Case Explained: VIR2US, INC. Plaintiff – v. SOPHOS INC.; INVINCEA, INC Defendants – Appellants and SOPHOS LIMITED; SOPHOS GROUP PLC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants Sophos Inc., Invincea Inc., Sophos Limited, and Sophos Group PLC, holding that disputed Sophos products were not “Container Products” subject to royalty payments under a patent license agreement. The court concluded that these products did not qualify as “natural evolutions and derivations” of the specific accused container products listed in the agreement’s definition. The court applied de novo review to the district court’s contract interpretation, adhering to Virginia law which mandates that clear and unambiguous contractual terms be enforced according to their plain meaning without resort to extrinsic evidence. The court analyzed the term “derivation” using dictionary definitions establishing a requirement of direct origination or production from a source. It determined that the mere presence of shared machine-learning source code between the accused container products and the disputed Sophos products was insufficient to establish a derivative relationship, particularly because the disputed products existed prior to the integration of Invincea’s code, did not employ the containerization technology central to the “accused” products, and lacked evidence that Sophos physically derived the code from the specific listed products. Furthermore, the court emphasized the context of the agreement, noting it was a settlement of patent infringement claims specifically regarding containerization technology, which supported limiting the definition of derivations to products utilizing that same technology. As a result of this affirmation, the judgment against Vir2us, Inc. is final and binding regarding the royalty claims for the disputed Sophos products under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The case remains pending in the district court only for the unresolved counterclaim filed by Invincea against Vir2us, which involves genuine issues of material fact. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.