FireNet Technologies, LLC v. KEMP Technologies Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a verified overview.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the patent specifics, the NPE structure, KEMP's corporate history, and the case's disposition.

Now let me verify patent titles, the case's disposition, parallel litigation, and any other IPRs.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. FireNet Technologies, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company based at 3930 E. Jones Bridge Road, Suite 140, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092 — a non-practicing entity with no operating business. It is an affiliate of IP Investments Group LLC (d/b/a IPinvestments Group), the Georgia monetization firm controlled by Michael W. McLaughlin, and its Rule 7.1 disclosure names Intelleq Holdings, LLC as corporate parent along with Invention Investment Fund I, LP, Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, and Intellectual Ventures Assets 54 and 57, LLC — i.e., the patents were acquired out of the Intellectual Ventures portfolio, and RPX describes the campaign as one "in which Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) retains an interest" (RPX campaign report, July 7, 2018; Fortinet R. 7.1, N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00798, Dkt. 8; Unified Patents). The assignment to FireNet was recorded January 19, 2018 (Reel 044669, Frame 0326), a matter of months before this suit (IPR2020-00471, Ex. 1029). The defendant, KEMP Technologies Inc., was a genuine operating company — founded 2000 in Bethpage, New York, an application delivery controller (ADC) and load-balancing vendor later headquartered in Melville, NY, with roughly 100,000 deployments across 138 countries at its peak. KEMP was acquired by private equity firm Mill Point Capital in 2019 and then by Progress Software (Nasdaq: PRGS) for $258M in an all-cash deal announced September 23, 2021 and closed that November (Progress press release). Notably, both parties were East Coast entities — an NPE from Georgia suing a New York company — so the S.D.N.Y. filing cannot be explained by either side's home district.

The accused technology. FireNet targeted KEMP's flagship LoadMaster product family — hardware appliances, virtual/software implementations, and cloud load balancers — as deployed through the KEMP "Network" architecture: a LoadMaster sitting between clients and internal nodes such as Microsoft Web Access servers, Connection Brokers, and RD Session Hosts, using Access Control Lists (ACL) and Web Application Firewall functionality to filter packets by IP header before granting access. The complaint also swept in KEMP's professional-services deployment/configuration work, its pre-configured Exchange and RDS templates, and its software license terms restricting customers from reconfiguring the products — the last point pleaded specifically to attribute customers' use back to KEMP for direct infringement purposes. Counts were pleaded under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (literal or equivalents) and § 271(b) (inducement via documentation, deployment guides, and technical assistance), with willfulness and a six-year pre-suit damages demand (S.D.N.Y. complaint excerpts). The four asserted patents share a single 1998 priority chain (application 09/144,954, filed September 1, 1998), a single named inventor — Stacy Kenworthy of Atlanta — and an original assignee of Robust Networks, LLC (Wilmington, DE): U.S. 6,317,837, "Internal Network Node With Dedicated Firewall" (issued Nov. 13, 2001 — the family's base patent, claiming a method of managing NAD access through an intermediate bastion firewall); U.S. 7,739,302, "Network Attached Device With Dedicated Firewall Security" (issued June 15, 2010 — apparatus/network-arrangement claims covering an NAD server that inspects packet headers and authorizes or denies access); U.S. 8,306,994 (issued Nov. 6, 2012 — method claims for processing NAD access requests through a firewall with packet-header filtering); and U.S. 8,892,600 (issued Nov. 18, 2014 — computer-implemented method claims for examining data packets for IP addresses associated with an attached device). In short, the family is a late-1990s "second layer of firewall security wrapped around a network-attached device" disclosure, asserted method-claim-by-method-claim against modern load balancers (Fujitsu complaint ¶¶10–13, E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00270).

