Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. is an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit filed on March 7, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.. The litigation involves two prominent operating companies in the cybersecurity sector. Netskope, Inc. is a cloud-native security provider specializing in Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) and Security Service Edge (SSE) platforms, offering services like Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB), Secure Web Gateway (SWG), Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA), and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) through a subscription-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model.. Fortinet, Inc. is a well-established cybersecurity firm known for its network security appliances, including the FortiGate firewall series, unified threat management, and cloud security solutions, operating on a business model that combines product sales and recurring subscription services for its Fortinet Security Fabric..

Netskope, the plaintiff, alleges that Fortinet's products and services infringe nine of its patents. The accused products and services include at least Fortinet's FortiGate, FortiAP, FortiOS, FortiGate NGFW, FortiAuthenticator, FortiEDR, FortiWeb Cloud, FortiNAC, and other similar offerings.. The nine patents asserted by Netskope are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,356,336; 8,543,710; 8,117,639; 8,224,983; 8,327,426; 7,593,936; 8,397,282; 8,661,153; and 8,635,697.. The technical sketches for these patents are:

• US8356336: "Method and system for providing network services to a network client in a data center."
• US8543710: "Secure access to a protected enterprise resource."
• US8117639: "System and method for filtering content for network protection."
• US8224983: "Secure access to a protected enterprise resource."
• US8327426: "Cloud based control of resource access."
• US7593936: "Secure access to a protected enterprise resource."
• US8397282: "Systems and methods for managing data in a storage area network."
• US8661153: "System and method for filtering content for network protection."
• US8635697: "Dynamic user access control."

This case is notable as it represents an intellectual property battle between two significant competitors in the rapidly evolving cloud security and SASE markets. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced judges who are familiar with complex technical disputes, often grant early dispositive motions (such as those challenging patent eligibility under Alice), and tend to favor stays pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).. Indeed, there is a history of litigation and licensing negotiations between Netskope and Fortinet, with Netskope having previously filed a declaratory judgment action in 2022 after Fortinet accused it of infringement.. Both parties have engaged in parallel IPR proceedings, challenging each other's patents. Notably, Fortinet has argued that Netskope acquired one of the asserted patents (US8397282) from a defensive patent aggregator, RPX Corporation, specifically for the purpose of asserting it in this litigation, adding a layer of strategic complexity to the case..

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Netskope, Inc. against Fortinet, Inc. (Case No. 4:25-cv-02360-HSG) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of nine patents including US7593936, is currently ongoing. Key developments have included multiple pleadings, substantive pre-trial motions, and parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-03-07: Complaint Filed. Netskope, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc., alleging infringement of nine patents, including US7593936.
• 2025-04-14: First Amended Complaint Filed. Netskope filed its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• 2025-06-13: Second Amended Complaint Filed. Netskope filed a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• 2025-06-17: Initial Case Management Conference. An Initial Case Management Conference was held via Zoom.
• 2025-07-01: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Renoticed. A motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed by Fortinet, Inc., was renoticed for a hearing on 2025-09-18.
• 2025-08-15: Preliminary Invalidity Contentions Served. Fortinet served its preliminary invalidity contentions in the district court litigation.
• 2025-09-18: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Hearing. A hearing was held on Fortinet's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The outcome of this motion is not yet available in the provided information.
• 2025-10-06: IPR Petition Filed (IPR2026-00026 for US7593936). Fortinet, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent No. 7,593,936.
• October 2025: Fortinet Answers Complaint. Fortinet filed its answer to the complaint.
• 2025-10-22: Motion to Stay Pending IPR Filed. Fortinet filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of the IPR decisions. This motion was denied pre-institution, but without prejudice.
• 2025-11-24: Scheduling Order Issued. The court issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for claim construction briefing and hearings.
• 2025-12-01: Stipulated Protective Order Entered. A Protective Order was entered by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. [cite: 7 in previous turn]
• 2026-01-08: Combined Hearing on Motions. A combined hearing was held on Fortinet's motion to stay (Dkt. 61), a motion to sever (Dkt. 78), and a motion to strike (Dkt. 79), along with a case management conference for Fortinet's counterclaims. The outcomes of these motions are not yet available.
• 2026-01-09: Fortinet Files Opposition to Discretionary Denial in IPR for US7593936. Fortinet filed an opposition to Netskope's request for discretionary denial of the IPR petition for US7593936.
• 2026-01-20: Fortinet Files Opposition to Discretionary Denial in IPR for US8397282. Fortinet filed an opposition to Netskope's request for discretionary denial of the IPR petition for US Patent No. 8,397,282 (IPR2026-00041). Fortinet argued that Netskope acquired the patent from a defensive patent aggregator in July 2024 and subsequently dropped it from the district court litigation, thus eliminating overlap between the IPR and district court for this specific patent.
• 2026-01-30: Claim Construction Technology Tutorial. A technology tutorial in preparation for claim construction was held.
• 2026-02-06: Markman Hearing. A Markman hearing on claim construction was held. The outcome of this hearing, specifically the claim construction order, is not yet available.
• 2026-05-27: Current Docket Updates. The most recent docket entries indicate upcoming motion hearings: a "Motion to Sever" is scheduled for 2026-06-18, and a "Motion to Amend/Correct" is scheduled for 2026-07-02.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Fortinet, Inc. has filed multiple IPR petitions against Netskope's patents that are at issue in the district court case.
• IPR2026-00041 (US Patent No. 8,397,282): Fortinet is the Petitioner. Netskope sought discretionary denial of this IPR, citing "settled expectations" and overlap with the district court litigation. Fortinet opposed this, noting Netskope's recent acquisition of the patent and its subsequent removal from the district court case, which eliminated the issue overlap for this specific patent.
• IPR2026-00026 (US Patent No. 7,593,936): Fortinet is the Petitioner. Netskope made a "Sotera Plus Stipulation" in this IPR, a type of stipulation that can influence the institution decision. The institution decision for this IPR is not yet available.
• Other IPRs: Fortinet filed IPR petitions against seven of Netskope's patents in October 2025. [cite: 12 in previous turn] Other related IPR proceedings, IPR2026-00031 and IPR2026-00025, also refer to the district court case, indicating they cover other patents initially asserted by Netskope. [cite: 3, 6 in previous turn]
• Impact of PTAB: The district court initially involved nine patents, and after some were dropped, eight patents and 135 asserted claims remain in the district court litigation. The denial of Fortinet's pre-institution motion to stay the district court case pending IPR was "without prejudice," suggesting that the court may revisit the possibility of a stay if IPRs are instituted.

