Qomplx LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Open- Docket:
- 2:25-cv-00913
- Filed:
- 2025-08-28
The complaint was filed for patent infringement. A jury trial has been demanded by Qomplx LLC.
Defendant
5 cases as defendant.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is a publicly traded multinational cybersecurity company founded in 2005. Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, the company trades on the Nasdaq stock exchange under the ticker symbol PANW. For the fiscal year ending in July 2025, Palo Alto Networks reported revenue of $9.22 billion and had over 16,000 employees.
The company provides a comprehensive platform of cybersecurity solutions covering network security, cloud security, and security operations. Its core product lines include Strata for network security, featuring advanced firewalls; Prisma for cloud security, designed to protect applications and data in cloud environments; and Cortex, an AI-driven security operations platform for threat detection and response. Palo Alto Networks serves over 80,000 enterprise customers globally.
As an operating company, Palo Alto Networks' patent litigation profile consists entirely of defending its technology. The provided case list shows five recent instances of the company as a defendant and none as a plaintiff, a typical posture for a large technology firm. Lawsuits have been filed in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as the Eastern District of Texas, as well as in the Northern District of California and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notable tracked cases include suits brought by Centripetal Networks, Inc. and Qomplx LLC. The litigation with Centripetal has involved disputes over patents related to network threat detection technology. Another case of note was a suit filed by competitor Fortinet, Inc., reflecting the competitive landscape of the cybersecurity industry.
The complaint was filed for patent infringement. A jury trial has been demanded by Qomplx LLC.
The complaint alleges patent infringement, and U.S. Patent No. 12,301,627 is listed among the patents in this case. The defendant was granted an extension to file an answer to the complaint.
The investigation was terminated based on the PTAB's decision to institute IPR proceedings, which cast significant doubt on the patent's validity.
This case was stayed pending the outcome of related PTAB proceedings. Given the CAFC's final judgment on the patent's invalidity, this case is also subject to dismissal.
This case was filed by the original assignee, Fortinet, Inc., against Palo Alto Networks, Inc.