Posture, venue, and why it matters. FireNet filed on June 20, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square), assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., with Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses designated; the case was flagged eligible for the court's Patent Pilot Program. KEMP was served June 27, 2018, obtained an extension, and answered on August 17, 2018 (Dkt. 13–14), represented by Stewart M. Leviss; FireNet was represented by Dmitry A. Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, and Hanna Glomska Cohen (Justia docket; RPX Empower). The venue choice matters because S.D.N.Y. was neither party's home district — KEMP's headquarters sat in the Eastern District of New York on Long Island — so the case tests whether a single in-district sale or use was doing the venue work, and it is a useful data point on plaintiffs' post-TC Heartland venue strategies in a district not typically associated with PAE filings. The case is notable chiefly as the opening shot of the FireNet/IP Investments campaign: it was followed within weeks by a suit against Fujitsu (E.D. Tex. 2:18-cv-00270), then Fortinet (N.D. Cal. 3:19-cv-00798, filed Feb. 14, 2019, closed Aug. 9, 2019), Citrix (D. Del. 1:19-cv-03199, July 2019), and A10 Networks — all on the same four patents (RPX). It also has direct IPR linkage: Unified Patents filed IPR2020-00471 against the '600 patent on March 13, 2020, using FireNet's Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure from this very S.D.N.Y. case as an exhibit to prove the NPE's IV/Intelleq lineage; the Board instituted on all challenged claims September 1, 2020 and on March 18, 2021 held all claims of the '600 patent (1–17, 19–23) unpatentable (Unified; IPR docket). Unified also ran a Patroll prior-art bounty on claim 1 of the '302 patent in late 2020, signaling that the whole family, not just the '600, was under validity pressure (Patroll contest). The broader market context is the reflexive defensive playbook triggered when a long-dormant 1998 firewall family tied to IV re-emerges against the ADC/load-balancer industry, whose products (F5, Citrix NetScaler, Fortinet, A10, KEMP) all share the load-balancing-plus-filtering architecture the claims recite.

Sourcing caveats: I could not confirm the final disposition of 1:18-cv-05564 — the public dockets I retrieved stop at the August 2018 answer (Justia's last retrieval), and RPX's case page shows no closed date, so any settlement, voluntary dismissal, or transfer is unverified. There are also slight indicators of an amended complaint in the S.D.N.Y. action (the '600 count references "the original complaint in this action"), which I could not independently confirm. Finally, docket aggregators disagree on the Fortinet case number and judge (RPX: 3:19-cv-00798, Judge Donato; Justia: 4:19-cv-00798, Mag. J. Westmore); the RPX figures are cited above.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB records, and legal news.

Let me dig into the docket details and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case. Let me run several searches.

Now let me research the three plaintiff attorneys and their firm affiliations.

Let me verify specific docket entries and get more background on the attorneys.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — FireNet Technologies, LLC v. KEMP Technologies Inc., No. 1:18-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line

FireNet was represented throughout the district court case by the New York–based patent boutique Kheyfits Belenky LLP (firm domain kblit.com), which was then operating under the prior names Kheyfits PLLC / Kheyfits PC. Three attorneys from that firm are listed as counsel of record for the plaintiff on the docket:

Sources for the appearances: the docket sheets on Justia Dockets and UniCourt, which record ECF Nos. 6 (Belenky notice of appearance), 7 (Cohen notice of appearance), 10 (affidavit of service signed by Belenky), and list Belenky, Cohen, and Kheyfits as plaintiff's "represented by" attorneys — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2018cv05564/[496016](/patent/496016) and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db1-firenet-technologies-llc-v-kemp-technologies-inc-[789691](/patent/789691). The Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement was ECF No. 3, and the file was opened by attorney Dmitry A. Kheyfits (ECF statistical-error notice, June 2018).

Firm contact details as they appeared in contemporaneous filings by the same team (PTAB pro hac vice/PO filings, CommWorks v. Comcast stipulation): Kheyfits Belenky LLP, 80 Broad Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004, tel. 212-203-5399; and 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94111 (Kheyfits). — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554613](/patent/1554613)/download-documents and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_District_Court/5--18-cv-04103/...

Caveats and things I could not confirm

• No formal "lead counsel" designation appears on this S.D.N.Y. docket. S.D.N.Y. ECF entries typically do not label lead vs. local counsel, and no admission order appears in the accessible docket text. The lead/of-counsel split above is inferred from firm structure and from this team's designations in parallel cases — not from a document in this case. Treat "lead counsel" for Kheyfits as a well-supported inference, not a docket-stated fact.
• No local-counsel or in-house counsel for FireNet is identified. All three plaintiff attorneys are the same firm; FireNet (an IP Investments Group affiliate) shows no separate in-house litigation counsel on this docket.
• Docket is only partially retrievable. The free aggregators stop at roughly the August 2018 activity (answer filed Aug. 17, 2018). I could not pull later ECF entries that might show a substitution, withdrawal, or appearance of additional counsel, and final disposition of the case is not confirmed. If counsel changed after mid-2018, that would not be reflected here.
• Nothing appears to be sealed as to the plaintiff's representation; the complaint, disclosure statement, and notices of appearance are all public, and the Rule 7.1 statement was later used as an exhibit in IPR2020-00471 (Ex. 1030).

