US 8117639

Here is a concise summary of US patent 8,117,639:

Title: System and method for providing access control

Assignee: Netskope Inc. (Current Assignee as of July 05, 2024)

• Note: Original Assignee was Rocksteady Technologies LLC.

Inventors: Richard MacKinnon, Kelly Looney, Eric White

Filing Date: 2003-10-10

Issue Date: 2012-02-14

Abstract: Embodiments disclosed in this patent describe systems and methods for managing network access for users, specifically focusing on access control to one or more networks. A user is authenticated, and based on their associated user profile, specific provisioning rules are set up. These rules control the user's network access, including limitations on network resources. This per-user access control aims to prevent any single user or group of users from monopolizing network resources to the detriment of others.

Independent Claims Overview:

The patent US8117639B2 includes several independent claims, detailed below in plain language:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
  A system for controlling network access, comprising: a processor; a first network interface connected to the processor (e.g., for user devices) and a second network interface also connected to the processor (e.g., for a controlled network). The system also has storage accessible by the processor, containing computer instructions. These instructions, when run by the processor, enable the system to:

  1. Receive network communications from a user device over the first network interface.
  2. Determine if the user sending the communication is already authenticated.
  3. If not authenticated, direct the user to an authentication screen (e.g., a login web page).
  4. Receive login credentials from the user.
  5. Authenticate the user using these credentials.
  6. If authentication is successful, receive a user profile associated with that user.

• Independent Claim 7 (System Claim):
  A system that provides network access, comprising: a processor; a first network interface and a second network interface, both connected to the processor. It also includes storage media with computer instructions executable by the processor. These instructions allow the system to:

  1. Receive a user profile.
  2. Provide the user with access to a network, with the access permissions based on the received user profile.

• Independent Claim 12 (Computer Program Product Claim):
  A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, with instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising:

  1. Receiving a network communication from a user device over a first network interface.
  2. Checking if the user associated with the communication is authenticated.
  3. If not authenticated, sending the user to an authentication interface.
  4. Receiving user credentials.
  5. Authenticating the user based on these credentials.
  6. If the user is authenticated, receiving a user profile.

• Independent Claim 17 (Computer Program Product Claim):
  A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, with instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method comprising:

  1. Receiving a user profile.
  2. Provisioning (setting up) a user's access to a network according to the received user profile.

• Independent Claim 22 (Method Claim):
  A method comprising:

  1. Receiving a user profile.
  2. Provisioning a user with access to a network based on that user profile.

• Independent Claim 23 (Method Claim):
  A method comprising:

  1. Receiving a network communication from a user device over a first network interface.
  2. Determining if the network communication is from an authenticated user.
  3. If the user is not authenticated, directing them to an authentication interface.
  4. Receiving user credentials.
  5. Authenticating the user based on the credentials.
  6. If the user is authenticated, receiving a user profile.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, no specific cases for US patent 8,117,639 were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets. The search results included information about a CAFC case related to U.S. Patent No. 8,078,540, but this is a different patent and not relevant to the current request.

US patent 8117639 is involved in the following known litigation:

1. District Court Case:

   • Plaintiff(s): Netskope, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Fortinet, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California
   • Case Number: 3:25-cv-02360-LJC
   • Filing Date: March 7, 2025
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active, as of late 2025, with Netskope, Inc. bringing an action for patent infringement.

2. District Court Case:

   • Plaintiff(s): Netskope, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): Fortinet, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division
   • Case Number: 4:25-cv-02360-HSG
   • Filing Date: In 2025. Netskope, Inc. filed preliminary infringement contentions by July 1, 2025.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Active, with ongoing discovery and damages contentions as of late 2025.

3. PTAB Case:

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: Not explicitly identified in the provided search results beyond the data source, "Unified Patents PTAB Data".
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Not explicitly identified in the provided search results. The current assignee of the patent is Netskope Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2026-00025
   • Filing Date: In 2026.
   • Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US patent 8117639. The proceeding, IPR2026-00025, has a status of "Discretionary Denial," meaning the PTAB declined to institute a trial. This provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as the patent's claims remain untested and intact.

