FireNet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case to give you an accurate overview.

Let me verify the patents, IPR history, and party background.

Case Overview and Background

FireNet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd. and Fujitsu America, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), is a short-lived NPE infringement suit. Plaintiff FireNet Technologies, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company at a Peachtree Corners address, formed around a portfolio of network-security patents. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Intelleq Holdings, LLC as corporate parent, and a later filing in a parallel case additionally named Invention Investment Fund I, LP, Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, Intellectual Ventures Assets 54, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures Assets 57, LLC as affiliated entities — i.e., Intellectual Ventures retained an economic interest. RPX describes FireNet as "an affiliate of Georgia-based IP Investments Group LLC (d/b/a IPinvestments Group), a monetization firm controlled by Michael W. McLaughlin," and both RPX and Unified Patents classify it as an NPE/PAE rather than an operating company. (One aggregate docket aggregator mislabels FireNet as an "operating company"; the weight of RPX/Unified reporting is to the contrary.) The patents reached FireNet by assignment recorded January 19, 2018 (Reel 044669, Frame 0326) — an IV-sourced hand-off that immediately preceded this campaign. On the defense side, Fujitsu Ltd. is the Japanese parent and Fujitsu America, Inc. its U.S. subsidiary (Richardson, Texas); both were represented by Charles S. Barquist and Ryan J. Malloy of Morrison & Foerster (pro hac vice) and local counsel Andy Tindel of Mann, Tindel & Thompson. FireNet was represented by Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky and Hanna Glomska Cohen of Kheyfits Belenky LLP with local counsel L. Charles Van Cleef.

Note on the prior summary: the existing case summary states the narrative "does not expressly identify additional patents." That is incomplete — the July 5, 2018 complaint (Dkt. 1) pleads four counts, as do the campaign's sister complaints. The patents-in-suit are all from the Stacy Kenworthy family (originally assigned to Robust Networks, LLC), describing firewall/access-control architectures for network attached devices ("NADs"): (1) U.S. 6,317,837 (app. 09/144,954, filed Sept. 1, 1998) — the family's root, claiming a method/apparatus for managing access to a NAD using an intermediate node/bastion firewall plus a dedicated NAD firewall (asserted claim 37, a method claim); (2) U.S. 7,739,302 — a continuation of the '837, generally a proxy firewall for protecting devices on a network (asserted claim 1, an apparatus/network-arrangement claim); (3) U.S. 8,306,994, titled "Network attached device with dedicated firewall security," itself a continuation of the '302 — a NAD server that filters packets based on IP header information before passing them to the NAD (asserted claim 10); and (4) U.S. 8,892,600, "Security for a network attached device" — a proxy firewall system in which a first computing device filters and reformulates packets destined for a second device with an attached peripheral (asserted claim 8). The accused instrumentalities, per ¶17 of the complaint, are Fujitsu networking products and services with firewall security — PRIMERGY servers, ETERNUS storage, and Fujitsu Network Security solutions (NS Appliance and NS Options / ServerView Resource Orchestrator NS Option) in hardware, dedicated-appliance and cloud deployments — with the "Access Control function" that inspects packet headers to grant or deny access to application/database servers as the core accused functionality.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed July 5, 2018 by jury demand under 35 U.S.C. § 271, the case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 7, July 19, 2018) — the E.D. Tex. Marshall Division, the highest-volume patent venue of its era and a forum plaintiffs favored for speed and plaintiff-friendly procedure. The docket stayed mundane: Answer extensions for Fujitsu America (Dkt. 12–13) and Fujitsu Ltd. (Dkt. 16), answers in October 2018 and January 2019 (Dkt. 14, 19), a March 18, 2019 scheduling conference, and an agreed Discovery/Docket Control Order (Dkt. 26–28, Apr. 3, 2019) setting a Markman hearing for Oct. 29, 2019 and jury selection for May 4, 2020. Hon. David Folsom (former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge) was appointed mediator on March 26, 2019 (Dkt. 25), and the parties filed a joint notice of settlement and motion to stay on June 6, 2019 (Dkt. 34), granted June 10 (Dkt. 35) and extended twice (Dkt. 36–39) while a license was papered. FireNet filed a consent motion to dismiss with prejudice on Sept. 25, 2019 (Dkt. 40), and Judge Gilstrap entered the dismissal order Sept. 27, 2019 (Dkt. 41, docketed Sept. 30). Notably, the case is the Fujitsu prong of a broader serial campaign: FireNet sued KEMP Technologies (S.D.N.Y. 1:18-cv-05564), A10 Networks, Fortinet (N.D. Cal. 4:19-cv-00798), and Citrix (N.D. Ga. 1:19-cv-03199) on the same four patents — a file-and-settle pattern in which Fujitsu was the first defendant to settle, and every case resolved early rather than reaching claim construction.