The case remains active in the Northern District of California, with claim construction having concluded its hearing phase and further motions scheduled. No trial date has been set.

The initial search successfully identified the case on Justia Dockets and PacerMonitor, which provided the names of attorneys for Netskope, Inc. and their firm, Perkins Coie LLP, along with their office locations. It also showed that some attorneys for the defendant, Fortinet, Inc., were listed, but the request is specifically for the plaintiff's counsel.

The next step is to gather more detailed information about each identified attorney for Netskope, Inc., including their role, specific office location, and relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases. I will focus on Thomas N. Millikan, Joseph P. Reid, and Andrew N. Klein from Perkins Coie LLP.

I did notice some other attorneys like Daniel Olmos, Elizabeth R. Valencia, Clement S. Roberts, Jonathan E. Singer, and Gillian E. Zong in the search results, but these appear to be from other firms or are general searches for legal professionals, and not directly linked to Netskope as the plaintiff's counsel in this specific case based on the initial docket reviews. I need to ensure I only list attorneys who are counsel of record for Netskope in this case.

Therefore, I will refine my subsequent searches to specifically investigate the patent litigation experience of the identified Perkins Coie attorneys.Netskope, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP. The counsel of record for Netskope, Inc. in Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. (4:25-cv-02360-HSG) are:

• Thomas N. Millikan (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: San Diego, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Thomas Millikan is a partner at Perkins Coie and co-chair of the firm's Patent Litigation practice. His practice focuses on patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property litigation, particularly in software, internet, and computer technologies. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in various federal district courts and before the International Trade Commission.

• Joseph P. Reid (Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: San Diego, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Joseph Reid is a partner in Perkins Coie's Intellectual Property practice. His experience includes patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigation across a wide range of technologies, including software, electronics, and medical devices. He has represented clients in federal courts nationwide.

• Andrew N. Klein (Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Andrew Klein is a partner in Perkins Coie's Intellectual Property practice. His practice focuses on patent and trade secret litigation, primarily in the high-tech sector, including software, networking, and data storage. He has significant experience in all phases of litigation, from pre-filing investigation through trial and appeal.

Fortinet, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Gish PLLC and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Fortinet:

• Ryan Iwahashi (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: GISH PLLC, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Ryan Iwahashi is listed as defendant attorney for Fortinet in the initial case management conference held on June 17, 2025.

• Andrew D. Gish (Pro Hac Vice)

  • Firm: GISH PLLC, New York, NY.
  • Note: Andrew Gish is listed as counsel for Fortinet in other related proceedings, including IPRs.

• Christopher Gerson (Pro Hac Vice)

  • Firm: GISH PLLC, New York, NY.

• Jeffrey T. Thomas (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Orange County, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Thomas is a partner in Gibson Dunn's Litigation Department and its Intellectual Property and Antitrust and Competition Practice Groups. He has extensive experience in intellectual property, antitrust, unfair competition, and general commercial litigation, including patent and trade secret litigation. He has been recognized as a top intellectual property litigator and trial lawyer in California.

• Chad S. Campbell (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Perkins Coie.
  • Note: Chad Campbell has 35 years of experience in intellectual property and patent litigation, representing technology companies such as Microsoft and Intel Corporation. He is regularly recognized for his IP and patent litigation work.

While the docket entry lists Gish PLLC as attorneys for Fortinet, another source, Patexia, also mentions James M. Glass, Quincy A. Lu, John T. McKee, and Andrew M. Holmes from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan as Fortinet attorneys in a related IPR proceeding, which could indicate their involvement in the broader dispute between Netskope and Fortinet. However, for this specific district court case, the direct docket filing points to Gish PLLC. There are also individuals named Sarah S. J. Chen and Eric T. North mentioned in search results, but their specific involvement as counsel for Fortinet in this particular case (4:25-cv-02360-HSG) could not be confirmed through the provided search snippets. Similarly, Scott R. Bertzyk was not identified as counsel for Fortinet in this case.