Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

Network Security Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against McAfee, Inc., a globally recognized cybersecurity company specializing in antivirus, internet security, and network protection products. While the specific accused products are not detailed in the available snippets for this particular case, similar patent infringement lawsuits against McAfee have targeted its core product suite, including Android applications, Web Gateway, Network Security Platform, and TLS-based website infrastructure. The litigation asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048, titled "Contagion isolation and inoculation via quarantine." This patent generally relates to methods for identifying and remedying network security issues, such as detecting vulnerabilities or infestations and preventing unwanted communications from reaching quarantined computers, while providing access to remediation services.

The case was filed on October 24, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under case number 1:17-cv-01489. The presiding judge is District Judge Richard G. Andrews, who handles a significant number of patent cases in the district. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation due to its specialized patent rules, experienced judiciary, and historical efficiency in managing such disputes. This often makes it an attractive forum for both operating companies and patent assertion entities.

This case is notable as it appears to be part of a broader patent assertion campaign by Network Security Technologies, LLC, given that several other lawsuits were filed by the same entity on the very same day against other network security companies, including Bradford Networks, Inc. and ForeScout Technologies, Inc.. This pattern is characteristic of NPEs or PAEs, which often seek to license or enforce patents rather than manufacturing products. Such assertions against major cybersecurity vendors like McAfee highlight ongoing challenges within the industry related to patent licensing and enforcement.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.

Case Number: 1:17-cv-01489
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2017-10-24
Patents at issue: 9,516,048

Despite comprehensive web searches across various legal news platforms, court opinion databases, and the USPTO PTAB records, specific docket entries detailing the legal developments and the final outcome for Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01489 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, are not publicly available through these search avenues.

Information regarding the filing of the complaint, subsequent pleadings (such as an answer or counterclaims), substantive pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, or for summary judgment), claim construction (Markman) proceedings, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions could not be found. Similarly, details concerning a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or any appeals for this specific case remain undisclosed in the publicly accessible records.

Furthermore, no parallel PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,516,048 involving Network Security Technologies, LLC and McAfee, Inc. were identified in the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases through the conducted searches. While general information about PTAB processes and statistics on IPRs and PGRs is available, no direct link to the patent in question or the parties in this litigation was found.

It is possible that the case was resolved at an early stage, confidentially settled, or the detailed docket information is not broadly syndicated to public legal news and information services without direct PACER access. Without access to the official court docket for the District of Delaware, a complete chronological account of the legal developments and the definitive outcome of this patent infringement litigation cannot be provided.

To identify the counsel of record representing Network Security Technologies, LLC in Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01489 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a direct review of the case docket is necessary. As direct PACER access is not available for this interaction, information on specific appearances for the plaintiff remains elusive.

However, based on typical practice in the District of Delaware for patent infringement cases, it is common for plaintiffs to retain local counsel. Firms like Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and Bayard, P.A. frequently serve as local counsel in such matters.

For example, David E. Moore of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP is a commercial litigator with extensive experience serving as Delaware counsel in intellectual property and commercial litigation, particularly in patent infringement cases concerning medical devices and telecommunications. He is known for guiding clients through Delaware procedures and for his familiarity with the Delaware bench. Moore has been recognized as a "Litigation Star" in Delaware for commercial and intellectual property law.

Similarly, Richard D. Kirk of Bayard, P.A. is a director and head of the firm's Intellectual Property practice. He focuses on general business litigation and intellectual property litigation. Kirk has been recognized for his work in Intellectual Property Litigation and Administrative Law and is described as a "great litigator" well-versed in alternative dispute resolution.

Without specific docket entries naming the appearing attorneys for Network Security Technologies, LLC in this particular case, a definitive list of counsel cannot be provided. If filings are sealed or counsel has not yet appeared, such information would only be available through direct docket access.

To identify the counsel of record for McAfee, Inc. in Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01489, a review of court records is essential. While direct PACER access isn't available, general search for counsel in this specific case provides some insights.

Based on available information, the following attorneys have been identified as representing McAfee, Inc.:

• Daniel M. Silver
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Daniel Silver is a litigation and trial attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, including representing clients in Hatch-Waxman or BPCIA litigation. He frequently serves as Delaware counsel for other law firms in high-stakes litigation disputes.

While not explicitly linked to this specific case, several firms and attorneys are known for their patent litigation work in the District of Delaware and often act as local counsel. These include:

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP: This firm has a leading Intellectual Property Litigation practice and has been counsel in a significant portion of IP cases in the District of Delaware, handling more patent litigation cases than any other Delaware firm in recent years.
• Richards, Layton & Finger: This firm has an active intellectual property litigation practice in Delaware, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in large-scale patent and trademark infringement matters.
• Connolly Gallagher LLP: Their intellectual property litigation attorneys regularly act as Delaware counsel for patent, trademark, and copyright infringement litigation cases in the District Court.
• Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP: This firm has substantial experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent, copyright, trademark, false advertising, and trade secret cases, often serving as Delaware counsel.

Without direct access to the docket for Network Security Technologies, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., 1:17-cv-01489, it is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of all counsel, their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel), or office locations beyond what was found for Daniel M. Silver. Information regarding other potential lead counsel or in-house counsel would typically be found in initial appearance filings or the case docket. Searches for "Christopher J. Glancy" and "Ryan J. Agenbroad" did not yield any relevant information connecting them to this specific case or patent litigation for McAfee.