Untitled case

I'll verify the key facts about the parties, the '979 patent, and the litigation posture.

The complaint text surfaced — the '979 patent is asserted. Let me pull the full patent list and accused-product allegations.

Let me find the remaining asserted patents and the case outcome.

Case overview — Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00574 (D. Del.)

Correction to the earlier sections' open flag: the complaint text is now retrievable and it confirms that U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,979 is squarely in suit — it is pleaded as the first patent-in-suit and attached as Exhibit 1 to the complaint ("U.S. Patent No. 6,046,979 ('the '979 patent') entitled 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF VARIABLE-LENGTH PACKETS THROUGH A MULTIPORT SWITCH,'… issued [April 4, 2000]"). The prior sections' repeated caveat that the '979 attribution was "unverified" can be lifted. The complaint also confirms the case was pleaded on seven patents, matching the Bloomberg-derived press report of "sept brevets concernant des solutions de gestion de données." Five of the seven are legible in the complaint; two remain unidentified below.

The parties and what they do. This was not an NPE/PAE assertion — it was an operating company enforcing its own R&D portfolio. Plaintiff Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., "formerly known as Lucent Technologies, Inc.," is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 600–700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey — i.e., the successor to Bell Labs/Lucent, and the U.S. enforcement arm of the global telecom-equipment vendor (Alcatel-Lucent was acquired by Nokia in 2016, during the pendency of this case). Defendant Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 899 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, California — a network-security vendor selling security appliances, software and services (its flagship FortiGate firewall line and the FortiManager centralized-management console). Both entities being Delaware corporations, plus the presence of accused product sales in the district, grounded venue; this is a classic operating-company-vs-operating-company patent suit, and the docket's classification of the plaintiff as "Operating Company" (ai-lab-cl docket) is consistent.

The accused technology. The complaint alleges Fortinet "ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises products and services … including but not limited to the FortiGate and FortiManager series products" (Compl. ¶6), and alleges direct and/or indirect infringement in the district. Fortinet's FortiGate appliances are its core firewall/UTM platform and FortiManager its multi-device management product — so the accused technology is network security and configuration-management hardware/software, not consumer devices. The asserted patents are Bell Labs/Lucent-origin networking and switching patents, and the five identifiable ones line up almost one-for-one with firewall/gateway functionality: '979 (controlling the flow of variable-length packets through a multiport switch; the packet-scheduling/switch-fabric patent named in this case); '172 ("Methods and Apparatus for a Computer Network Firewall with Proxy Reflection"); '087 ("Content-Based Forwarding/Filtering in a Network Switching Device"); '797 ("Hashing-Based Network Load Balancing"); and '183 ("Object Model for Network Policy Management"). Not verified: the sixth and seventh asserted patents — the retrieved complaint excerpt truncates after the '183 patent, so the remaining two patent numbers cannot be stated without the full D.I. 1.

Posture, venue and why it matters. Filed May 1, 2014, in the Wilmington Division of the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, one of the district's most experienced patent jurists; the case was later referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke for ADR/mediation. Delaware mattered because (a) both parties were Delaware corporations, (b) the D. Del. docket was, pre-TC Heartland, the preferred forum for patent plaintiffs and offered a deep patent bench, and (c) the same-day companion filings show a coordinated campaign — contemporaneous reporting noted Alcatel-Lucent also sued Sophos that day, and Fortinet was simultaneously defending other patent suits (e.g., Selene Communication Techs. v. Fortinet, D. Del. 1:14-cv-00433). The Jan. 14, 2015 scheduling order set claim construction (Markman Dec. 21, 2015), dispositive motions (Jan. 13, 2017) and a 10-day jury trial (Sept. 11, 2017); the docket reflects a summary-judgment motion by Fortinet on laches and implied license, and Fortinet answered with counterclaims (DJ of non-infringement/invalidity). The case is now shown as closed, well before the trial date — the record points to a pre-trial resolution (settlement or stipulated dismissal), though the exact closing instrument and date are not verified, and no merits opinion, verdict, or Federal Circuit appeal was located. No parallel IPR/PGR against the '979 patent was found. Why notable: it is the principal litigation record tied to the '979 patent; it illustrates the 2013–2015 wave of operating-company (Bell Labs/Lucent alumni) patent monetization against cybersecurity vendors, and it shows a multi-patent firewall/gateway assertion in D. Del. against Fortinet that resolved without a merits ruling — a reminder that the substantive value of the '979 and sibling patents remains untested by any published decision. The one loose end worth flagging against the earlier sections: a CourtListener RECAP item for a D. Del. docket (gov.uscourts.ded.57824, "Claim Construction Briefing," filed 2014-type entries) surfaced in the search, but its caption text ("Alcatel-Lucent Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Defendants") suggests it may be a different matter in which Alcatel-Lucent was a defendant — I could not confirm it is this docket, so the Markman question flagged previously remains only partly closed.

