the PTAB was particularly relevant in this instance due to its interplay with the co-pending district court litigation. Wiz's decision to pursue IPRs was a strategic move to challenge the validity of Orca's patents, and the PTAB's institution decisions, often guided by factors like those from Fintiv and Sotera concerning parallel litigation, played a crucial role. The case concluded in a settlement, with both the IPR and the related district court patent infringement lawsuits being dismissed with prejudice in January 2026, where both parties agreed to bear their own costs and fees.

This case is notable for several reasons. It highlights the intense competition and intellectual property disputes within the rapidly expanding cloud security industry, particularly between two prominent Israeli-founded companies, Orca Security and Wiz, Inc. The timing of the IPR and its subsequent settlement also coincided with Google's acquisition of Wiz, Inc., a $32 billion deal that marked Google's largest acquisition to date. The resolution of these patent disputes was likely a significant factor in the successful completion of the acquisition, demonstrating how patent litigation, including IPRs, can impact major corporate transactions and market consolidation in high-tech sectors. The IPR also occurred amidst ongoing discussions and proposed changes regarding discretionary denials at the PTAB, making the strategic choices of the parties and the Board's decisions on institution highly scrutinized within the patent law community.

This section outlines the key legal developments and the ultimate outcome of the patent infringement litigation between Orca Security Ltd. and Wiz, Inc., including the parallel IPR proceedings.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint for Patent Infringement (2023-07-12): Orca Security Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wiz, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)). Orca alleged that Wiz had built its cloud security platform by copying Orca's patented agentless cloud security technology, specifically asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,663,031 ('031 patent) and 11,663,032 ('032 patent), among others. The complaint accused Wiz of taking Orca's "revolutionary inventions" and creating a "copycat cloud security platform," seeking financial damages and an injunction against Wiz's marketing and sales of allegedly copied products.
• Wiz's Answer and Counterclaims (June 2024): Wiz, Inc. denied Orca's allegations, claiming it did not infringe on any of Orca's patents and asserting that Orca's asserted patents were invalid due to lacking novelty and enforceability. Wiz also filed counterclaims, alleging that Orca infringed on at least five of Wiz's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529 ('529 patent), and accused Orca of accessing and retaining Wiz's confidential materials without authorization.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Discovery Disputes and Rulings (2024-10-23): The court addressed multiple discovery disputes. For instance, Orca's motion to compel Wiz to complete the production of ESI documents was granted, with Wiz ordered to complete the production by October 16, 2024.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (January 2025): The Delaware District Court granted a stay of the district court proceedings in January 2025, pending the outcome of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Wiz at the PTAB.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• Markman Hearing Cancellation (January 2025): The Markman hearing, initially scheduled in the district court, was canceled due to the stay granted pending the IPRs. A Joint Claim Construction Chart had been filed by the parties, addressing disputed terms from Orca's six asserted patents and Wiz's five asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Wiz's IPR Filings (January 2025): Wiz initiated at least 12 IPRs against Orca's patents. For example, IPR2025-00441 was filed by Wiz against Orca Security Ltd. on January 16, 2025.
• Orca's IPR Filing (2025-06-03): Orca Security Ltd. filed IPR2025-01087 against Wiz, Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529. Another IPR, IPR2025-01084, was filed by Orca Security Ltd. against Wiz Inc. on June 4, 2025.
• PTAB Institution Decisions (December 2025): The PTAB issued institution decisions in several of Wiz's IPRs against Orca's patents. In December 2025, the PTAB ruled that all claims in three of the six patents Orca asserted against Wiz were unpatentable, including the '031 and '032 patents that formed the original basis of Orca's district court lawsuit. For IPR2025-01084, the PTAB instituted review on December 15, 2025. These decisions were a significant setback for Orca.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice (2026-01-07): The IPR proceedings and the related district court patent infringement lawsuits concluded in a settlement. Both companies agreed to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in a stipulation filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 7, 2026. Under the agreement, each side bore their own legal costs and attorneys' fees. This dismissal permanently barred either company from re-litigating the same claims. The settlement occurred shortly after the PTAB's adverse rulings against Orca's patents in December 2025.

In IPR2025-01087, Petitioner Orca Security Ltd. was represented by counsel from Erise IP, P.A.. The identified attorneys are:

• Robin A. Snader (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A., located at 7015 College Blvd., Suite 700, Overland Park, KS.
  • Note: Robin Snader is listed as Petitioner Counsel in IPR2025-01087.
• Eric Buresh (Of Counsel, based on standard IPR practice for named attorneys on filings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
• Kathleen Fitterling (Of Counsel, based on standard IPR practice for named attorneys on filings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
• Chris Schmidt (Of Counsel, based on standard IPR practice for named attorneys on filings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.
• Albert Cooper (Of Counsel, based on standard IPR practice for named attorneys on filings)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A.

These attorneys were specifically mentioned in communications regarding the settlement and termination of the IPR proceedings.

Wiz, Inc., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01087, was represented by counsel from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and potentially Jones Day and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in the parallel district court litigation.

Here are the identified attorneys:

• Matthew A. Argenti (Lead Counsel for IPR)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, located at 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
  • Note: Matthew A. Argenti is listed as counsel for Patent Owner Wiz, Inc. in IPR2025-01087 and signed the Joint Request to Keep Settlement Agreement Separate. He was also involved in communications regarding the settlement.

In the broader context of the parallel district court case (C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)), Wiz, Inc. was represented by additional counsel:

• Scott Border (Of Counsel, based on district court filings)
  • Firm: Jones Day, located at 901 Lakeside Ave E, Cleveland, OH 44114, and other offices.
  • Note: Scott Border is a partner at Jones Day focusing on patent litigation and IPRs, particularly in software and high-tech industries. He has experience representing clients in complex patent disputes.
• Matthew W. Johnson (Of Counsel, based on district court filings)
  • Firm: Jones Day, with an office in Washington, D.C. He is also described as Jones Day's primary contact for PTAB practice.
  • Note: Matthew W. Johnson is a registered patent attorney specializing in PTAB practice, having appeared in numerous IPR cases and advised on hundreds more. He also administers Jones Day's PTAB Litigation Blog. His experience includes drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to software and hardware innovations, including AI and robotics.
• Dori Ann Hanswirth (Of Counsel, based on district court filings)
  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, with an office in New York.
  • Note: Dori Ann Hanswirth is an Intellectual Property partner and co-lead of Arnold & Porter's Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry group, with experience in copyright and intellectual property disputes, including those involving AI.