Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Overview and Background

Parties, Products, and Patents at Issue

This patent infringement suit features Qomplx LLC, a Reston, Virginia-based cybersecurity and risk analytics company, as the plaintiff. Qomplx is an operating company that provides sophisticated data analytics services for cybersecurity, insurance, and risk management, leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning. The company, founded in 2015, had previously planned to go public via a $1.4 billion SPAC merger, though the deal was later terminated. The defendant is Microsoft Corporation, the global technology giant. The dispute centers on Microsoft's integrated cloud and enterprise security infrastructure. Qomplx alleges that a range of Microsoft's flagship products—including its data analytics platform Microsoft Fabric, identity and access management service Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory), and the Microsoft Sentinel security information and event management (SIEM) platform—infringe on its patented technology.

The complaint, filed on August 28, 2025, asserts six U.S. patents against Microsoft. These patents cover a range of technologies core to modern, large-scale data analysis and cybersecurity. They include:

• U.S. Patent No. 12,143,424: Concerns rapid predictive analysis of very large datasets using a distributed computational graph.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,218,934 & 12,231,426: Both relate to contextual and risk-based multi-factor authentication (MFA) systems.
• U.S. Patent No. 12,301,627 & 12,301,628: Address cybersecurity rating methods using network graph analysis to identify attack paths and correlations.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,539,663: Describes using a "midserver" as a gateway to aggregate and secure data from local devices before transmission to the cloud.

Procedural Posture and Notability

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and has been assigned case number 1:25-cv-01383. Court documents, including the scheduling order, bear the identifier "ADA," indicating the case is assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is highly significant; the Western District of Texas, and Judge Albright's court in particular, became the most popular patent venue in the nation in recent years, known for its fast trial schedules and procedures perceived as favorable to patent holders. Although an order in 2022 began randomizing patent case assignments filed in the Waco division, Judge Albright's subsequent move to Austin means he now presides over a significant portion of the Austin patent docket, maintaining the venue's relevance. The case is in its early stages, with a scheduling order issued that sets deadlines for claim construction, discovery, and other pretrial matters.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It represents a significant challenge by a smaller, specialized operating company against one of the world's largest technology corporations over core elements of its lucrative cloud and enterprise security business. Furthermore, the case exemplifies a key dynamic in modern patent litigation: the parallel fight at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Microsoft has aggressively challenged the validity of the asserted patents by filing petitions for inter partes review (IPR). Known PTAB proceedings include IPR2026-00182 (against the '934 patent), IPR2026-00183, IPR2026-00184, IPR2026-00298, IPR2026-00325 (against the '627 patent), and IPR2026-00326. This "two-front war" in district court and the PTAB is a common strategy for defendants in high-stakes patent cases, making the interplay between the two forums a critical factor in the litigation's outcome.

Key Legal Developments and Case Posture

As of May 2026, Qomplx LLC v. Microsoft Corporation is an active and contested litigation characterized by parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case is in the advanced pre-trial stages, approaching claim construction, with significant developments in both forums.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-08-28: Complaint Filed
  Qomplx LLC filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, accusing a range of Microsoft's cloud and security products of infringing six U.S. patents. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

• 2025-11-24: Preliminary Infringement Contentions
  Pursuant to the court's local rules, Qomplx served its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, detailing its initial theories of how Microsoft's accused products infringe the asserted patents.

• 2026-01-05: Amended Scheduling Order Issued
  The court entered an amended scheduling order setting key deadlines for the litigation. The order scheduled the Markman (claim construction) hearing for June 1, 2026, with a jury trial slated to begin on June 21, 2027. The deadline for Microsoft to file a motion to transfer venue was set for December 22, 2025. No such motion appears to have been filed.

• 2026-01-26: Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
  Microsoft served its preliminary invalidity contentions, outlining the prior art and arguments it would use to challenge the validity of Qomplx's patents in the district court action.

• 2026-03-23: Opening Claim Construction Briefs Filed
  The parties filed their opening briefs on claim construction, outlining their arguments for how the court should interpret disputed terms in the patents-in-suit. This step is a critical precursor to the Markman hearing.

• 2026-04-03 and 2026-04-07: Microsoft Files IPR Petitions
  Microsoft filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the PTAB, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,301,628 (IPR2026-00326) and 12,301,627 (IPR2026-00325). These filings, along with previously identified IPRs against other asserted patents, demonstrate a comprehensive strategy to invalidate the patents outside of the district court litigation. As of early May 2026, these IPR petitions are pending before the PTAB, which has not yet decided whether to institute trial.

