Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 4:25-cv-02360, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., and was filed on March 7, 2025. The plaintiff, Netskope, Inc., is a publicly traded cybersecurity company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, specializing in cloud security platforms for enterprises, offering solutions for cloud, data, and network security. The defendant, Fortinet, Inc., also a publicly traded cybersecurity company based in Sunnyvale, California, develops and sells a wide array of security products, including firewalls, endpoint security, and intrusion detection systems, along with comprehensive network security and unified threat management solutions. Netskope has accused Fortinet of infringing its patents through various products and services, including FortiGate, FortiAP, FortiOS, FortiGate NGFW, FortiAuthenticator, FortiEDR, FortiWeb Cloud, FortiNAC, and similar offerings.

The primary patent at issue, among nine asserted by Netskope, is US Patent No. 8,397,282 (the "'282 patent"). A technical sketch of the '282 patent describes a system and method for providing secure communication over a network, likely involving aspects of network security, data protection, or secure access, consistent with both companies' focus on cybersecurity solutions. The procedural posture in the Northern District of California is notable as the court is known for its experienced bench and its willingness to adjudicate dispositive motions early in a case, including motions to dismiss under Alice and motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The court has a high grant rate for Alice motions and frequently grants pre-institution stays for IPRs.

This case is particularly noteworthy due to its critical status, the fact that both parties are significant operating companies in the highly competitive cybersecurity industry, and the direct linkage to parallel IPR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against the '282 patent. Netskope acquired the '282 patent from RPX Corporation in July 2024, reportedly for the purpose of asserting it against Fortinet, which has become a point of contention in the IPR, with Fortinet arguing against discretionary denial of the IPR petition due to Netskope's recent acquisition and lack of "settled expectations" for the patent. This highlights a strategic maneuver in patent assertion and defense, where the timing of patent acquisition and assertion, along with the venue's proclivity for certain types of motions and stays, plays a significant role in the litigation strategy.## Case Overview: Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (4:25-cv-02360)

This critical patent infringement litigation, filed on March 7, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, pits two prominent cybersecurity operating companies against each other: plaintiff Netskope, Inc. and defendant Fortinet, Inc. Netskope, based in Santa Clara, California, is a publicly traded company that provides cloud security platforms for enterprises, offering a suite of security, networking, and analytics solutions. Fortinet, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, is also a publicly traded cybersecurity leader, developing and selling a wide range of security products including firewalls, endpoint security, and intrusion detection systems. Netskope alleges that Fortinet infringes its patents through various products and services, specifically identifying offerings such as FortiGate, FortiAP, FortiOS, FortiGate NGFW, FortiAuthenticator, FortiEDR, FortiWeb Cloud, and FortiNAC as accused technologies.

The central patent at issue, among nine asserted by Netskope, is U.S. Patent No. 8,397,282. This patent generally describes a system and method designed to facilitate secure communication over a network, aligning with critical functionalities in the cybersecurity domain concerning data protection and secure network access. The case is proceeding in the Northern District of California, with Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. presiding. This venue is significant due to its seasoned judiciary and a historical willingness to address dispositive motions early, including those challenging patent eligibility under Alice and motions to stay litigation pending inter partes review (IPR) decisions, often granting pre-institution stays for IPRs.

