CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v. GoSecure, Inc.

IPR2025-00068

GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00068
Decision Date
31 October 2024
Filing Date
31 October 2024

Detailed Summary

In a Request for Director Review, GoSecure, Inc. asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution decisions for two inter partes review petitions (IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070) filed by CrowdStrike, Inc. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,954,872, contain 21 claims covering a method for identifying unauthorized activities on a computer system attached to a network. GoSecure contends that the Board erred by instituting two parallel IPRs without exceptional circumstances, by relying on alleged ambiguity of the term “association,” and by adopting an overbroad construction of “computer system” that conflates a computer system with a network, contrary to the specification and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution decisions and termination of the proceedings to prevent unnecessary litigation.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. vs GoSecure, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00386

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

patentIPR2025-00451

AT&T Services, Inc. et al.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.

patentIPR2026-00049

Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patentIPR2025-01304

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.

patentPGR2026-00020

Paragon 28, Inc.vsTREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace Medical Concepts' 12,268,428 bunion‑correction patent, alleging that all 30 claims are anticipated or obvious over well‑known surgical textbooks and prior‑art patents. The petition lists ten grounds covering §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call