• 2026-04-23: Court Vacates Certain Settings
  Judge Albright issued an order vacating unspecified settings "due to the potential for future conflicts." The precise impact of this order on the overall schedule is not yet clear from available documents, but such orders can sometimes foreshadow adjustments to major deadlines like the trial date.

Current Posture:

The district court case is actively proceeding toward the Markman hearing scheduled for June 1, 2026. Fact discovery is set to close on December 14, 2026, with expert discovery continuing into March 2027.

Crucially, the litigation is running parallel to the PTAB proceedings initiated by Microsoft. The PTAB's decisions on whether to institute the IPRs will be a major inflection point. If the PTAB institutes trials, Microsoft will likely file a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's final decisions. Judges in the Western District of Texas, including Judge Albright, consider factors such as the stage of the litigation and the overlap between the IPR and district court issues when deciding whether to grant a stay. Given that the case is still pre-Markman, a stay is a significant possibility if the IPRs are instituted.

No substantive motions to dismiss or for summary judgment have been filed or decided yet. The case remains in a highly active, pre-trial phase, with the upcoming Markman hearing and the PTAB institution decisions poised to be the next significant developments. There is no indication of any settlement, dismissal, or judgment as of May 5, 2026.

Counsel for Plaintiff Qomplx LLC

Based on court filings and attorney biographies, Qomplx LLC has assembled a counsel team from the elite patent litigation firm Irell & Manella LLP, supported by local counsel from McKool Smith.

Irell & Manella LLP

Irell & Manella is serving as lead counsel for Qomplx. The firm is nationally recognized for securing massive, plaintiff-side patent infringement verdicts.

• Jason G. Sheasby (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Notability: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Sheasby has co-led teams that secured major patent verdicts, including over $500 million for USAA against Wells Fargo and a $303 million verdict for Netlist against Samsung. He is described by Chambers USA as having "a remarkable ability to come up with creative solutions" and was named "Litigator of the Year" by The American Lawyer.

• Lisa S. Glasser (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach and Los Angeles, CA.
  • Notability: Glasser is a highly decorated trial lawyer with extensive experience in high-stakes technology and patent cases; she has been named "Litigator of the Year" by The American Lawyer and a "Trials MVP" by Law360. She has held top leadership roles at Irell, including serving on the firm's executive committee.

• Reza Mirzaie (Of Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA. (Note: Some legal directories from prior to 2026 may list him at Russ August & Kabat).
  • Notability: Mirzaie focuses on patent litigation and has secured more than $600 million for clients in recent years, including a $122 million verdict against Amazon and a $279 million verdict against Samsung.

McKool Smith

Serving as local counsel in Texas, attorneys from McKool Smith bring significant experience in the Western District of Texas.

• James E. Quigley (Local Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: McKool Smith, Austin, TX.
  • Notability: Quigley is a commercial litigator and trial lawyer specializing in patent and technology cases who has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court and the PTAB.

• Kenneth Scott (Local Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: McKool Smith, Austin, TX.
  • Notability: Scott's practice focuses on patent litigation involving software, mobile devices, and wireless communications.

• Stone Martin (Local Counsel)

  • Firm & Location: McKool Smith, Austin, TX.
  • Notability: Martin previously served as an extern for Judge Alan Albright and Judge Derek Gilliland in the Western District of Texas, providing direct experience with the practices of the court.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Microsoft Corporation has retained a national counsel team from the global law firm DLA Piper LLP, supported by local counsel from the Austin-based litigation boutique George Brothers Kincaid & Horton LLP. Court filings, including motions for pro hac vice admission, confirm the identities of the attorneys who have appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Based on docket entries and law firm profiles, the counsel for Microsoft are as follows:

National Counsel

• Name: Erik R. Fuehrer

  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed, based on partnership status and experience)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Silicon Valley office
  • Note: A partner focused on patent litigation, he has represented clients in U.S. district courts and the International Trade Commission in matters involving software, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

• Name: Angela Whitesell

  • Role: Of Counsel (assumed)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, Delaware office
  • Note: Whitesell's practice centers on intellectual property litigation, with prior experience as a law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a key venue for patent disputes.

• Name: Tessa Duxbury

  • Role: Of Counsel (assumed)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles office
  • Note: An associate in DLA Piper's patent litigation group, she focuses her practice on intellectual property disputes.

Local Counsel

• Name: D. Douglas Brothers

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: George Brothers Kincaid & Horton LLP, Austin, Texas
  • Note: A founding partner of the firm, he has over 30 years of experience in complex commercial litigation and is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

• Name: B. Russell Horton

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: George Brothers Kincaid & Horton LLP, Austin, Texas
  • Note: A partner at the firm, his practice includes complex commercial and patent litigation, and he is Board Certified in both Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Trial Law.