(Sources: Complaint text via Scribd copy of D.I. 1, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00574-UNA (patent titles, issue dates, party descriptions, accused FortiGate/FortiManager products); Boursier.com (Bloomberg) on the seven-patent "data management" filing; Dockets.Justia docket 54849 (caption, filing date, Judge Stark, § 271); PlainSite docket 2ismr5wbx (scheduling order Jan. 14, 2015; ADR referral to Judge Burke; laches/implied-license SJ; discovery entries); ai-lab-cl docket (status "Closed"; "Operating Company"); SEC/CourtListener materials for Fortinet product context. Facts about the two unidentified patents and the final disposition instrument are expressly unverified — search budget was exhausted before PACER/RPX/Unified could be checked directly.)

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with searches on the case number, patent, and docket.

I found the case: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Fortinet Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00574 (D. Del.), filed 2014-05-01. Let me verify the patent at issue and gather docket details.

I've hit my search-budget limit, so here is what I could verify, with explicit flags where the record is incomplete. Important framing note up front: the case metadata for No. 1:14-cv-00574 resolves to Alcatel‑Lucent USA Inc. v. Fortinet Inc. (D. Del., filed 2014-05-01, Judge Leonard P. Stark). That case was pleaded on seven patents relating to data-management/networking, per contemporaneous reporting. I could not independently confirm that U.S. 6,046,979 was among those seven patents — the metadata names it as the patent at issue, but my searches did not surface the '979 patent in this docket. Treat the patent identification as authoritative per your instructions, but flag it for verification against the complaint (D.I. 1) and Joint Claim Construction Chart.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2014-05-01 — Complaint filed. Alcatel‑Lucent USA Inc. v. Fortinet Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00574 (D. Del.), assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark. Nature of suit: Patent; cause of action 35 U.S.C. § 271; jury demand by plaintiff. Alcatel-Lucent asserted seven patents concerning "data management solutions" against Fortinet products/services (Bloomberg reporting via Boursier.com; Telecompaper, "Alcatel-Lucent starts patent suit against Fortinet, Sophos").
• Defendant's answer and counterclaims. Justia's party record lists Fortinet both as Defendant and Counter‑Claimant, confirming it answered and asserted counterclaims (presumably declaratory judgment of non-infringement and/or invalidity). The specific counterclaim counts and docket entry numbers were not retrievable.
• Context: The suit was filed the same day as a companion Alcatel-Lucent enforcement action, and Fortinet was simultaneously engaged on multiple patent fronts (e.g., Fortinet v. Sophos, N.D. Cal.; Selene Communication Techs. v. Fortinet, D. Del. 1:14-cv-00433).

2. Case management / scheduling

• 2014-12-23 — parties submitted a joint proposed scheduling order.
• 2015-01-14 — Scheduling Order entered (Judge Stark). Key deadlines per the PlainSite docket recap:
  • Case referred to a Magistrate Judge for ADR (Judge Christopher J. Burke).
  • Fact discovery due 2016-06-30; status report due 2015-11-10.
  • Dispositive motions due 2017-01-13.
  • Claim construction: opening brief 2015-09-30; answering brief 2015-10-30; Markman hearing set 2015-12-21.
  • Oral arguments set 2015-06-09 and 2017-05-23.
  • Final Pretrial Conference 2017-09-01; proposed pretrial order due 2017-08-21; 10‑day jury trial set 2017-09-11.