The litigation is particularly notable for several reasons, including its "Critical" status designated by Unified Patents, the high-stakes nature of a dispute between two major cybersecurity competitors, and the direct engagement in parallel PTAB IPR proceedings. Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of the '282 patent. A key element of contention in the IPR is Netskope's recent acquisition of the '282 patent from RPX Corporation in July 2024, allegedly for the express purpose of asserting it against Fortinet. This strategic patent acquisition has prompted Fortinet to argue against a discretionary denial of its IPR petition, asserting that Netskope lacks "settled expectations" for a patent so recently acquired and specifically for litigation, underscoring the intricate interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges in modern patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (4:25-cv-02360)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, involves U.S. Patent No. 8,397,282. The case, Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02360, was initiated on March 6, 2025, by Netskope, Inc. (Plaintiff) against Fortinet, Inc. (Defendant). The presiding judge is Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. The case is currently active.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Netskope, Inc. filed the initial complaint for patent infringement on March 6, 2025.
• First Amended Complaint: A First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement was filed by Netskope, Inc. on April 14, 2025.
• Second Amended Complaint: Netskope, Inc. filed a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on an unspecified date prior to June 13, 2025. An order on June 25, 2025, granted a stipulation regarding this Amended Complaint.
• Answer & Counterclaims: While the specific filing dates for Fortinet's Answer and Counterclaims are not explicitly stated, a combined hearing for Fortinet's Counterclaims was scheduled for January 8, 2026. Fortinet answered the complaint in October 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint: Fortinet filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, to which Netskope, Inc. filed an opposition on June 13, 2025.
• Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint: Fortinet filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Netskope, Inc. filed an opposition on July 11, 2025, and Fortinet filed a reply in support of its motion on July 18, 2025. This motion was still pending as of January 2026.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Fortinet filed a motion to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) on October 22, 2025. This motion was denied pre-institution, but without prejudice, with the possibility of a stay if the IPRs were instituted. A combined hearing on the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 61), Motion to Sever (Dkt. 78), and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 79) was scheduled for January 8, 2026.
• Motion to Sever and Motion to Strike: Fortinet also filed a Motion to Sever (Dkt. 78) and a Motion to Strike (Dkt. 79). The scheduling order from November 24, 2025, set deadlines for oppositions and replies related to these motions, with a combined hearing scheduled for January 8, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing: A Markman hearing on claim construction was scheduled to be held on February 6, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. A Claim Construction Technology Tutorial was also scheduled for January 30, 2026. As of January 20, 2026, the Markman hearing was still pending, and the court had not yet issued a claim construction order. The specific outcomes of the Markman hearing are not available in the provided snippets.
• Claim Terms in IPR: The parallel IPR proceeding indicated that three claim terms were to be construed under their plain and ordinary meaning: (1) "wherein the set of firewall rules is dynamically self-configurable during runtime"; (2) "chains of rules forming various paths through a hierarchical structure"; and (3) "defined places for dynamically updating the set of firewall rules during runtime."

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: Fortinet served its preliminary invalidity contentions on Netskope, Inc. on August 15, 2025.
• Preliminary Disclosure of Damages Contentions: Netskope, Inc. provided its preliminary disclosure of damages contentions, identifying Fortinet's FortiGate, FortiAP, FortiOS, FortiGate NGFW, FortiAuthenticator, FortiEDR, FortiWeb Cloud, and FortiNAC products and services as infringing. Netskope indicated it had not licensed the asserted patents.
• Protective Order: A Stipulated Protective Order was filed on December 1, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• As of January 2026, no trial date had been set in the district court action, and the court had not issued a scheduling order covering events after the Markman hearing. The case is currently "OPEN."

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active and is listed as "OPEN." There is no information about settlement, dismissal, or judgment in the provided search results.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2026-00041: A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00041, was filed by Fortinet, Inc. (Petitioner) against Netskope, Inc. (Patent Owner) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,397,282.
• Effect on Litigation: Netskope, Inc. contended that institution of the IPR would be a duplicative effort with the district court, as the district court would also be evaluating validity questions. Fortinet argued that the Fintiv factors weighed against denial of institution because there was no trial date in the district court, a partial motion to dismiss was pending, and limited discovery had occurred. Fortinet noted that Judge Gilliam, who is presiding over the district court case, routinely stays cases pending IPR decisions. The IPR petition discusses the construction of three specific claim terms of the '282 patent. The IPR institution decision was expected in April 2026. It was also stated in an IPR filing that the '282 patent was effectively taken off the market by RPX and that Netskope only recently acquired the patent. Additionally, Fortinet noted that Netskope dropped the '282 patent from the district court litigation, which Fortinet argued would eliminate the risk of overlapping issues with the IPR.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (4:25-cv-02360)

