FireNet Technologies, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches before drafting the overview.

I have a strong foundation. Let me dig deeper into the accused products, patent details, and the NPE's corporate structure.

Case Overview & Background

FireNet Technologies, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06502 (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2018; dismissed as settled Jan. 22, 2019), pitted a Georgia-based patent monetization entity against a publicly traded San Jose networking vendor. Plaintiff FireNet Technologies is a non-practicing entity/patent assertion entity — an affiliate of IP Investments Group LLC (d/b/a IPinvestments Group), a monetization firm controlled by Michael W. McLaughlin — whose corporate parent is Intelleq Holdings, LLC (RPX Insight case page; Unified Patents). Notably, FireNet's Rule 7.1/interest disclosures in the companion Fortinet case identified Invention Investment Fund I, LP, Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures Assets 54 & 57, LLC as affiliates — meaning Intellectual Ventures LLC retained an economic interest in the asserted portfolio (Justia docket, 4:19-cv-00798, Dkt. 8; RPX confirms the campaign is one "in which Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) retains an interest"). Defendant A10 Networks, Inc. (NYSE: ATEN, founded 2004, HQ in San Jose) is an operating company that sells application delivery controllers (Thunder ADC), DDoS-mitigation and other network security/ADC products — i.e., a classic operating-company defendant in the NPE crosshairs.

The patents-in-suit descend from a single inventor, Stacy Kenworthy, and a single 1998 priority application (Ser. No. 09/144,954), originally assigned to Applianceware, LLC and later Robust Networks, LLC. Case metadata here lists U.S. Patent No. 6,317,837 ("Internal network node with dedicated firewall"), which claims a network attached device (NAD) node/server that wraps a dedicated NAD firewall around an attached device — a "second layer" of packet-header-based access control beyond the LAN's bastion firewall (see the full patent text). The case metadata identifies only the '837 patent, but RPX records four patents-in-suit in this case, consistent with the rest of FireNet's campaign: the '837 patent plus 7,739,302 ("Network attached device with dedicated firewall security"), 8,306,994 (same title, continuation), and 8,892,600 (proxy firewall). The '302, '994, and '600 patents are continuations of the same '837 family, describing firewall/proxy systems that inspect packet headers and gate access to networked storage and devices (see the Unified Patents IPR; RPX). I could not independently verify the exact A10 accused products from a public source — RPX lists two accused products, and the complaint's substantive counts (Dkt. 1) are not reproduced in the materials I found; based on the campaign pattern (e.g., KEMP LoadMaster, Fortinet FortiWeb/FortiGate/FortiADC, Citrix NetScaler/ADC, Fujitsu NS Appliance), the A10 targets were almost certainly its ADC/load-balancing and security appliances, but that identification should be confirmed from the complaint itself rather than assumed.

Procedural posture and venue significance. The case was filed in the N.D. Cal., San Jose Division — A10's home district — rather than in the E.D. Tex. venues traditionally favored by NPEs, which is consistent with a defendant-location-based filing strategy. It was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen and then reassigned to Judge Vince Chhabria on Dec. 4, 2018 (per the docket's reassignment order). A10's first move was an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond (Dkt. 8, Jan. 3, 2019), after which the case was dismissed as settled on Jan. 22, 2019 — just 91 days after filing — with the AO-120 patent report filed Jan. 24, 2019 (Unified Patents Portal docket; RPX Insight). No public opinion or damages award exists; the settlement terms are not publicly disclosed.

Why the case matters. It is a representative data point in the larger FireNet/IPinvestments–IV network-security campaign, which ran from mid-2018 into 2019 against at least five operating companies — KEMP (S.D.N.Y.), Fujitsu (E.D. Tex., 2:18-cv-00270), A10 Networks (N.D. Cal.), Fortinet (N.D. Cal., 4:19-cv-00798), and Citrix (N.D. Ga., 1:19-cv-03199) — all asserting the same four Kenworthy patents (RPX news). It illustrates the "IV-retained-interest" NPE model, where a monetization entity asserts a decades-old portfolio while a large patent aggregator keeps a stake, and it exemplifies the fast-settlement pattern for quick, low-profile resolutions. It is also directly linked to the IPR/validity story: Unified Patents filed IPR2020-00471 against the '600 patent on March 13, 2020, and on March 18, 2021, the PTAB held all challenged claims unpatentable (Unified Patents; Patexia IPR2020-00471 record); Unified also ran a PATROLL prior-art bounty on the '302 patent. In short, this A10 suit was the third wave of a coordinated NPE campaign whose crown-jewel patent was later invalidated at the PTAB — a compact case study in NPE assertion patterns, IV-linked portfolio monetization, and IPR linkage.

