
Webroot
Founded Year
1997Stage
Acquired | AcquiredTotal Raised
$108MValuation
$0000Expert Collections containing Webroot
Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.
Webroot is included in 2 Expert Collections, including Artificial Intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence
10,663 items
Companies developing artificial intelligence solutions, including cross-industry applications, industry-specific products, and AI infrastructure solutions.
Cybersecurity
6,891 items
These companies protect organizations from digital threats.
Webroot Patents
Webroot has filed 140 patents.
The 3 most popular patent topics include:
- Computer network security
- Computer security
- Computer security exploits

Application Date | Grant Date | Title | Related Topics | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
9/14/2022 | 9/12/2023 | Computer network security, Computer security, Malware, Computer security exploits, Cryptography | Grant |
Application Date | 9/14/2022 |
---|---|
Grant Date | 9/12/2023 |
Title | |
Related Topics | Computer network security, Computer security, Malware, Computer security exploits, Cryptography |
Status | Grant |
Latest Webroot News
Aug 4, 2023
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=401e6146-5b74-43f5-8181-b7ab03f25629" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> [co-author: Adriane Elinski]* CrowdStrike challenged the validity of multiple claims of Webroot’s ’224 patent, which is directed to a method and system for providing forensic visibility into client systems. The Board found that the Fintiv factors weighed against exercising its discretion to deny institution. The Board also reviewed CrowdStrike’s obviousness challenge to the ’224 patent claims in light of two prior art references and found that CrowdStrike had shown a reasonable likelihood of proving that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The Board thus granted institution on all challenged claims. The Board examined the Fintiv factors and found that they were either neutral or weighed against exercising its discretion to deny institution. With respect to factor 3 (“investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties”), Webroot argued that this factor favored denial of institution because CrowdStrike had taken conflicting claim construction positions in its district court briefing and in its petition for review. According to Webroot, CrowdStrike sought a narrow interpretation in district court (arguing that certain method steps had to take place in a specific order) but took a broader position in the IPR (arguing that the method steps can take place in any order). The Board was “unpersuaded” by this argument, explaining that Fintiv factor 3 “concerns the degree of investment, not the substance of the arguments being made.” CrowdStrike, Inc., v Webroot Inc., IPR2023-00126, Paper 9, at 10 (May 5, 2023). Indeed, what is relevant to factor 3 is “if, at the time of the institution decision, the district court has issued substantive orders related to the patent at issue in the petition,” and, if so, “this fact favors denial” of the Petition. Id. at 10 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9-10 (March 20, 2020). In this case, the scheduling order reflected that a Markman hearing had recently taken place and fact discovery had recently opened, but otherwise “[t]he parties have otherwise not invested a great deal in the related litigation.” Id. Further, the Board found that “it is not unusual for a patent litigation defendant to pursue an IPR based on a broader construction (such as the one offered by the Patent Owner) while also taking a narrower position in the district court.” Id. at 10–11. The Board explained that there is “nothing inherently wrong with that” approach and, in any event, “we certainly will consider any claim construction issued by the district court[. ]” Finally, the Board found that, regardless of its relevance to Fintiv factor 3, CrowdStrike’s analysis of prior art in the IPR was not ultimately inconsistent with its proposed claim construction in district court. Id. This case stands as a reminder that arguments made under Fintiv factor 3 must center on the “degree of investment” made by the parties and the court in the parallel district court proceedings. Allegedly “conflicting” substantive arguments on claim construction are “not unusual” and will be discounted by the Board as relevant to the analysis. *Summer Associate
Webroot Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
When was Webroot founded?
Webroot was founded in 1997.
Where is Webroot's headquarters?
Webroot's headquarters is located at 385 Interlocken Crescent, Broomfield.
What is Webroot's latest funding round?
Webroot's latest funding round is Acquired.
How much did Webroot raise?
Webroot raised a total of $108M.
Who are the investors of Webroot?
Investors of Webroot include Carbonite, Mayfield, Accel and Technology Crossover Ventures.
Who are Webroot's competitors?
Competitors of Webroot include DNSFilter, Netskope, Malwarebytes, Avast, McAfee and 12 more.
Compare Webroot to Competitors

Bitdefender is a security technology company that provides transformative cybersecurity solutions to more than 500 million users across businesses and homes in multiple countries. Bitdefender's GravityZone line of endpoint security solutions is able to predict, prevent, evade, detect, and remediate unknown threats and protect organizations from advanced and targeted attacks. GravityZone provides adaptive, layered endpoint protection focused on attack techniques, tools, and behaviors to accurately predict attackers' next moves. The GravityZone Management console offers a single pane of glass view for security management across workstations, mobile devices, and servers in datacenter and public cloud environments.

Kaspersky Lab operates as a cybersecurity company. It provides antivirus and internet security software to protect against viruses, malware, spam, and other threats facing homes and businesses. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Moscow, Russian Federation.

Tanium provides enterprises and government organizations to secure, control, and manage endpoints across the enterprise. It offers asset discovery and inventory, risk and compliance management, endpoint management, investigation and remediation, and more. It provides its services to the federal government, state and local government education, financial services, retail, healthcare, and other sectors. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Kirkland, Washington.

Zoho is a software development company that offers solutions for several areas, such as finance, IT, and many more. It apps in nearly every major business category, including sales, marketing, customer support, accounting, and back-office operations, and an array of productivity and collaboration tools. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Tamil Nadu, India.

Cybereason develops software to help track the actions of cyber attackers. Its automated platform collects clues by learning to discern anomalies and analyzes the data using algorithms. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

Feedzai leverages AI, machine learning technology to provide omnichannel fraud prevention solutions for banks, payment providers, and retailers transacting in virtually every country in the world to manage risks associated with banking and eCommerce. It was founded in 2009 and is based in San Mateo, California.