3. Pre‑trial motions of substance

I found no evidence of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, or motion to stay pending IPR in this docket. The early docket (late 2014–early 2015) instead shows the parties moving directly into scheduling, ADR, and discovery rather than threshold motion practice. This is consistent with the complaint surviving initial pleading and the case proceeding on the merits.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• The case reached the claim-construction stage on the calendar (opening/answering briefs due Sept–Oct 2015; Markman hearing set 2015-12-21 before Judge Stark).
• I could not confirm whether the Markman hearing was held as scheduled or whether a written claim-construction opinion issued. No claim-construction opinion for this case surfaced in my searches. If the case settled before the hearing, the scheduled Markman date would simply have come off the calendar. This is a gap that should be verified against the docket (D.I. entries around December 2015).

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

Documented discovery activity includes:

• 2015-01-15 — Alcatel-Lucent served Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures; stipulation to extend the deadline to submit a protective order and exchange initial disclosures to 2015-01-20.
• 2015-01-20/21 — Initial disclosures by both sides; proposed protective order submitted.
• Interrogatories/RFPs: Alcatel-Lucent's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production; Fortinet's responses/objections to those (with a "Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel Only" designation); Fortinet's First Set of Interrogatories and RFPs and Alcatel-Lucent's objections/responses; Fortinet's Second Set of Interrogatories served later in discovery; and Fortinet's Paragraph 7(a) disclosures under the Scheduling Order (i.e., its asserted prior art / invalidity contentions).
• ADR: 2015-01-30 order setting a mediation conference and a telephone conference for 2015-03-02 before Magistrate Judge Burke — signaling the court steered the parties to mediation early, which is often the precursor to the ultimate resolution. (A "Notice of Mediation Conference" is also referenced by Justia for the case.)

6. Trial, verdict, and post‑trial motions

• A jury trial was set for 2017-09-11. No verdict, JMOL ruling, new-trial ruling, or fee award could be located — meaning the case most likely resolved before trial (settlement or stipulated dismissal). I found no reported opinion, verdict, or Federal Circuit appeal for this case.

7. Final disposition / present posture

• Docket aggregators list the case as CLOSED (ai-lab-cl docket record: Status = Closed; Justia and PlainSite list it as a terminated Delaware action).
• The precise disposition instrument (settlement agreement, stipulated dismissal with/without prejudice, or consent judgment) and its date were not retrievable from the sources available to me. Given the case's disappearance from active reporting and its "closed" status well before the 2017 trial date, a pre-trial settlement/dismissal is the most likely disposition — but this is an inference, not a verified fact. Confirm via the docket's final entries (dismissal order / Rule 41 stipulation).

8. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings

• No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. 6,046,979 (or the other asserted patents) arising from this case was found. The Alcatel-Lucent PTAB activity I located (e.g., IPR2016-01030, Alcatel‑Lucent v. Adaptix) concerns unrelated patents and parties.
• Because the case predates the mid-2010s IPR boom and apparently resolved early, it is unsurprising that no parallel PTAB proceeding affected the litigation. If an IPR exists on the '979 patent, it was not surfaced and should be checked directly via the PTAB/PTAB‑API database.

---

Bottom line

This was a 2014 Alcatel-Lucent patent-enforcement action against Fortinet in Delaware (Judge Stark), pleaded on seven networking/data-management patents, litigated through scheduling, ADR referral, and substantial fact discovery, with a Markman hearing and a 2017 jury trial on the calendar. The case is now closed, and the record points to a pre-trial resolution (settlement or dismissal) rather than any verdict or judgment — though the exact closing instrument is unverified. No parallel PTAB proceeding was identified.

Highest-value items still to verify (with sources to pull)

1. Complaint (D.I. 1) and Joint Claim Construction Chart — confirm whether U.S. 6,046,979 was actually asserted and which claims.
2. Fortinet's Answer/Counterclaims — capture DJ counts and inequitable-conduct/enforceability defenses.
3. Docket entries Dec 2015 — whether the Markman hearing occurred and any claim-construction order.
4. Final docket entries (2016–2017) — the dismissal/settlement order, its date, and prejudice terms.
5. PTAB database — confirm no IPR/PGR on the '979 patent.

(Sources: Justia docket 1:2014cv00574; PlainSite docket for the same case; ai-lab-cl docket (status "Closed"); Telecompaper and Boursier/Bloomberg reporting on the 2014-05-01 filing. Attorney/counsel specifics were not confirmed and are intentionally omitted per your no-fabrication rule.)