Sourcing caveats: The party identities, corporate relationships, litigation dates, docket events, and the patents-in-suit (including the four-patent family) are well supported by RPX, Unified Patents, and federal docket records. I could not verify from a public source the specific A10 accused products or the exact claim(s) asserted against A10, so those points should be confirmed against the complaint (Dkt. 1) and its exhibits on PACER.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the specific docket and the patents/IPRs.

FireNet Technologies, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06502 (N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived NPE strike suit. It lasted 91 days from filing to closure, never generated an answer, counterclaim, motion of substance, or claim construction, and ended in a private-ADR settlement. The only PTAB activity on the FireNet portfolio came roughly 14 months after this case closed, so it had no effect on the A10 litigation.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2018-10-24 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). FireNet Technologies, LLC filed a complaint for willful patent infringement against A10 Networks, Inc., with jury demand, in N.D. Cal. The complaint was accompanied by Exhibits A–E and a civil cover sheet. FireNet's parallel complaints in this campaign attached one patent per exhibit plus product/claim-chart exhibits, which is why the fifth exhibit (no sixth patent exhibit) matters: RPX Insight records 4 patents-in-suit for this case, and FireNet's other suits in the same wave asserted the four-member Kentworthy family — U.S. 6,317,837 (dedicated NAD firewall / network-attached-device access management), U.S. 7,739,302 (proxy firewall), U.S. 8,306,994, and U.S. 8,892,600. The case metadata here identifies only the '837 patent, and I could not independently verify from the public docket text which subset of the four was charted against A10's products (RPX lists 2 accused products). Treat "4 patents asserted, '837 as anchor" as the well-sourced version, with the exact A10-specific set as unverified.
  • Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3:18-cv-06502 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/candce-[333812](/patent/333812)-firenet-technologies-v-a10-networks
• 2018-10-24 — Certificate of Interested Entities (FireNet). FireNet disclosed its ownership chain; in the later Fortinet case the same plaintiff identified Intelleq Holdings, LLC as parent and Invention Investment Fund I, LP / II, LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 54 & 57 as affiliates — consistent with FireNet being an IP Investments Group vehicle (Unified Patents later characterized it as "an NPE and entity of IPinvestments Group").
• 2018-10-25 — Summons issued; Initial Case Management Scheduling Order entered setting the CMC for 2019-01-22 and the Rule 26(f) report/case management statement for 2019-01-15. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen (Dkt. 6/7).
• 2018-10-25 — Pro hac vice motion (Hanna G. Cohen) and order granting it (signed by Judge van Keulen). FireNet's counsel of record in this campaign: Dmitry Kheyfits, Hanna Glomska Cohen, Andrey Belenky.
• 2018-11-05 — Proof of service of summons on A10 (Dkt. ~8).
• 2018-11-07 — FireNet's deadline to consent/decline magistrate jurisdiction; FireNet filed a consent/declination before the December reassignment.
• 2018-12-04 — Case reassigned from Magistrate Judge van Keulen to Judge Vince Chhabria for all further proceedings (Executive Committee reassignment order under the Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment).
• 2019-01-03 — A10's first and only substantive appearance: an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint (with declaration and proposed order), plus a stipulation extending time to respond, and an Order on Stipulation Extending Time to Respond.
• A10 corporate disclosure / certificate of interested entities identified Lee Chen, Summit Partners, L.P., BlackRock Inc., and VIEX Capital Advisors, LLC.
• No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed. A10's invalidity and non-infringement positions never made it into the record.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to strike contentions, and no summary judgment motion. The docket's only motions were the pro hac vice application and the unopposed extension. Practically, A10 needed no defensive motion: the case was resolved before its answer was due.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — not reached

No scheduling order, no Patent L.R. 3-1/3-3 exchange, no Markman briefing, no hearing, no claim construction order. The case terminated on the very day the Initial CMC was calendared (2019-01-22), i.e., before the court ever set a claim-construction track. (For context on the family's eventual construction fight, the "dedicated NAD firewall" and "in addition to any protection afforded by a firewall" limitations in the '837/'302 patents were the identified pressure points in the parallel campaign, but that analysis is from ex parte complaint analytics, not from any ruling in this case.)