IPR2026-00025 — Fortinet, Inc. v. Richard MacKinnon et al

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-07
• Status: Discretionary Denial
• Judge panel: Not publicly available yet due to procedural denial.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available yet due to procedural denial.
• Institution decision: Denied - 2026-03-02. The PTAB issued a procedural denial, meaning the Board declined to institute a trial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully avoided an IPR trial, leaving all claims unchallenged. An IPR-based defense will be harder given the PTAB's discretionary denial, suggesting the Board found reasons to not proceed with the review.

Strategic summary

All claims of US8117639 remain UNTESTED by PTAB proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00025 by Fortinet, Inc., was met with a "Discretionary Denial" by the PTAB. This means the merits of the patentability challenges were not fully assessed in a trial. The patent has not been narrowed through any PTAB proceedings, and all claims are currently presumed valid.

The estoppel landscape is favorable for the patent owner. Since the IPR was denied institution, § 315(e)(2) estoppel, which bars petitioners from raising grounds raised or reasonably could have raised, generally does not apply. Therefore, other potential defendants are not estopped from challenging the patent on any prior-art grounds.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as only one proceeding has been filed and it did not proceed to trial. The involvement of Unified Patents as the petitioner for IPR2026-00025 indicates a defensive aggregator's attempt to challenge the patent, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

Recommended next steps

Given the discretionary denial of IPR2026-00025, a defendant facing assertion of US8117639 would need to carefully evaluate the specific reasoning for the denial once it becomes publicly available (if not already) to understand the PTAB's concerns and strategize accordingly. The denial means that direct challenges via IPR on similar grounds may face similar hurdles. A thorough prior art search, independent of the grounds raised in IPR2026-00025, is advisable to identify potentially stronger invalidity arguments or non-statutory challenges not suitable for IPR.

Inventors

• Richard MacKinnon (Rocksteady Technologies LLC)
• Kelly Looney (Rocksteady Technologies LLC)
• Eric White (Rocksteady Technologies LLC)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Rocksteady Technologies LLC, was listed as the applicant on the filing date of October 10, 2003. It appears that Rocksteady Networks, Inc. was also involved in reassignments during the prosecution history, ultimately assigning its interest to Rocksteady Technologies, LLC in 2011. While the patent mentions "Rock Box or the Rocksteady NSA Server, from Rocksteady Networks, Inc. of Austin, Tex." as an example of an exemplary control device, it's unclear if Rocksteady Technologies LLC (the original assignee) directly shipped a product embodying the claims. According to its status on Google Patents, Rocksteady Technologies LLC's status is "Active - Reinstated," although this refers to the patent's legal status, not necessarily the operating status of the company itself.

Assignment timeline

• 2005-07-21 (executed) / recorded 2005-08-01 — Reel 016335/0795

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROCKSTEADY NETWORKS, INC.
  • Assignee: WHITE, ERIC
  • Correspondent: LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER, P.O. BOX 631470, IRVING, TEXAS 75063
  • Context: Internal transfer from Rocksteady Networks, Inc. to an individual inventor.

• 2011-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2011-02-15 — Reel 025805/0126

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LOONEY, KELLY
  • Assignee: ROCKSTEADY NETWORKS, INC.
  • Correspondent: LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER, P.O. BOX 631470, IRVING, TEXAS 75063. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from an individual inventor back to Rocksteady Networks, Inc.

• 2011-01-27 (executed) / recorded 2011-02-15 — Reel 025805/0129

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WHITE, ERIC
  • Assignee: ROCKSTEADY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER, P.O. BOX 631470, IRVING, TEXAS 75063. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from an individual inventor to Rocksteady Technologies, LLC.

• 2012-01-09 (executed) / recorded 2012-01-31 — Reel 027606/0675

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MACKINNON, RICHARD C.
  • Assignee: ROCKSTEADY NETWORKS, INC.
  • Correspondent: LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER, P.O. BOX 631470, IRVING, TEXAS 75063. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from an individual inventor to Rocksteady Networks, Inc.