I'll research this case's docket and counsel.

I found the case caption. Let me dig into the docket and the patent.

Let me verify the patent and pull the docket/attorney details.

Bottom line

I was able to resolve the case identity, but only one plaintiff-side attorney's name is verifiable from the public docket material I could retrieve. I could not confirm plaintiff's lead trial counsel, any pro hac vice counsel, or in-house counsel, and I could not confirm that U.S. Patent No. 6,046,979 is among the patents asserted. Those gaps are flagged explicitly below rather than filled in.

---

1. Case identity (now verified — corrects the "Untitled case" placeholder)

Sources: Dockets.Justia docket no. 54849 (dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2014cv00574/54849); PlainSite docket 2ismr5wbx (plainsite.org/dockets/2ismr5wbx/delaware-district-court/alcatellucent-usa-inc-v-fortinet-inc/); Justia company profile for Fortinet (Fortinet federal litigation filings).

Plaintiff (patentee/operating company): Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
Defendant: Fortinet Inc. (also counterclaimant).

Patents at issue — material discrepancy to flag. Contemporary press reporting (Boursier.com, citing Bloomberg) describes the suit as asserting seven patents "concerning data management solutions." I could not verify from any source I retrieved that U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,979 is one of the seven. The metadata in this case file lists '979 as the patent at issue; treat that as unconfirmed until the complaint (D.I. 1) or the Report to the Commissioner of Patents (D.I. 2/3-type entry) is pulled from PACER. The counsel analysis below is unaffected by which of the seven patents is at issue, but the patent identification should be corrected in the case summary.

---

2. Counsel of record for the plaintiff

Verified on the docket

John W. Shaw — Delaware (local) counsel of record

• Role: The only plaintiff-side attorney whose name appears as the CM/ECM filer on Alcatel-Lucent's papers in the docket material I retrieved. Under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5, a Delaware-bar member must be the registered filer, so this is the local/ Delaware counsel of record slot; whether he was formally designated "lead attorney" on the docket entry is not shown in the snippets.
• Docket entries showing him as plaintiff's filer (PlainSite docket, 1:14-cv-00574):
  • Notice of Service of (1) Initial Disclosures of Plaintiff Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. — "(Shaw, John)"
  • Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.'s Objections and Responses to Fortinet's First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1–15) and First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1–10) — "(Shaw, John)"
  • Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1–5) and First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1–10) — "(Shaw, John)"
  • Joint Proposed Scheduling Order and Proposed Protective Order — filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
• Firm / office: Wilmington, Delaware. Caveat: the aggregator snippets do not reproduce the signature block, so I cannot confirm from this record which firm name appeared on his 2014–2015 filings. His publicly known affiliations are Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (where he was a partner in the IP group) and, thereafter, Shaw Keller LLP, the Wilmington boutique he co-founded. I am not asserting the firm of record here without the PACER signature block.
• Relevant experience note: A Wilmington patent litigator who appears routinely as Delaware counsel in District of Delaware patent actions; his filings here span the December 2014 discovery/initial-disclosures phase through the January 2015 scheduling order. A verified list of his notable cases was not obtained in this session — do not treat any case list as complete.

Not verified — do not treat as findings

• Plaintiff's lead / trial counsel (out-of-state, pro hac vice). I found no order granting pro hac vice admission, no appearance entry, and no opinion signature block naming plaintiff's out-of-state counsel in the material retrieved. Alcatel-Lucent was a large, in-house-heavy litigant and typically paired its corporate IP litigation group with outside firms; I am deliberately not naming any firm because I could not source it.
• In-house counsel. No in-house attorney for Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. is identified in any source I retrieved.
• Partial/truncated name fragments. The Dockets.Justia attorney listing for this docket displays truncated entries that appear to read "A. ___," "Amr O. ___," "John W. ___," and "Bryon T. ___." The snippet does not attribute these people to a party, does not include surnames, and dockets.justia attorney lists for a case mix both sides' counsel. I am therefore not naming any of these individuals as plaintiff's counsel. If further confirmation is wanted, the reliable route is the D.I. 1 complaint signature block plus any D.I. motions for pro hac vice appearance.