Relevant experience (one line each)

• Dmitry Kheyfits — founder of the firm and its most active patent plaintiff's-side litigator across dozens of DCT/PTAB/Fed. Cir. matters, including Personalized Media Communications v. Google (Fed. Cir. 22-1250) and LaserDynamics USA v. Moser Baer (S.D.N.Y.).
• Andrey Belenky — registered patent attorney on the same NPE enforcement docket (LaserDynamics, CommWorks Solutions, KT Imaging), handling S.D.N.Y. filings and service.
• Hanna Glomska Cohen — patent litigator on the firm's NPE portfolio cases, including the FireNet-family and CommWorks matters.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for KEMP Technologies in this case.

Let me verify the defense counsel and check the full docket sheet.

Let me pull the actual docket entries and the answer/notice of appearance documents.

Defense counsel of record — FireNet Techs., LLC v. KEMP Techs. Inc., No. 1:18-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line

The docket reflects a single attorney of record for KEMP Technologies Inc.: Stewart M. Leviss. I found no separate notice of appearance for local counsel, no patent-specialist co-counsel, and no in-house counsel appearing on the docket in this case.

---

Attorney identified

Stewart M. Leviss — sole defense counsel of record (lead/defense counsel)

• Firm: Berkowitz, Lichtstein, Kuritsky, Giasullo & Gross, LLC (BLKGG) — New Jersey firm, offices at 75 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ (with a West Orange, NJ address also listed). Firm e-mail domain appears in his filings as sleviss@blkgq.com / sleviss@blkgg.com; direct line 973-243-6024.
• Admissions / role note: Admitted in New Jersey and in the S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y., and the Second and Third Circuits. He is a New Jersey Certified Civil Trial Attorney whose reported practice is general commercial litigation — business disputes, trademark and copyright infringement, and professional-liability/personal-injury defense (Super Lawyers "Personal Injury – Plaintiff"; Best Lawyers medical malpractice/personal injury). He is not a registered patent attorney and no patent-focused practice is listed for him, which suggests he functioned as retained litigation counsel for the S.D.N.Y. action rather than as patent-specialist counsel.
• Relevant patent/IP-adjacent litigation experience: He was defense counsel for Infomir LLC in Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC, No. 1:16-cv-01318 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Daniels) — a heavily litigated S.D.N.Y. case in which he filed motions to preclude experts, handled discovery sanctions/fee disputes (including a court-ordered fee-reimbursement declaration), and handled sealing/redaction disputes. That is his most visible recent federal IP-adjacent matter.

Docket entries evidencing his representation

Sources: Justia docket and UniCourt case page for 1:18-cv-05564 (both list "Defendant Attorney: Stewart M. Leviss" and the ECF 11/13/14 entries); RPX Empower litigation record; the case's ECF 11 letter-motion caption.

---

Caveats and sourcing limits (important)

1. The available docket snapshot is stale. The docket data I could retrieve (Justia/UniCourt) is current only through roughly August 19, 2018 — i.e., it captures only up to the answer. A First Amended Complaint was filed August 20, 2018 (Civil Action No. 18-cv-5564-ALC, signed by FireNet's counsel Dmitry Kheyfits, Andrey Belenky, and Hanna G. Cohen of Kheyfits Belenky LLP). Any later notices of appearance, motions, or substitution of counsel (e.g., additional or replacement defense counsel appearing in 2019+ as the case progressed and the ’600 patent IPR proceeded) would not be reflected in the sources I could access. Confirm against PACER / the live S.D.N.Y. docket sheet for ECF entries after Aug. 2018.
2. No separate notice of appearance by Leviss appears. His appearance is evidenced by his own signed filings (ECF 11 letter motion, ECF 13, ECF 14) rather than a standalone Notice of Appearance docket entry in the snapshot.
3. Firm attribution is well-sourced but inferred for 2018. The Justia/UniCourt docket gives the name only, not the firm. The firm identification (BLKGG, Roseland/West Orange, NJ) rests on his contemporaneous filings in other S.D.N.Y. matters (e.g., the Infomir case letterhead and motion captions using the same address/e-mail) and his professional profiles. If precision matters for a brief, verify the firm as stated on the ECF 11/ECS 14 signature blocks via PACER.
4. No in-house or patent-specialist counsel can be confirmed. KEMP Technologies is a New York–headquartered company (complaint alleges principal place of business at 1540 Broadway, Floor 23, New York, NY), and it was acquired by Progress Software in 2019 — but neither an in-house attorney nor separate patent counsel appears on the docket as retrieved. Do not assume one existed; if later ECF entries show additional counsel, they would need to be pulled from PACER.
5. No sealed filings identified among the entries reviewed (ECF 1–14), so this is not a sealing issue — it is an incomplete-docket issue.

If you need certainty for a citation, the two documents to pull from PACER are ECF 14 (Answer) and ECF 11 (letter motion) to confirm the firm name, address, and signature block as filed in this specific case, plus a check for any ECF entries after August 2018.