Now Rippling is counter suing tiny startup Runlayer
Rippling has filed a lawsuit against MCP gateway startup Runlayer, accusing it of infringing three of its patents, marking the latest escalation in a legal dispute between the two firms. The case follows Runlayer's own lawsuit last month against Rippling, which alleged breach of contract and theft of its product ideas after Rippling spent nearly a year trialling Runlayer's technology before building its own competing MCP server rather than signing a paid contract.
Runlayer, founded by Andrew Berman and backed by $42 million in funding, launched its MCP gateway and cybersecurity product around a year ago; MCP is an open standard letting AI agents connect to external data and software. Runlayer alleges a Rippling employee privately warned Berman that the company was building a "copy" of his product, a claim Rippling says the employee has since walked back, while Rippling contends it flagged the alleged patent infringement to Runlayer shortly after being sued. Both sides issued combative public statements, with Runlayer calling Rippling's suit a "retaliatory ploy" and Rippling accusing Runlayer of hypocrisy, leaving the courts—or a settlement—to resolve the dispute.
- Rippling sues Runlayer for patent infringement after being sued first
- Rippling built a rival MCP product after trialling Runlayer's software
- Both firms trade accusations of IP theft and bad faith
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Rippling's countersuit can be seen as a legitimate defensive response to what it regards as a baseless or opportunistic legal attack: if Rippling genuinely believes Runlayer's original claims were meritless or made in bad faith, seeking to hold Runlayer accountable protects its reputation, deters future spurious litigation, and ensures larger firms are not simply pressured into settlements by smaller companies wielding lawsuits strategically. Companies have a legitimate interest in defending their product development record and correcting the public narrative when they believe they have been wrongly accused.
The case against
From Runlayer's perspective, a countersuit from a much larger, better-resourced company can look like an attempt to intimidate and financially outlast a smaller rival rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, effectively punishing a startup for raising a legitimate grievance about idea theft. Advocates for smaller firms would argue this dynamic chills legitimate whistleblowing on competitive practices, since few startups can match the legal budgets of an established player, regardless of the merits of the original claim.