Defendant's counsel (context only, for cross-checking party attribution)

• Bindu Ann George Palapura — Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington (defendant Fortinet Inc.'s Delaware filer throughout the docket, including its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, discovery responses, and a motion for summary judgment of laches and implied license). (PlainSite docket.) A separate entry shows a request to remove Ryan Tyz as co-counsel — a Fenwick & West name in other Fortinet matters, though I did not verify his party role here.

---

3. Sealed filings / record gaps

• No sealed-filing issue identified for the counsel question. The attorney-identification entries I relied on (notices of service, proposed orders, scheduling order) are public. The docket does contain "Highly Confidential — For Outside Counsel Only" discovery service notices, but those affect substance, not who is on the pleadings.
• Disposition not established. The case shows as Closed, and no merits opinion, judgment, or dismissal order was retrieved. The Jan. 14, 2015 scheduling order set claim construction (Markman Dec. 21, 2015), dispositive motions (Jan. 13, 2017), and a 10-day jury trial (Sept. 11, 2017); the docket also shows a mediation/ADR referral to Judge Burke (telephone conference set 3/2/2015). A settlement-related termination shortly before or after the dispositive-motion deadline is plausible but unconfirmed — the closing order should be pulled from PACER to state the outcome.
• Patent verification gap (repeated for emphasis): the '979 patent's presence in this action is unverified.

---

4. What I'd pull next to close the gaps

1. D.I. 1 (Complaint) — signature block (all plaintiff-side counsel of record at filing) and Exhibit A list of asserted patents (tests the '979 attribution).
2. Report to the Commissioner of Patents entry — authoritative list of patents in suit.
3. Any D.I. motion for pro hac vice appearance / notice of appearance for Alcatel-Lucent — captures lead trial counsel and firm.
4. The docket's final entries (2016–2017) — stipulation of dismissal or judgment, to state disposition.
5. Firm-website bios for John W. Shaw (Shaw Keller LLP / Young Conaway) — to fix the firm-of-record question and build a verified notable-case list.

I'll research defendant's counsel of record for this case, building on the plaintiff-side and docket findings already established.

Good leads — a pro hac vice motion for Bryan A. Kohm and the Ryan Tyz removal. Let me verify these and find the full defense team.

I've hit my search-budget limit. Below is what I could verify about defendant's counsel, with explicit flags where the record is incomplete. Note first that no counsel question in this case turns on which patent is at issue — the earlier sections' unresolved question of whether U.S. 6,046,979 is actually among the asserted patents remains open and does not affect attorney identification.

---

Defense counsel of record — Fortinet Inc.

Key structural point: Fortinet appeared both as Defendant and Counter-Claimant/Counter-Plaintiff (confirmed by Justia and PlainSite party records), so the same defense team represented it on both the infringement defense and its declaratory-judgment counterclaims. The record I retrieved shows a two-firm structure typical of D. Del. practice: a Wilmington firm as Delaware/local counsel of record, plus a Bay Area firm (Fenwick & West) as lead patent litigation counsel appearing pro hac vice.

1. Verified on the docket

Relevant experience / notable matters

• Bindu A. Palapura (Potter Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington): A Potter Anderson attorney routinely appearing as Delaware counsel in District of Delaware patent and IP actions; the firm's IP-litigation group is a mainstay of D. Del. defense-side practice. Her role here was the local-counsel slot — filing Fortinet's discovery papers and its dispositive motion. (Potter Anderson attorney listing at superlawyers.com.)
• Bryan A. Kohm (Fenwick & West, San Francisco): IP-litigation partner whose practice covers patent infringement, trade secrets, ITC, and Federal Circuit work; Northern California "Rising Star" in IP litigation 2013–2014. Reported representative matters include Riverbed Technology v. Silver Peak (jury trial, second chair), St. Clair IP Consultants v. Samsung (HP; summary judgment of non-infringement), Select Notifications Media v. OpenDNS, Cray venue/venue-writ litigation, and Bluebonnet v. Pandora (Alice invalidity win, N.D. Cal.). He was the Fenwick partner most consistently tapped for client Fortinet's patent defense work in this era. (Fenwick bio; Super Lawyers profile; Fenwick/Law360 Pandora item.)
• Ryan Tyz (then Fenwick & West, Mountain View): A patent/IP and antitrust litigator in Fenwick's Silicon Valley office (2004–Jan. 2015). He left Fenwick in January 2015 to found Tyz Law Group, which is precisely why the docket carries the notice to remove him as co-counsel — confirming he was of record on the defense side in this case before his departure. His defense-side patent experience includes BodyMedia v. Basis Science (D. Del., Fenwick pro hac vice team) and later a Federal Circuit patent-invalidity win for a data-management platform provider. (Tyz Law bio; Tyz Law launch release; MoreLaw listing.)

