Short Summary
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-00067, CrowdStrike, Inc. challenges all 23 claims of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,106,697, which claims methods for detecting unauthorized activities on a decoy virtual machine and generating fingerprints to protect networks. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of the pre‑AIA publication Capalik together with King for the majority of the claims, and further relies on Pike for claim 14 and Farley for claim 18. The petition emphasizes that Capalik was never cited during prosecution, arguing a material error, and contends that discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a) is unwarranted, invoking the Fintiv factors and the need for a timely Board decision before a scheduled jury trial. The filing includes detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and seeks institution of the IPR.
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
lululemon usa inc. et al.vsNike, Inc.
lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsGenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
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.
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.