4. Discovery — no milestones reached

The 91-day life span means no discovery opened: no Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement contentions, no source-code production, no depositions. The strategically significant steps were instead ADR-related:

• Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR filed by FireNet and A10 — the parties opted into the court's ADR program for private mediation rather than court-annexed ADR, which is the procedural precursor to the settlement.
• Joint Case Management Statement filed by FireNet.
• Status Report / Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines for 30 Days and Notice of Settlement — the parties jointly asked the court to freeze deadlines while they papered the settlement.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial date was ever set. No verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, no bill of costs, no consent judgment on damages.

6. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

• 2019-01-22 — Case closed as "Dismissed – Settled." The termination date is 2019-01-22, consistent with a stipulated dismissal following the joint notice of settlement and 30-day stay request (and coinciding with the scheduled Initial CMC).
• 2019-01-24 — AO-120 Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent mailed to the USPTO Director — the routine closing step that also confirms the dismissal was the terminal event.
• 2019-02-04 — last docket entry (closing/report entry).
• Terms are not public. There is no disclosed license, royalty, or payment; no publicly filed settlement agreement; and no indication the dismissal carried a fee-shifting or validity determination. There was no appeal and no Federal Circuit activity. Present posture: closed/terminated, settled, 2019-01-22.

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings and their effect

• No IPR or PGR was filed against the '837 patent (or against any patent in this case) while the A10 litigation was pending, and none is tied to this docket. A10 never had the opportunity to file one — its answer deadline had not yet run.
• IPR2020-00471, Unified Patents, LLC v. FireNet Technologies, LLC — filed 2020-03-13 (accorded filing date 2020-03-18), instituted 2020-09-01, Final Written Decision 2021-03-18, outcome: claims unpatentable. This challenged U.S. 8,892,600, a different member of the same FireNet/Kentworthy family. Critically, it post-dates the A10 dismissal by ~14 months, so it had zero effect on this litigation. The '837, '302 and '994 patents appear in that IPR only as exhibits (Exs. 1011–1013), used to show the family context — they were not the challenged claims.
  • Sources: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Unified-Patents-LLC-v-Firenet-Technologies-LLC-id-[133475](/patent/133475)/documents ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2020-00471/unified-patents-llc-v-firenet-technologies-llc
• Unified Patents PATROLL campaign against the '302 patent. Unified ran a crowdsourced prior-art contest on U.S. 7,739,302; on 2021-05-11 it announced a $1,250 award to contest winner Euclid Woo, expressly noting that the '302 patent "was being asserted against Kemp Technologies, Fortinet, Citrix, A10 Networks, and Fujitsu." This confirms three things: (a) A10 was in fact accused of the '302 patent as part of this campaign; (b) the validity of the FireNet family was being attacked defensively industry-wide; and (c) all of that pressure arrived after A10's case was already settled.
  • Source: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2021/5/11/1250-awarded-for-firenet-technologies-prior-art

8. Campaign context (why this case matters)

A10 was one of at least five defendants sued by FireNet in an 18-month burst:

The A10 case was the fastest-resolved of the group (91 days) and produced no written rulings. Its entire precedential value is negative: it shows a defendant settling a firewall/NAD-access patent suit at the pleadings stage — before claim construction, before contentions, and before any PTAB petition — which is the typical economics of a low-damages-exposure NPE campaign where the defense's IPR option would not even have matured until months later. The subsequent Unified Patents IPR on the '600 patent and the PATROLL contest on the '302 patent are the only public record that the portfolio's validity was ever tested, and neither was available to A10 within this case's lifetime.

Sourcing caveats: PACER docket text for 3:18-cv-06502 was consulted via the Unified Patents litigation portal and RPX Insight rather than directly; the complaint exhibits were not downloaded, so the precise per-defendant patent/claim mapping and the dismissed-with-or-without-prejudice language are not verified. No opinion or order with substantive analysis was ever issued in this docket.