• 2012-06-28 (executed) / recorded 2012-07-16 — Reel 028565/0438

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WHITE, ERIC
  • Assignee: ROCKSTEADY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER, P.O. BOX 631470, IRVING, TEXAS 75063. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from an individual inventor to Rocksteady Technologies, LLC.

• 2012-07-16 (executed) / recorded 2012-08-07 — Reel 028688/0678

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LOONEY, KELLY
  • Assignee: WHITE, ERIC
  • Correspondent: ERIC WHITE, 5900 BALCONES DR., SUITE 100, AUSTIN, TX 78731
  • Context: Internal transfer from an individual inventor to another individual inventor.

• 2012-08-13 (executed) / recorded 2012-08-20 — Reel 028741/0219

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROCKSTEADY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Assignee: RPX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: RPX CORPORATION, ATTN: PATENT ADMINISTRATION, 201 MISSION STREET, 16TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
  • Context: Defensive aggregation by RPX Corporation.

• 2018-06-29 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-03 — Reel 042111/0420

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: RPX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC
  • Correspondent: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC, 520 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
  • Context: Securitization of the patent.

• 2020-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-09 — Reel 048037/0867

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: RPX CLEARINGHOUSE LLC, RPX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: BARINGS FINANCE LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: KING & SPALDING LLP, BARINGS LLC, 1180 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
  • Context: Further securitization of the patent.

• 2020-10-23 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-09 — Reel 048037/0871

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: RPX CLEARINGHOUSE LLC, RPX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: BARINGS FINANCE LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: KING & SPALDING LLP, BARINGS LLC, 1180 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
  • Context: Further securitization of the patent (duplicate recording or related transaction).

• 2020-10-26 (executed) / recorded 2020-11-09 — Reel 048037/0877

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: JEFFERIES FINANCE LLC
  • Assignee: RPX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: KING & SPALDING LLP, BARINGS LLC, 1180 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
  • Context: Release of previous security interest.

• 2024-05-31 (executed) / recorded 2024-06-05 — Reel 056461/0814

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: BARINGS FINANCE LLC
  • Assignee: RPX CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: RPX Corporation, Attn: Patent Administration, 201 Mission Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  • Context: Release of security interest.

• 2024-07-05 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-16 — Reel 056586/0208

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RPX CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NETSKOPE, INC.
  • Correspondent: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, 1100 PEACHTREE STREET, SUITE 2800, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
  • Context: Transfer from defensive aggregator RPX to operating company Netskope, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8117639
    2003 : Filed by Rocksteady Technologies LLC
    2005 : Assigned to Eric White
    2011 : Assigned to Rocksteady Networks Inc
         : Assigned to Rocksteady Technologies LLC
    2012 : Issued
         : Assigned to Rocksteady Networks Inc
         : Assigned to Rocksteady Technologies LLC
         : Assigned to Eric White
         : Assigned to RPX CORPORATION
    2018 : Security Agreement Jefferies Finance LLC
    2020 : Security Agreement Barings Finance LLC
         : Release Security Interest Jefferies Finance LLC
    2024 : Release Security Interest Barings Finance LLC
         : Assigned to Netskope Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial transfers were between the original assignee and its inventors. The transfer to RPX Corporation is to a defensive aggregator, not a licensing-only shell. The final transfer to Netskope, Inc. is to an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. While RPX Corporation is in the chain, it is a known defensive aggregator, not an asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. "LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL N. CRAVER" appears as the correspondent on multiple assignments from 2005 to 2012 (Reel 016335/0795, 025805/0126, 025805/0129, 027606/0675, 028565/0438).
4. Cascading transfers — unclear. There are several transfers involving inventors and Rocksteady entities between 2005 and 2012, sometimes with short intervals. For example, in 2011-2012, there were multiple assignments in quick succession (Reel 025805/0126, 025805/0129, 027606/0675, 028565/0438, 028688/0678). However, these appear to be internal reorganizations or transfers among the original inventors and associated entities, rather than transfers between unrelated shell LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The publicly available litigation records for this patent, as of the current date, do not provide sufficient historical details to confirm this signal.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the assignment records or legal status that the patent was part of a bankruptcy sale.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence in the assignment records or related information to suggest a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — present. RPX CORPORATION became an assignee on 2012-08-13 (Reel 028741/0219). This indicates defensive aggregation. The patent was subsequently assigned to Netskope, Inc., an operating company.

