Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 15 cases

15 cases on record naming Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.: 0 as claimant, 15 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

15 cases on record

Cases on record
15
As claimant
0
As respondent
15
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:25-cv-01192 Sulaco Enterprises LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 5 Dec 2025 122 d Dismissed with Prejudice
3:25-cv-00279 Touchpoint Projection Innovations LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Tex. 4 Feb 2025 64 d Voluntary dismissal
2:24-cv-00981 Touchpoint Projection Innovations, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 27 Nov 2024 71 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00244 Winterspring Digital, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 28 May 2023 71 d Voluntary dismissal
2:22-cv-00063 Taasera Licensing, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 25 Feb 2022 656 d Dismissed with Prejudice
3:21-cv-02134 Callstat Solutions, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Tex. 8 Sep 2021 20 d Voluntary dismissal
1:21-cv-00837 DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 8 Jun 2021 97 d Voluntary dismissal
1:21-cv-00201 Sable Networks, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant D. Del. 12 Feb 2021 73 d Voluntary dismissal
2:19-cv-00384 Longhorn HD, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant E.D. Tex. 20 Nov 2019 204 d Voluntary dismissal
3:18-cv-02621 Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 3 May 2018 756 d Likely Settlement
5:16-cv-00152 Wetro Lan, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 4 Oct 2016 84 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-00961 St. Luke Technologies, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant E.D. Tex. 29 Aug 2016 184 d Likely Settlement
1:15-cv-09140 Consolidated Work Station Computing, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant S.D.N.Y. 20 Nov 2015 45 d Voluntary dismissal
2:15-cv-00929 Verifire Network Solutions, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant E.D. Tex. 3 Jun 2015 133 d Likely Settlement
1:10-cv-01067 Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. Defendant D. Del. 8 Dec 2010 1951 d Judgment on the Merits
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Check Point Software Technologies is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.