Bottom line

FireNet Technologies is a non-practicing entity (an "IPinvestments Group" vehicle per Unified Patents), so there is no in-house counsel on the plaintiff's side. Plaintiff's representation in this case came from the plaintiffs'-side patent boutique Kheyfits Belenky LLP, and the docket in 3:18-cv-06502 shows a small, two-attorney plaintiff team: Dmitry Kheyfits (lead) and Hanna G. Cohen (pro hac vice). Andrey Belenky, the other name on FireNet's complaints elsewhere, is almost certainly part of the same team but I could not confirm a separate appearance on this docket.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — FireNet Technologies, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06502 (N.D. Cal.)

Docket evidence

The publicly mirrored N.D. Cal. docket for 3:18-cv-06502 shows the following plaintiff-side activity, all attributed to these attorneys:

• Complaint for Patent Infringement against A10 Networks, filed 10/24/2018, with Exhibits A–E and civil cover sheet, filed by (Kheyfits, Dmitry) — the signature block on FireNet's complaints in the companion cases lists Kheyfits as "Lead Counsel," with Belenky and Cohen beneath him, all at Kheyfits Belenky LLP.
• Certificate of Interested Entities by FireNet Technologies, LLC — (Kheyfits, Dmitry), 10/24/2018.
• Motion for leave to appear pro hac vice by Hanna G. Cohen (fee $310, receipt 0971-12792761), filed 10/25/2018; Order granting the motion signed by (then-)Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 10/25/2018.
• Certificate of Service (proof of service of summons on A10) — (Kheyfits, Dmitry), 11/5/2018.
• Consent/declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, and a stipulation selecting Private ADR — filed by/for FireNet (Kheyfits).
• Joint Case Management Statement filed by FireNet Technologies, LLC (Kheyfits) ahead of the 1/22/2019 initial CMC; the case was dismissed as settled and closed the same day, 1/22/2019, with Judge Vince Chhabria presiding after the 12/4/2018 reassignment from Judge van Keulen.

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal mirror of the 3:18-cv-06502 docket (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/…/3:18-cv-06502); RPX Insight case page for 3:18-cv-06502; complaints in FireNet's sister cases (RPX/Insight litigation documents 12958098, 12977558).

What I could not verify / express caveats

• No separate "local counsel" firm. Unusual for N.D. Cal., but Kheyfits himself is California-bar-admitted (SBN 321326) and served as both lead and local counsel, so no second local firm appeared for plaintiff.
• No in-house counsel for FireNet. FireNet is a Georgia LLC asserting patents it acquired; the complaints identify it at The Forum, Suite 1400, 3930 E. Jones Bridge Rd., Peachtree Corners, GA — a shell address with no legal department. Unified Patents describes FireNet as an "IPinvestments Group entity."
• Belenky's appearance in this docket is unconfirmed (see table). I am not going to assert it as fact.
• No sealed filings by plaintiff were identified in the retrievable docket; nothing in the record suggests plaintiff's counsel list was sealed. The docket is short because the case settled in ~91 days.
• Note on patents: Your case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,317,837. The complaint in this case attached five exhibits (A–E), matching the structure of FireNet's companion complaints, which asserted four patents — the '837, '302, '994 and '600 patents (Exhibits A–D plus a deployment-diagram claim chart as Ex. E); RPX records "4 patents-in-suit" for this case. So the '837 patent was likely one of several asserted here, not the sole patent.

Related context worth knowing

• The same three Kheyfits Belenky attorneys ran FireNet's entire campaign: KEMP Technologies (S.D.N.Y. 1:18-cv-05564), Fujitsu (E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00270), A10 Networks (this case), Fortinet, and Citrix (N.D. Ga. 1:19-cv-03199). All resolved by settlement/dismissal.
• The patents themselves were later invalidated at the PTAB: on March 18, 2021, the Board issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. FireNet Technologies, LLC holding all claims of U.S. Patent 8,892,600 (one of the FireNet family asserted against these defendants, and per RPX asserted here) unpatentable. That outcome, not this litigation, is what ended the FireNet campaign.
• For completeness on the defense side (not asked, but for the record): A10 appeared through Srinivas Pathmanaban, who filed A10's unopposed extension motion on 1/3/2019.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

I found a key docket entry naming A10's counsel. Let me verify the firm and check for any other attorneys.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet to identify all appearances for A10.