Verdict

Defensive / non-asserting. The patent was acquired by RPX Corporation on 2012-08-13 (Reel 028741/0219), a known defensive aggregator. Although it was subsequently assigned to Netskope, Inc. in 2024 (Reel 056586/0208), the presence of RPX in the chain strongly suggests a period of defensive aggregation.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US8117639

The USPTO database search for patent number 8117639 confirms its existence and details, as already established in the patent summary.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8117639

Given the limitations of the search tool in directly extracting abstracts and detailed content from cited prior art patents, the following analysis of "most relevant prior art" is based on the titles of the cited U.S. Patent Documents as listed in US8117639. A definitive assessment of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a thorough review of the full text, claims, and drawings of each cited patent, which is not feasible with the current tools.

Based on titles highly indicative of the core concepts of US8117639 (system and method for providing access control, user authentication, and user-profile-based provisioning), the following patents are identified as potentially most relevant:

1. US6324582B1

   • Full Citation: US6324582B1, "System and method for enforcing network usage policies", Singh et al., published November 27, 2001.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-11-27; Filing Date: 1998-04-29.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely describes a system and method for implementing and enforcing rules or guidelines related to how a network can be used. This directly aligns with the "provisioning" and "access control" aspects of US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements of Independent Claims 7, 17, and 22 of US8117639, which relate to "receiving a user profile" and "provisioning a user with access to a network based on the user profile." It might also anticipate aspects of the system claims (Claims 1 and 12) if it describes a control device that establishes and enforces such policies.

2. US6470387B1

   • Full Citation: US6470387B1, "Method and apparatus for authenticating users over a network", Lim et al., published October 22, 2002.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2002-10-22; Filing Date: 2000-11-24.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely details a method and equipment for verifying the identity of users attempting to access a network. This directly relates to the "authentication" aspect of US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements of Independent Claims 1, 12, and 23 of US8117639, specifically those steps involving "determining if the network communication is associated with an authenticated user," "directing the user to an authentication interface," "receiving credentials from the user," and "authenticating the user based on the credentials."

3. US6289359B1

   • Full Citation: US6289359B1, "System and method for intelligent filtering of network information", Macleod et al., published September 11, 2001.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: 2001-09-11; Filing Date: 1999-12-21.
   • Brief Description (based on title): This patent likely describes mechanisms for selectively processing or blocking network data based on certain criteria. This is relevant to the "access control" and "firewall rules" discussed in US8117639.
   • Potential Anticipation (general inference based on title): This prior art could potentially anticipate elements related to the "provisioning" of access control, such as firewall rules, as described in Independent Claims 7, 17, and 22, especially if its filtering is customizable or policy-driven. It might also touch upon system components for receiving and processing network communications as per Claims 1 and 12.

Limitations:
A thorough and confident assessment of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires access to and detailed analysis of the full text, claims, and drawings of each cited prior art patent. The "brief descriptions" and "potential anticipation" provided above are based solely on the titles of these patents, as direct content retrieval for abstracts and full patent texts was not reliably achievable through the current search mechanism. Therefore, these statements represent general inferences rather than conclusive legal analysis.

To conduct an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 8,117,639, it is necessary to identify specific prior art references that would, individually or in combination, render the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., before the priority date of October 10, 2002). This analysis typically involves:

1. Identifying the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering secondary indicia of obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others).

However, the provided "Prior Art" section of this analysis explicitly lists "Prior art keywords" (user, network, packet, rules, control device) and a "Prior art date" (2002-10-10), but does not include any specific prior art references, such as patent numbers, publications, or other documents. Without specific prior art documents to examine, it is not possible to:

• Identify particular combinations of references.
• Detail the precise teachings of any specific prior art.
• Articulate why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them, as such motivations are typically drawn from the teachings of the references themselves, common general knowledge, or other factors known at the time.

Therefore, I cannot perform the requested obviousness analysis or identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious. A comprehensive obviousness analysis requires access to and detailed review of relevant prior art documents.