Why it's notable. First, IPR linkage: on March 13, 2020 — after this case had already settled — Unified Patents, LLC petitioned for IPR of the '600 patent (IPR2020-00471), and the Board instituted on all challenged claims on Sept. 1, 2020 and issued a final written decision on March 18, 2021 holding claims 1–17 and 19–23 unpatentable (Coley/Coss/Gelb/Shand combinations), wiping out the very claim family (the '600 count, claim 8) that FireNet had asserted against Fujitsu. Unified separately ran a PATROLL prior-art contest on the '302 patent (launched Sept. 29, 2020, $2,500 prize; winner announced May 11, 2021). Second, market context: the patents target the load-balancer/ADC/firewall appliance market (F5, Citrix NetScaler/ADC, Kemp LoadMaster, Fortinet FortiGate/FortiWeb, A10), which is why the campaign touched nearly every major ADC vendor. Third, IV provenance: the litigation is a documented example of an IV-retained-interest portfolio being spun into a short-lived Georgia NPE campaign shortly before the patents' validity was tested at the PTAB — one reason the case is cited in NPE-trend reporting rather than for any substantive ruling. The E.D. Tex. docket itself contains no claim construction, no summary judgment, and no merits opinion; there is likewise no publicly reported settlement figure, so any dollar amount for the Fujitsu resolution would be speculation.

Sourcing caveat: docket events are corroborated by the PACER-sourced docket (Justia/PacerMonitor/Unified Patents Portal), and the four-patent scope, accused products, asserted claims and counsel by the complaint text reproduced via RPX Insight (litigation document 12977558) and the complaint analysis at ai-lab.exparte.com; party/ownership facts rest on RPX Insight news items and Unified Patents' IPR2020-00471 petition exhibits (Exs. 1029–1032); the '600 outcome rests on Unified's March 18, 2021 announcement and the PTAB FWD. Patent titles for the '837 and '302 are drawn from secondary aggregators and I have not verified them against the face of each patent, so treat those two titles as approximate.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches across the sources you mentioned.

This is very informative — the case actually asserted four patents, not just the '837. Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings and the broader campaign.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — FireNet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex.)

Threshold correction on the patents at issue

The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,317,837 (the "'837 patent," Internal Network Node With Dedicated Firewall). The complaint as actually filed, however, asserted four related patents in four counts — the '837 plus three continuation-family patents, all naming the same inventor (Kentworthy) and sharing the "network attached device with dedicated firewall" specification:

This is confirmed by the complaint text itself (cited internally to "Case 2:18-cv-00270 Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 14 of 14"), and by the fact that the same four patents were asserted in FireNet's companion suits. The prior summary's observation that "the narrative does not expressly identify additional patents" reflects the metadata, not the pleading. Treat all four as the operative patents-in-suit for this case.