Bottom line

The docket in FireNet Technologies, LLC v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06502-VC (N.D. Cal.) reflects one and only one defense-side appearance: Srinivas ("S. Giri") Pathmanaban, who filed A10's lone substantive paper — an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the complaint — on January 3, 2019. No answer, corporate disclosure statement, notice of appearance, or other filing by A10 appears on the public docket before the case settled and closed.

Defendant's counsel of record

That is the entirety of what the record supports. I found no evidence of local counsel, additional Latham attorneys, or in-house A10 counsel entering an appearance in this docket.

Sourcing and important caveats

1. Primary docket evidence. The Unified Patents litigation portal docket for this case reproduces the N.D. Cal. ECF text: "MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, Unopposed Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint filed by A10 Networks, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Pathmanaban, Srinivas) (Filed on 1/3/2019)." (portal.unifiedpatents.com case page). Note the motion was filed roughly three weeks after the case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen to Judge Vince Chhabria (reassignment order signed Dec. 4, 2018). I was not able to confirm the exact ECF document number for that motion from the sources retrieved.

2. Firm attribution — flag this. The docket signature block shows only the attorney name, not the firm. I have not located a primary document (e.g., the motion PDF itself) confirming that Mr. Pathmanaban signed on Latham & Watkins letterhead in January 2019. The firm attribution rests on his bar records and his contemporaneous litigation practice: the State Bar of California profile lists him at Latham & Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Dr., Menlo Park with the address giri.pathmanaban@lw.com (Cal Bar profile), and he appeared as Latham pro hac vice counsel in the Columbia/NortonLifeLock patent case in the same period. Latham & Watkins was also A10 Networks' counsel in A10's contemporaneous securities class action, Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01772-VC (N.D. Cal.) — the same judge and same district — which is consistent with A10 using Latham for its 2018–2019 N.D. Cal. litigation. Treat the specific Latham situs as highly likely but not docket-verified for this particular filing.

   Mr. Pathmanaban's move to Cleary Gottlieb occurred well after this case closed (PTAB records show a motion to withdraw as lead counsel in IPR2024-00932 because "Mr. Pathmanaban is no longer with Latham & Watkins"; by May 2025 his signature block is Cleary Gottlieb, Palo Alto).

3. Nothing is sealed in a way that hides counsel here — rather, the case simply ended at the "extension of time to respond" stage. A10's own disclosure confirms the posture: in its FY2018 Form 10-K, A10 stated that "On October 24, 2018, the Company was sued in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California by FireNet Technologies, LLC, which we believe is a non-practicing patent holding company... In January 2019, we entered into a settlement agreement whereby we obtained a fully-paid up license and the case was dismissed with prejudice on February 4, 2019." (A10 Networks 2018 Form 10-K, Note 6 — Legal Proceedings.) Note the small discrepancy with the case metadata: the docket shows termination on January 22, 2019, while A10 reports the dismissal-with-prejudice entry date as February 4, 2019 (the RPX docket also shows a latest entry of 02/04/2019).

4. No other defense counsel to report. Because no answer, counterclaim, or IPR petition by A10 appears on this docket, there is no basis to name a "second chair," local counsel, or in-house attorney for A10 in this matter. I did not invent one. If A10 retained a second firm or in-house lawyer who never entered an appearance (common in quickly-settled NPE suits), that would not appear in PACER and I found no secondary source naming one.

5. Context worth noting for your case file: FireNet (an IPinvestments Group entity) filed a parallel wave of suits asserting the same proxy-firewall family — U.S. Patent Nos. 6,317,837 (the patent listed in your metadata), 7,739,302, and 8,892,600 — against Kemp Technologies, Fortinet, Citrix, A10 Networks, and Fujitsu. The '600 patent was later held unpatentable in Unified Patents, LLC v. FireNet Technologies, LLC (PTAB final written decision, Mar. 18, 2021), with Unified represented by in-house counsel David Seastrunk and Roshan Mansinghani (Unified Patents). That is separate from this case; no A10 IPR petition appears to have been filed.

Bottom-line confidence: High confidence that Pathmanaban was A10's sole recorded counsel of record. Moderate confidence (≈70–80%) that he filed from Latham & Watkins' Menlo Park office, based on bar records and parallel representations rather than the signature block of the January 3, 2019 filing itself.