This patent infringement litigation, Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02360, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2025. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,397,282 and is currently active under Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• March 6, 2025: Complaint Filed. Netskope, Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint for patent infringement against Fortinet, Inc.
• April 14, 2025: First Amended Complaint. Netskope, Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• Prior to June 13, 2025: Second Amended Complaint. Netskope, Inc. filed a Second Amended Complaint. The court later granted a stipulation regarding this amended complaint on June 25, 2025.
• June 13, 2025: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Netskope, Inc. filed an opposition to Fortinet's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
• July 11, 2025: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Netskope, Inc. filed an opposition to Fortinet's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
• July 18, 2025: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Fortinet filed its reply brief supporting its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. This motion remained pending as of January 2026.
• August 15, 2025: Preliminary Invalidity Contentions Served. Fortinet served its preliminary invalidity contentions on Netskope, Inc.
• October 2025: Fortinet Answers Complaint. Fortinet filed its answer to Netskope's complaint.
• October 22, 2025: Motion to Stay Pending IPR Filed. Fortinet filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the USPTO. The motion was denied pre-institution but without prejudice, suggesting it could be reconsidered if the IPR were instituted.
• November 24, 2025: Scheduling Order Issued. The court issued a scheduling order setting various deadlines, including:
  • November 19-26, 2025: Deadlines for oppositions and replies related to Fortinet's motions to stay, sever, and strike.
  • December 3, 2025: Netskope's Opening Claim Construction Brief due.
  • December 17, 2025: Fortinet's Responsive Claim Construction Brief due.
  • December 24, 2025: Netskope's Reply Claim Construction Brief due.
• December 1, 2025: Stipulated Protective Order. A Stipulated Protective Order was filed, outlining the handling of confidential information during discovery.
• January 8, 2026: Combined Hearing. A combined hearing was scheduled for Fortinet's Motion to Stay, Motion to Sever, Motion to Strike, and a Case Management Conference for Fortinet's Counterclaims. The details of Fortinet's counterclaims are not fully specified in the provided information.
• January 30, 2026: Claim Construction Technology Tutorial. A technology tutorial for claim construction was scheduled.
• February 6, 2026: Markman Hearing. The Markman hearing on claim construction was scheduled to take place. As of January 2026, the claim construction order had not yet been issued. The outcome of this hearing is not available in the provided information.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR2026-00041: Fortinet, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2026-00041) against Netskope, Inc. challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,397,282.
• Impact on Litigation: Netskope argued that the IPR was duplicative of the district court's validity review. Fortinet contended that the IPR should proceed, citing the early stage of the district court case (no trial date, pending motion to dismiss, limited discovery) and Judge Gilliam's propensity to stay cases pending IPRs. The IPR petition specifically addressed the construction of three claim terms of the '282 patent: "wherein the set of firewall rules is dynamically self-configurable during runtime"; "chains of rules forming various paths through a hierarchical structure"; and "defined places for dynamically updating the set of firewall rules during runtime." An institution decision for IPR2026-00041 was anticipated in April 2026. Fortinet also noted in an IPR filing that Netskope subsequently dropped the '282 patent from the district court litigation, which Fortinet argued would remove the risk of overlapping issues.

Current Posture:

The case remains "OPEN" in the Northern District of California. While significant pre-trial motions and claim construction activities have been scheduled and undertaken, information regarding their outcomes, further discovery, trial events, or a final disposition is not available from the provided sources. Netskope also provided preliminary disclosures of damages contentions, asserting infringement by various Fortinet products. Netskope claimed it had not licensed the asserted patents.

Plaintiff Netskope, Inc. is represented by Perkins Coie LLP.

The following attorneys are counsel of record for Netskope, Inc.:

• Thomas N. Millikan (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA
  • Note: Mr. Millikan is listed first among Netskope's attorneys on several filings, indicating a lead role. He is a partner at Perkins Coie and focuses on patent litigation, with experience representing both patentees and accused infringers across various technologies. [No direct cite from provided snippets, needs further general web search for specific experience if required, but implied from role in patent case filings].
• Joseph P. Reid (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA
  • Note: Mr. Reid is also a partner at Perkins Coie, specializing in patent and other intellectual property litigation. His experience includes trial and appellate work in federal courts. [No direct cite from provided snippets, needs further general web search for specific experience if required].
• Sarah Mae Anderson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA
  • Note: Ms. Anderson is listed on filings for Netskope. Her practice at Perkins Coie includes intellectual property and patent litigation. [No direct cite from provided snippets, needs further general web search for specific experience if required].
• Andrew N. Klein (Counsel)
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Mr. Klein is listed on filings for Netskope, and his office location suggests a potential local counsel role, though his firm is also a national patent litigation firm. His practice at Perkins Coie focuses on patent litigation. [No direct cite from provided snippets, needs further general web search for specific experience if required].

In the patent infringement case Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (4:25-cv-02360) in the Northern District of California, the defendant, Fortinet, Inc., is represented by GISH PLLC.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for Fortinet, Inc.:

• Ryan Iwahashi
  • Role: Lead Counsel. He is listed with a California bar number and actively appears in docket entries for Fortinet, Inc.
  • Firm: GISH PLLC, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note on experience: Information on specific patent litigation experience for Ryan Iwahashi was not immediately available from the search results.
• Andrew D. Gish
  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel.
  • Firm: GISH PLLC, New York, NY.
  • Note on experience: Andrew D. Gish is a co-founder of GISH PLLC, a firm specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent and trade secret disputes. His experience includes representing technology companies in complex litigation.
• Christopher M. Gerson
  • Role: Pro Hac Vice Counsel. A motion for his pro hac vice admission was granted on July 2, 2025.
  • Firm: GISH PLLC, New York, NY.
  • Note on experience: Christopher Gerson is a partner at GISH PLLC and has experience representing clients in intellectual property disputes.

GISH PLLC is identified as counsel for Fortinet, Inc. in several docket entries and documents, including a Protective Order filed on December 1, 2025. The firm focuses on intellectual property litigation.