---

Procedural history (chronological)

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2018)

• 2018-07-05 — FireNet Technologies, LLC (a Georgia LLC, Peachtree Corners, GA) filed its Complaint (Dkt. 1) in the Marshall Division against Fujitsu Ltd. and Fujitsu America, Inc., with Exhibits A–C attached. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial (Dkt. 3) and filed a corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 2). FireNet's principal place of business / parent was identified elsewhere in the campaign as Intelleq Holdings, LLC.
  • Accused products: Fujitsu networking products/services with firewall security, including PRIMERGY servers, ETERNUS storage, and NS Appliance / NS Options (hardware, dedicated, and cloud implementations) — the "Fujitsu Network."
  • Asserted claims included claim 37 of the '837, claim 1 of the '302, claim 10 of the '994, and claim 8 of the '600, with both direct infringement (§271(a)) and induced infringement (§271(b)) theories, willfulness, and prayers for treble damages and fees under §285.
• 2018-07-06 — Summonses issued (Dkt. 6); case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2018-07-19 — Order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 7) for pretrial management.
• 2018-07-30 / 2018-08-24 / 2018-09-18 — A series of unopposed extensions for Fujitsu America to answer (Local Rule CV-12), ultimately setting the answer deadline at 2018-10-19 (Dkt. 13). Plaintiff's appearances included Dmitry Kheyfits (Dkt. 9).
• 2018-10-19 — Fujitsu America's Answer (Dkt. 14) and corporate disclosure (Dkt. 15).
• 2018-12-13 — Fujitsu Ltd.'s unopposed first extension to answer (deadline moved to 2019-01-25); pro hac vice appearance of Charles S. Barquist for both defendants (Dkt. 17).
• 2019-01-17 — Pro hac vice appearance of Ryan J. Malloy for both defendants (Dkt. 18).
• 2019-01-25 — Fujitsu Ltd.'s Answer (Dkt. 19) and corporate disclosure (Dkt. 20).

Note on counterclaims: The docket text for both answers reads only "ANSWER to 1 Complaint" — I found no record of affirmative counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) in the public docket. In E.D. Tex. practice, invalidity and non-infringement are frequently pleaded as affirmative defenses rather than counterclaims, which is consistent with what the docket shows. I could not verify the answer contents directly, so treat the "no counterclaims" point as docket-inferred, not confirmed from the pleadings.

Counsel of record:

• Plaintiff: Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, Hanna G. Cohen (Kheyfits Belenky LLP); L. Charles Van Cleef (Van Cleef Law Office, Longview, TX — local counsel).
• Defendants: Andy Tindel (Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler, TX — local counsel); Charles S. Barquist and Ryan J. Malloy (Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles).

2. Scheduling, discovery, and mediation (early–mid 2019)

• 2019-02-26 — Scheduling conference set for 2019-03-18 before Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 21).
• 2019-03-04 — FireNet filed its P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures (infringement contentions and asserted-claim chart identification) (Dkt. 23).
• 2019-03-18 — Scheduling Conference held before Judge Gilstrap. The court set Markman and jury-selection dates, required mediator names within 3 days, and agreed scheduling/discovery orders within 14 days (minute entry; Dkt. 22).
• 2019-03-21 / 2019-03-26 — Notice of agreed mediator (Dkt. 24); Order referring the case to mediation, appointing the Hon. David Folsom (former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge) as mediator (Dkt. 25).
• 2019-04-03 — Discovery Order (Dkt. 27) and Docket Control Order (Dkt. 28), setting:
  • Amended pleadings: 2019-08-13
  • Markman hearing: 2019-10-29 (before Mag. J. Payne)
  • Mediation completion: 2019-11-26
  • Motions in limine: 2020-03-06; Proposed pretrial order: 2020-03-23
  • Pretrial conference: 2020-04-17; Jury selection: 2020-05-04
• 2019-04-08/09 — Joint motion for an agreed protective order; Agreed Protective Order entered 2019-04-09 (Dkt. 31). Discovery disclosures followed: Fujitsu's answers to Discovery Order ¶¶1 & 3 (Dkt. 30) and FireNet's initial/additional disclosures (Dkt. 32).
• 2019-04-29 — Fujitsu served its P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 disclosures (invalidity contentions and supporting document production) (Dkt. 33). This is the last substantive merits filing in the case.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

There were none. The docket reflects no motion to dismiss, no §1404/§1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. The only stay in the case was a joint settlement stay (below). Markman was never held; SJ, JMOL, new-trial, and fee motions never arose.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. The Markman hearing was scheduled for 2019-10-29 before Mag. J. Payne (Dkt. 28) but was never held — the case settled and was dismissed before that date. I found no claim construction order, no joint claim construction statement, and no P.R. 4 disclosures in the public docket. The only pre-Markman merits investment by the parties was the exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions in March–April 2019.

