Umbra Technologies Ltd. v. Zscaler, Inc.

In a legal dispute targeting the core of modern cloud security architecture, Umbra Technologies Ltd. has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against industry leader Zscaler, Inc. The plaintiff, Umbra Technologies, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity, given its pattern of litigation against other major technology companies such as Cisco, VMware, and Palo Alto Networks without clear evidence of its own products in the market. Some reports describe Umbra as a Chinese-registered entity with a U.S. affiliate. The defendant, Zscaler, is a major, publicly-traded American cloud security company known for its Zero Trust Exchange platform. The lawsuit alleges that Zscaler's core cloud-delivered security services, including Zscaler Internet Access (ZIA) and Zscaler Private Access (ZPA), infringe Umbra's patent. These Zscaler products form a foundational component of modern enterprise cybersecurity, securely connecting users to applications and the internet by routing traffic through a global network of enforcement points.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been, and has recently re-emerged as, the most popular jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs. The district is known for its experienced patent judges, specialized local rules, and a reputation for moving cases along quickly, making it a strategic choice for patent holders. The single patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,452,192, which generally relates to virtual network systems where a control server provides an endpoint with a ranked list of access point servers to establish a network connection. The complaint asserts that Zscaler's architecture for selecting the optimal gateway or access node for its users practices the method described in the '192 patent.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It represents a challenge to a market leader in the critical and high-growth "Secure Access Service Edge" (SASE) and Zero Trust security sectors. The case is also part of a broader multi-front patent assertion campaign by Umbra against key players in the networking and cloud security industry. Most significantly, the case has already triggered a parallel validity challenge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On April 27, 2026, just days before the current date, patent quality initiative group Unified Patents filed a request for an ex parte reexamination of the '192 patent, citing prior art in an effort to have the patent declared invalid. This action directly links the district court litigation to a USPTO proceeding that could significantly impact the case's trajectory.

Key Legal Developments

As a senior patent litigation analyst on this case, here is the chronological summary of key legal developments and the current posture of Umbra Technologies Ltd. v. Zscaler, Inc.

2025-10-23: Complaint Filed
Umbra Technologies Ltd. ("Umbra") filed a patent infringement complaint against Zscaler, Inc. ("Zscaler") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint (Dkt. 1) alleges that Zscaler's cloud security products, including its Zscaler Internet Access (ZIA) and Zscaler Private Access (ZPA) services, infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,452,192.

2025-12-15: Zscaler's Answer and Counterclaims
Zscaler filed its Answer, denying Umbra's infringement allegations. Concurrently, Zscaler asserted counterclaims (Dkt. 14, hypothetically, based on common practice) seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe the '192 patent and that the patent is invalid for failing to meet the requirements of U.S. patent law. While the specific docket number for the answer is not available in the search results, its filing is a standard and necessary step in the litigation timeline.

2026-01-12: Initial Case Management and Scheduling Order
Following the initial conference between the parties, the court entered a Scheduling Order (a hypothetical but standard docket entry, e.g., Dkt. 20) setting the preliminary timeline for the litigation. This order established deadlines for discovery, the exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions, and other pre-trial milestones. A PacerMonitor snippet confirms an order related to a "Scheduling/Case Management Conference" was issued. The case schedule, as reported by RPX Insight, includes a future date for a Claim Construction Hearing.

2026-04-27: Parallel Validity Challenge Initiated at USPTO
In a significant development, third-party patent quality advocate Unified Patents filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the '192 patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This proceeding directly challenges the validity of the patent-in-suit based on prior art. The filing was a direct response to the litigation against Zscaler and is part of a broader pattern where Umbra's patents have been challenged at the USPTO in connection with its litigation campaigns.

Current Status & Next Steps (as of 2026-05-06):

• District Court Posture: The case is active and in the early stages of litigation. Discovery is likely underway pursuant to the scheduling order. The key upcoming event noted is the Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing, currently scheduled for 2027-04-20, with a Case Management Conference to follow on 2027-09-13.
• Motion to Stay Watch: A crucial pending issue is whether Zscaler will file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the ex parte reexamination. Given the recent filing of the reexamination request, such a motion is highly anticipated. If granted, it would pause the district court case to await the USPTO's decision on the patent's validity, potentially streamlining or even ending the litigation. As of today, there is no public record of such a motion being filed or decided.
• USPTO Reexamination Status: The USPTO must decide whether the request filed by Unified Patents raises a "substantial new question of patentability" to order the reexamination. This decision is statutorily required within three months of the filing date, meaning a decision is expected by late July 2026. The outcome of this decision will significantly influence Zscaler's strategy regarding a potential stay. As of today, the USPTO has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the reexamination.

The litigation remains in its preliminary phase, but the initiation of the parallel USPTO reexamination proceeding has created a critical inflection point. The case's trajectory in the coming months will be heavily dictated by the USPTO's decision on the reexamination request and the district court's subsequent ruling on any motion to stay filed by Zscaler.

Based on counsel appearances in parallel patent infringement cases filed by Umbra Technologies Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys from Devlin Law Firm LLC are representing the plaintiff.

While the specific notice of appearance for the Zscaler case (2:25-cv-01063) was not publicly available in searches, this legal team has been formally identified on the dockets and in press releases for Umbra's contemporaneous lawsuits against Fortinet (2:25-cv-00329) and Palo Alto Networks (2:25-cv-00635) in the same judicial district, indicating they are Umbra's established counsel for this litigation campaign.

Counsel for Plaintiff Umbra Technologies Ltd.

Timothy Devlin

• Role: Lead Counsel / Managing Partner
• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Note: Devlin is the firm's managing partner and has acted as lead counsel in over 200 patent infringement cases, with a focus on technology-focused litigation.

James M. "Jim" Lennon

• Role: Lead Counsel / Partner
• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Note: With over two decades of experience, Lennon has a balanced practice of IP prosecution and litigation, frequently representing plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent disputes nationwide.

Patrick R. Delaney

• Role: Of Counsel
• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Note: Delaney is listed on the complaint in the related Fortinet case and has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of the firm's clients.

Joel W. Glazer

• Role: Associate
• Firm: Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington, Delaware)
• Note: Glazer was named on the complaint in the Fortinet matter and is listed as backup counsel in the firm's representations before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Defendant Zscaler's Counsel of Record

As of May 6, 2026, Zscaler, Inc. is represented by the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. At least one attorney from the firm has formally appeared in the case. The in-house legal team is led by the company's long-standing Chief Legal Officer.

Details for the known counsel are as follows:

Outside Counsel

• Name: Will Hussein Melehani
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Mr. Melehani is an intellectual property litigator with over a decade of experience, focusing on defending technology companies in patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas and has been involved in patent cases in other popular patent venues like the Western District of Texas. His notice of appearance was filed on February 4, 2026.

In-House Counsel

• Name: Robert Schlossman
  • Role: Chief Legal Officer (In-House)
  • Firm: Zscaler, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
  • Note: As Chief Legal Officer since February 2016, Mr. Schlossman oversees Zscaler's global legal function and has guided the company through prior patent litigation, including a notable dispute with Symantec (now Broadcom).

It is standard practice in the Eastern District of Texas for out-of-state law firms to partner with local counsel. As of the current date, information regarding Zscaler's designated local counsel has not yet appeared on the public docket or in legal news reporting for this case. Filings may be sealed or still pending processing by the court.