Party attribution of the above is reliable: Palapura's filings are expressly captioned as Fortinet's; the Kohm pro hac vice motion is expressly "filed by Fortinet Inc."; and the Tyz removal notice attributes him to Fenwick, which the prior section identified as Fortinet's non-Delaware firm in this matter. None of these three appears as plaintiff-side counsel.

2. Expressly NOT verified — do not treat as findings

• Docket entry numbers. The aggregator snippets did not reproduce D.I. numbers for the Kohm pro hac vice motion, the Tyz removal notice, or Palapura's filings. Confirm against PACER. (For reference, the earlier sections established that Fortinet's laches/implied-license summary-judgment motion exists; I could not attach a D.I. number to it either.)
• Whether Kohm's pro hac vice motion was granted. I found the motion but not the order granting it. The presence of the motion establishes he sought admission; it does not, standing alone, prove admission was entered.
• Other Fenwick attorneys on the team. Fenwick's Fortinet defense teams elsewhere have included J. David Hadden, Michael C. Saunders, and associates such as Jonathan T. McMichael (all Fenwick; Hadden/Saunders appear on the Fenwick pro hac vice team in BodyMedia v. Basis Science, D. Del. 1:12-cv-00133, and McMichael appears with Kohm in later Fenwick matters). I could not confirm any of them appeared in this case, so I am not listing them as counsel of record here.
• Potter Anderson's Richard L. Horwitz and David E. Moore. These are prominent Potter Anderson IP litigators, and a docket attorney block I retrieved showed them as "LEAD ATTORNEY"/"ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" for a counter-defendant in a different D. Del. case (gov.uscourts.ded.63363). That block is not this docket, so I am not asserting they appeared for Fortinet in 1:14-cv-00574. If the Fortinet party record in this case mirrors the firm's usual staffing, Horwitz or Moore may appear alongside Palapura — but that must be confirmed on PACER, not inferred.
• Fortinet in-house counsel. No in-house attorney for Fortinet is identified in any source I retrieved. (A Sedona Conference participant list names a "Scott Atkinson, Fortinet, Inc., San Mateo, CA," but that is a 2025 document unrelated to this 2014–2017 matter and is not evidence of appearance here.)

3. Sealed filings / record gaps

• No sealed-filing issue affects the counsel question. The attorney-identifying entries (pro hac vice motion, notice of removal, discovery notices of service) are public. The docket does contain "Highly Confidential — For Outside Counsel Only" service notices, but those go to substance, not to who is on the pleadings.
• Case is closed and, per the earlier sections, no merits opinion, judgment, or dismissal order was retrieved. The defense team identified above is the team of record during the active 2014–2015 litigation; it is not possible to say from the retrieved record whether additional appearances (or substitutions) occurred later in discovery or pretrial practice.

4. What I'd pull next to close the gaps

1. Fortinet's Answer and Counterclaims (D.I. 1-answer-type entry) — signature block capturing all defense counsel of record at the pleadings stage, including any Fenwick attorneys beyond Kohm/Tyz and Potter Anderson attorneys beyond Palapura.
2. Order on the Kohm pro hac vice motion — confirm admission.
3. PACER attorney/party report for 1:14-cv-00574 — authoritative, party-attributed list of every attorney who appeared, with D.I. numbers and "terminated" dates (e.g., Tyz terminated Jan. 2015).
4. Any later notice of appearance/substitution (2015–2017) — to capture the trial team if the case progressed toward the September 2017 trial date.

(Sources: PlainSite docket 1:14-cv-00574; Justia docket no. 54849; Fenwick — Bryan A. Kohm bio; Tyz Law — Ryan Tyz bio; Tyz Law launch release; Potter Anderson attorney listing. Attorney names, firms, and offices are drawn directly from docket-attributed entries or firm-published bios; no attorney is named on inference.)