5. Settlement stay and dismissal (mid–late 2019)

• 2019-06-06 — Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Dkt. 34) filed by FireNet.
• 2019-06-10 — Order granting the stay (Dkt. 35) (Mag. J. Payne).
• 2019-07-10 → 2019-07-15 — Joint motion to extend the stay (Dkt. 36); order granting extension (Dkt. 37).
• 2019-08-26 → 2019-08-27 — Joint motion to further extend the stay (Dkt. 38, filed by Fujitsu); order granting further extension (Dkt. 39).
• 2019-09-25 — Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (Dkt. 40) filed by FireNet.
• 2019-09-27 — Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 41), signed by Judge Gilstrap. Case terminated.
• 2019-09-30 — AO 120 notice of termination mailed to the USPTO (Dkt. 42).

Final disposition: Dismissal with prejudice by consent, with no judgment, no verdict, no injunction, and no fee award. The three-month, repeatedly extended settlement stay indicates the parties were finalizing a confidential license/settlement whose terms were never made public. No appeal was taken (nothing appealable issued).

6. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. Jury selection was set for 2020-05-04, but the case was dismissed 2019-09-27. There was no trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or §285 fee motion.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Unified Patents v. FireNet — '600 patent (IPR2020-00471)

• Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC (an entity that files IPRs defensively on behalf of technology-sector members; represented in-house by David Seastrunk and Roshan Mansinghani).
• Patent Owner: FireNet Technologies, LLC.
• Filed: 2020-03-13.
• Challenged patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,892,600 — one of the four patents asserted against Fujitsu.
• Challenged claims: 1–17 and 19–23.
• Grounds: obviousness combinations — (1) Coley + Coss for claims 1–14, 16, 17, 19–22; (2) Coley + Coss + Shand for claims 15 and 23 (adding logging of rejected packets); (3) Coss + Gelb for claims 1–14, 16, 17, 19–22. The primary reference, Coley (U.S. 5,826,014), disclosed the firewall/proxied-architecture; Coss (U.S. 6,098,172) supplied IP-address-based packet filtering.
• Final Written Decision: 2021-03-18 — the Board held all challenged claims unpatentable (claims 1–17 and 19–23). (Unified Patents' announcement characterizes this as holding "all claims of U.S. Patent 8,892,600 … unpatentable.")

Effect on this litigation: none (temporally impossible)

The '600 IPR was filed 2020-03-13, more than five months after the Fujitsu case was dismissed with prejudice (2019-09-27) and roughly nine months after the parties' settlement stay began (2019-06-06). Consequently:

• No motion to stay pending IPR was ever filed in FireNet v. Fujitsu.
• The Board's invalidation of the '600 patent did not unwind or affect the Fujitsu settlement.
• Rather, the '600 IPR is best understood as part of the broader FireNet campaign, in which Unified challenged the portfolio patents asserted against a series of networking vendors — it targeted the same asset that had been asserted against Fujitsu (Count IV), KEMP, A10, Fortinet, and Citrix.

Other asserted patents — no PTAB challenge located on the '837, '302, or '994

I found an IPR only against the '600. Notably, the '302 and '994 patents appear in the '600 IPR record only as Unified exhibits (Exs. 1011–1012, labeled "Kentworthy '994" and "Kentworthy '302," plus Ex. 1015, the '302 file history), used to establish the shared family specification — not as independently challenged patents. I did not locate any IPR/PGR against the '837 (the sole patent named in the case metadata), the '302, or the '994. If such proceedings exist, they are not surfaced in the sources reviewed; treat the absence as "not found," not as an affirmative "none exist."

