K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc.

K. Mizra LLC, a Delaware-based non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Forescout Technologies, Inc.. K. Mizra LLC acquires and monetizes patents through licensing and litigation, boasting a portfolio of over 170 assets, including patents originally from IBM, Panasonic, Sharp, and ZTE. Forescout Technologies, Inc. is a global cybersecurity leader headquartered in San Jose, California, specializing in automated cybersecurity solutions that identify, protect, and manage risk across managed and unmanaged IT, operational technology (OT), Internet of Things (IoT), and Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) devices. Forescout's flagship offering, the Forescout 4D Platform™, provides agentless visibility and control to reduce attack surfaces and ensure compliance. The lawsuit generally accuses Forescout of infringing on the asserted patent through its email and/or network security products, likely including network access control (NAC) tools and related cybersecurity platform functionalities.

The litigation was filed on July 8, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX), a venue strategically chosen by patent plaintiffs due to its expedited dockets and patentee-friendly reputation. While not explicitly confirmed for this specific case, Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap frequently presides over K. Mizra's numerous cases in the EDTX and is known for rigorous case management. The sole patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048, which generally pertains to network access control (NAC), focusing on managing trusted access permissions and verifying security compliance.

This case is notable as part of K. Mizra LLC's extensive pattern of patent assertions against major technology companies. K. Mizra has launched multiple campaigns targeting a wide array of defendants, including Cisco, Broadcom, Fortinet, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Google, Samsung, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, asserting patents related to diverse technologies like network security, wireless telecommunications, and machine learning. The '048 patent at issue here has also been challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by other defendants, such as HPE (IPR2022-00843), indicating a common defense strategy against K. Mizra's assertions. The litigation reflects the ongoing landscape of NPE enforcement in critical technology sectors like cybersecurity.

The patent infringement lawsuit K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., Case number 2:21-cv-00248, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on July 8, 2021. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2021-07-08: K. Mizra LLC filed its complaint against Forescout Technologies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2022-06-03: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE), identified as a petitioner, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2022-00843) against U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048, which is owned by K. Mizra LLC. This IPR proceeding listed K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (2:21-cv-00248) as a related matter. The real parties-in-interest for the IPR were Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC.

Final Disposition:

• 2023-02-21: The district court case, K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., was marked as concluded on February 21, 2023. The specific outcome, such as settlement or dismissal, is not detailed in the available public search results, but the case is no longer active.

While the precise terms of the conclusion are not publicly detailed in the search results, the case reached a disposition less than two years after filing, and concurrently with an ongoing IPR proceeding against the asserted patent.

The counsel of record representing the plaintiff, K. Mizra LLC, in K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (2:21-cv-00248) is likely:

• Cliff Win, Jr.
  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA and Austin, TX (main office listed as Seattle, CA Bar indicates Seattle, WA for current firm, Folio Law Group PLLC states Seattle, WA and Austin, TX).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Cliff Win, Jr. is a patent litigation attorney who has represented clients in complex disputes across a wide range of technologies, including cellular and WiFi communications, VoIP telephony, semiconductor manufacturing and design, image sensors, and computer networking and security. He has handled patent cases through all phases of litigation, including jury trials and appeals, in numerous courts nationwide, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. Prior to private practice, he held senior director roles in patent enforcement and litigation at technology companies and had an engineering career in semiconductor research and development. He is specifically listed as representing K. Mizra LLC in other parallel cases filed around the same time in the Eastern District of Texas (e.g., 2:21-cv-00305 and 2:21-cv-00249).

Note: Without direct access to the PACER docket for case 2:21-cv-00248, the identification of counsel is based on consistent patterns of representation for K. Mizra LLC in other contemporaneous cases within the same district, as well as Cliff Win, Jr.'s stated admission to practice in the Eastern District of Texas and his extensive patent litigation experience in relevant technology areas.

Based on the available search results, the counsel of record representing Forescout Technologies, Inc. in K. Mizra LLC v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (2:21-cv-00248) cannot be definitively identified.

While several search results reference the case number and parties, particularly in the context of related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where Forescout Technologies, Inc. may be a petitioner, these documents typically name counsel for the petitioner in the IPR or for the patent owner (K. Mizra LLC). For instance, K. Mizra LLC's counsel in the district court case has been noted as Ginegar IP and Charles Jourdan Hausman. However, the counsel specifically representing Forescout Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for case 2:21-cv-00248 is not explicitly named in the provided snippets.

Without direct access to the court's docket for case 2:21-cv-00248, or specific legal news articles detailing Forescout's representation in this particular district court case, the attorneys' names, roles, and firms cannot be sourced.