Orca Security sued Wiz in federal court, alleging that Wiz copied cloud-security inventions behind Orca’s agentless SideScanning approach. The Delaware complaint names two Orca patents and seeks a jury trial. Wiz later challenged Orca’s indirect- and willful-infringement theories, while a separate Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding put another Wiz-owned patent under review. The public records available through September 28, 2026 do not establish a final judgment, settlement, injunction, or damages award.
Why Orca sued Wiz
Orca’s complaint says its products used patent-pending SideScanning technology dating back to 2019. Orca alleges that Wiz built a competing cloud-security platform using overlapping inventions and describes Wiz’s product as a copycat. Those are allegations made by Orca in its pleading and in reporting about the case—not findings that Wiz infringed a patent.
SideScanning is central to Orca’s description of its technology because it is an agentless way to inspect cloud environments. The complaint presents that approach as part of Orca’s claimed technical contribution. The available materials do not establish, however, that a court has adopted Orca’s description, found the patents valid, or determined that Wiz’s implementation falls within any asserted claim.
Patents identified in the Delaware complaint
The patent report attached to the federal docket identifies two U.S. patents as the asserted rights:
#1 Best Overall
| Patent | What the public record establishes |
|---|---|
| U.S. Patent No. 11,663,031 | Listed in Orca’s patent-infringement action against Wiz; the accessible docket material does not provide a complete claim-by-claim infringement determination. |
| U.S. Patent No. 11,663,032 | Also listed in the action; no final validity or infringement finding is established in the accessible record. |
The case was brought under 35 U.S.C. §271, the federal patent-infringement statute, and Orca demanded a jury. A complaint starts a case and states the plaintiff’s theory; it does not prove infringement or guarantee that every asserted claim will reach trial.
What happened in the district court
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| July 12, 2023 | Orca Security Ltd. filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Wiz was served the same day. | The docket records a patent cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §271 and a jury demand. |
| July 12, 2023 | The court’s patent report named U.S. Patent Nos. 11,663,031 and 11,663,032. | These are the two patents identified with the complaint in the public docket. |
| September 1, 2023 | Wiz filed a motion to dismiss. | The motion targeted Orca’s indirect- and willful-infringement theories rather than being described in the available entry as a final resolution of the entire dispute. |
| September 28, 2026 | End date of the accessible public-record review for this article. | No final district-court judgment, settlement, injunction, or damages award is confirmed in the materials available through that date. |
What Wiz’s motion to dismiss means
Indirect infringement generally concerns alleged assistance or inducement of another party’s infringement, while willful infringement concerns allegations that the conduct was deliberate or objectively egregious under the governing law. Wiz’s motion attacked those theories at the pleading stage. A motion to dismiss tests whether the complaint states legally sufficient claims; it is not itself a ruling that the patents are invalid or that no infringement occurred.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
The accessible docket entry confirms the motion, but the materials reviewed here do not establish a later order deciding every issue raised by it. The district case should therefore be described as litigation with contested pleadings, not as a proven case of copying.
Related PTAB challenge involving another Wiz-owned patent
The dispute also appears in a patent-validity forum. In proceeding IPR2025-01084, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s filing identifies Orca as the petitioner, Wiz as the patent owner, and U.S. Patent No. 11,929,896 as the challenged patent. Orca challenges claims 1 through 29 as obvious.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The PTAB summary says the ’896 patent “relates to cybersecurity systems for generating unified graph models of network entities within complex, multi-platform cloud environments.” The described obviousness theory combines prior-art references involving collection of cloud-workload data, grouping of entities, modeling otherwise hidden platform components, and generation of a multidimensional network graph. That description explains the validity dispute; it does not establish that the challenged claims are obvious. The board’s ultimate institution, trial, and final written-decision outcomes are not confirmed in the accessible materials used here.
A separate proceeding, IPR2025-01087, concerns U.S. Patent No. 12,003,529 and technology for detecting cybersecurity risks in artificial-intelligence models in cloud environments. It is a distinct PTAB matter and should not be treated as a ruling on the two patents named in Orca’s Delaware complaint.
Rank #4
What is confirmed—and what is not
Confirmed by the available filings
- Orca filed a Delaware patent complaint against Wiz and requested a jury.
- The complaint’s docket report identifies U.S. Patent Nos. 11,663,031 and 11,663,032.
- Orca alleges that Wiz copied inventions associated with its agentless SideScanning technology.
- Wiz filed a motion directed at indirect- and willful-infringement theories.
- Orca later appeared as petitioner in IPR2025-01084 against Wiz-owned U.S. Patent No. 11,929,896, with claims 1–29 challenged as obvious.
Not established by the accessible public record
- That Wiz was found to infringe either patent in the Delaware case.
- That a court ruled the asserted Orca patents valid or invalid.
- That the parties settled, went to trial, or received an injunction or damages award.
- That the PTAB instituted, completed, or finally decided the identified inter partes review proceedings.
Public docket pages, including the Justia presentation of docket information, warn that docket entries are not court findings of fact or liability. The safest reading is consequently procedural: the filings show what each side alleged or asked a tribunal to do, not who ultimately won.
How to follow the case without overstating it
- Separate Orca’s complaint from a judicial finding. “Orca alleges” is accurate; “Wiz infringed” is not established by the complaint alone.
- Track the district-court orders after the motion to dismiss. An order could narrow claims, allow the case to proceed, or resolve particular theories without ending every patent issue.
- Check PTAB decisions separately from the Delaware docket. An inter partes review addresses patent validity under the board’s procedures and does not automatically decide infringement in district court.
- Look for a final judgment, dismissal with prejudice, consent order, settlement filing, or damages ruling before describing the dispute as resolved.
What the lawsuit means for cloud-security buyers
The filings highlight competing approaches to cloud visibility and modeling: Orca emphasizes agentless collection through SideScanning, while the patent materials describe graph-based representation of entities and relationships across complex, multi-platform environments. The litigation does not by itself show that one vendor’s product is more secure, broader, or technically superior. Buyers evaluating either platform should rely on current product documentation, independent testing, deployment requirements, and contractual terms rather than treating unadjudicated patent allegations as product-performance evidence.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