---

Campaign context (relevant to outcome and strategy)

FireNet was not a standalone plaintiff. Per RPX and Unified Patents reporting:

• FireNet Technologies, LLC is an affiliate of IP Investments Group LLC (d/b/a IPinvestments Group), a Georgia monetization firm controlled by Michael W. McLaughlin. The four patents were acquired from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), which retained an interest in the campaign — i.e., this is a monetization vehicle, not an operating company.
• The same four network-security patents were asserted in parallel suits:
  • KEMP Technologies, Inc. — No. 1:18-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 2018-06-20 (the first suit in the campaign).
  • Fujitsu Ltd. / Fujitsu America — No. 2:18-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2018-07-05 (this case).
  • Fortinet, Inc. — No. 4:19-cv-00798 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Citrix Systems — No. 1:19-cv-03199 (N.D. Ga.).
  • A10 Networks — also named in the campaign.
• Both the KEMP and Fujitsu cases settled before trial; the '600 patent was invalidated by Unified's IPR in March 2021, which would have materially weakened FireNet's position in any remaining or future campaign suits premised on that patent.

---

Bottom line / current posture

• Disposition: Dismissed with prejudice by consent on 2019-09-27 (Dkt. 41); case terminated the same day (with the AO 120 filed 2019-09-30). No judgment, verdict, claim construction, or merits ruling ever issued.
• Litigation path: Complaint → two answers (Fujitsu America 2018-10-19; Fujitsu Ltd. 2019-01-25) → scheduling order, protective order, infringement/invalidity contentions (March–April 2019) → joint settlement stay (June 2019) → three stay extensions → consent dismissal with prejudice (September 2019).
• No pretrial motions of substance were filed (no MTD, transfer, stay-pending-IPR, or summary judgment).
• No Markman (hearing set 2019-10-29, never held).
• No trial (jury selection set 2020-05-04, never reached).
• PTAB: One parallel IPR, Unified Patents v. FireNet, IPR2020-00471, filed 2020-03-13 against the '600 patent and decided 2021-03-18 (all challenged claims unpatentable) — filed after this case ended, so it had no effect on FireNet v. Fujitsu. No IPR located against the '837, '302, or '994.

---

Sourcing and caveats

• Docket entries, dates, and counsel are drawn from the PACER-monitor and Unified Patents docket reproductions of Firenet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd. et al (2:18-cv-00270) and Justia Dockets.
• Complaint contents / four asserted patents are drawn from the complaint text as reproduced by RPX Insight (litigation document for Dkt. 1) and ExParte's complaint analysis.
• Campaign and IV/IP Investments relationship are from RPX News (2018-07-07 and subsequent) and Unified Patents postings.
• The '600 IPR is from Unified Patents' 2020-03-13 and 2021-03-18 announcements, the Patexia docket for IPR2020-00471, and ExParte's petition analysis.
• Not verified / not found: the textual content of the two answers (i.e., whether counterclaims were pleaded), any protective-order or settlement-agreement terms, and whether the settlement had any cross-licensing effect. The settlement amount is not public. If you need the answer contents or counterclaim confirmation, that requires a direct PACER pull of Dkts. 14 and 19 in 2:18-cv-00270.

I'll research this docket and the plaintiff's counsel of record.

Let me identify the firms and roles for each attorney.

Let me verify the Belenky/Kheyfits firm details and check FireNet's parallel cases for counsel consistency.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — FireNet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd. et al., 2:18-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The docket reflects exactly three attorneys of record for the plaintiff, FireNet Technologies, LLC. Two are from the IP boutique Kheyfits Belenky LLP (Andrey Belenky and Dmitry Kheyfits), and one is East Texas local counsel L. Charles Van Cleef of the Van Cleef Law Office in Longview. No in-house counsel and no other firms appear on the docket as plaintiff's representatives. All filings in this case were public — nothing on the docket indicates sealed appearances or unidentified "John Doe" counsel.

---

1. Dmitry Kheyfits — Lead Counsel

2. Andrey Belenky — Lead / Trial Counsel

Note on the Belenky–Kheyfits relationship to the plaintiff: FireNet's Rule 7.1 disclosure in the parallel N.D. Ga. action identifies Intelleq Holdings, LLC as its affiliate (FireNet Techs. v. Citrix Systems, 1:19-cv-03199, Dkt. 3), consistent with Unified Patents' characterization of FireNet as an "IPinvestments Group entity." I found no evidence the Belenky/Kheyfits firm holds an ownership interest in FireNet — but the same firm appearing for FireNet across all of its suits (Fujitsu, KEMP, Citrix, and the Citrix/N.D. Ga. action) is worth noting as a possible financing/relationship question. I could not verify any fee arrangement from public sources.

3. L. Charles Van Cleef — Local Counsel

---

Caveats and verification notes

1. No pro hac vice motions for plaintiff's out-of-state counsel appear on the docket. Unlike the Fujitsu defendants — who filed PHV appearances (Charles S. Barquist, Morrison & Foerster, Dkt. 17; Ryan J. Malloy, Dkt. 18; both for Fujitsu America/Ltd.) — the docket for this case shows no PHV application for Belenky or Kheyfits. That is somewhat unusual for E.D. Tex. and may mean the docket listing is incomplete, that one or both were already admitted in the district, or that the entries were not captured by the public docketing services. This is the one point I would confirm against PACER directly, since I am relying on third-party docket mirrors (Justia, PACERMonitor, Unified Patents portal) that were "last checked" years ago.
2. Defendants' counsel (for completeness, not the question asked): Andy Tindel (Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler, TX — local), Charles S. Barquist and Ryan J. Malloy (Morrison & Foerster, Los Angeles — PHV).
3. Correction to the case summary's premise: the narrative says the case "does not expressly identify additional patents asserted." The complaint actually pleads four patents-in-suit — U.S. 6,317,837; 7,739,302; 8,306,994; and 8,892,600 — all in the "network attached device with dedicated firewall" family (Compl. ¶¶ 10–14, Dkt. 1). Only the '837 is reflected in the case metadata. This matters because the '600 patent was later held unpatentable by the PTAB in Unified Patents, LLC v. Firenet Technologies, LLC (final written decision Mar. 18, 2021).
4. No counsel information is sealed or missing for this case. The case terminated by consent order on a stipulated dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 41), and the docket sheet itself discloses the complete plaintiff-side appearance list.

Primary sources: Docket sheet, Firenet Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-00270 (E.D. Tex.) (Justia Dockets; PACERMonitor; Unified Patents litigation portal); Complaint, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2018); Consent Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 40; Order Dismissing Case, Dkt. 41; FireNet Techs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 1:19-cv-03199 (N.D. Ga.) docket (Kheyfits Belenky firm/office confirmations); FireNet Techs., LLC v. KEMP Techs. Inc., 1:18-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y.) docket; Complex Memory LLC v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., 5:18-cv-04103 (N.D. Cal.) Dkt. 1 (role designation); Unified Patents, "FireNet Technologies patent held unpatentable" (Mar. 18, 2021); Texas Governor's Office, "Governor Abbott Appoints Van Cleef To Sixth Court Of Appeals."

Given that the case has been closed since 2019, I'd recommend a fresh PACER pull of the full docket sheet (including the "attorney" tab) if you need a signature-ready counsel list — the free mirrors I used are stale and would not capture a late PHV entry.

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

I have the docket entries. Let me verify the defense attorneys' firms and credentials.

Let me verify the local counsel and check for any additional appearances.

Counsel of Record — Defendants Fujitsu Ltd. & Fujitsu America, Inc.

The docket for FireNet Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00270-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) shows a two-firm defense team: a Los Angeles–based Morrison & Foerster patent team admitted pro hac vice, working with a Tyler, Texas local-counsel firm. Both defendants were represented jointly by the same counsel throughout. The case is closed (dismissed with prejudice by consent order, Dkt. 41, Sept. 27, 2019), so this listing is final and no new appearances are pending.

1. Andy (Andy W.) Tindel — Local counsel (Texas counsel of record)

• Firm / office: Mann, Tindel & Thompson (a/k/a MT² Law Group), 112 E. Line St., Suite 304, Tyler, TX 75702. Texas Bar No. 20054500.
• Docket basis: Tindel is the ECF filer on essentially every defense-side filing in this case — the answers for both defendants (Dkt. 14, Fujitsu America, Oct. 19, 2018; Dkt. 19, Fujitsu Ltd., Jan. 25, 2019), both corporate disclosure statements (Dkt. 15; Dkt. 20), the extension applications (Dkt. 12; Dkt. 16), the mediator notice (Dkt. 24), the P.R. 3-3/3-4 disclosures (Dkt. 33), and the joint stay motions (Dkt. 38).
• Experience note: Longtime E.D. Tex. patent litigator and local counsel; he was lead Texas counsel in the VirnetX/Leidos patent litigation and in the VLSI v. Intel matters (including the 2022 ~$948.7M verdict) alongside Irell & Manella, and is triple board-certified in Texas (civil trial, personal injury trial, civil appellate).

2. Charles S. Barquist — Lead trial counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm / office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA (707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 6000). California Bar No. 133785. (Note: Barquist has since left MoFo after 30+ years and is now at Maschoff Brennan in Los Angeles — that change post-dates this case.)
• Docket basis: Notice of Attorney Appearance Pro Hac Vice filed Dec. 13, 2018 (Dkt. 17), on behalf of both Fujitsu entities; later filed a Notice of Change of Address (Dkt. 22, Mar. 1, 2019).
• Experience note: Career patent trial lawyer with deep Japan-facing IP litigation practice; his MoFo representative matters expressly include Core Optical LLC v. Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), defending Fujitsu in patent litigation — a direct client/technology precedent for this matter — plus Apple v. Samsung (N.D. Cal./ITC) and Forgent v. EchoStar (E.D. Tex. jury verdict of invalidity).

3. Ryan J. Malloy — Defense counsel (admitted pro hac vice)

• Firm / office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA. California Bar No. 253512 (admitted 2007); J.D. Harvard, M.S.E.E. Georgia Tech.
• Docket basis: Notice of Attorney Appearance Pro Hac Vice filed Jan. 17, 2019 (Dkt. 18), on behalf of both Fujitsu entities.
• Experience note: MoFo IP litigation partner (elected partner effective Jan. 1, 2018), electrical-engineer-trained; broad district court/ITC/PTAB patent practice (e.g., Nvidia GPU patents, Apple iMessage/FaceTime matters, Insta360 v. GoPro).

Not represented / not appearing

• No in-house counsel for either Fujitsu entity appears on the docket as counsel of record in this case (the availability of a Fujitsu legal-department entry is not reflected in the ECF attorney list as retrieved).
• No other MoFo or local firm appears in the docket entries retrieved; the only defense-side attorney signatures/filers located are Tindel, Barquist, and Malloy.
• Nothing appears sealed as to counsel identity — the docket, answers, and corporate disclosures are public documents.

Sourcing caveat

All attorney identities above are taken from the public docket as mirrored (PACERMonitor case 24993803; DocketAlarm/Justia E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00270; Unified Patents litigation portal). The aggregators' "last retrieved" dates predate today, but because the case terminated Sept. 27, 2019, the counsel roster is effectively closed. I did not verify the pro hac vice admission orders themselves (which would be the strongest confirmation of each attorney's appearance); that would require pulling the individual docket entries 17–18 from PACER directly. Role characterizations ("lead" vs. "local") are my assessment drawn from filing patterns (Tindel as ECF filer/local signer; Barquist and Malloy as MoFo pro hac vice appearances) rather than from an express docket designation of "lead counsel."

Case context note: The metadata lists only U.S. Patent 6,317,837, and the complaint tracked that patent (Count I) plus the '302 patent; RPX reports the campaign complaints asserted four network-security patents generally, which the previously generated sections may wish to reconcile.