Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 06/08/2021 at 10:28:38 (UTC).

Parity Networks, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.

Case Summary

On April 9, 2021, Parity Networks LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Parity Networks”), represented by Adam G. Price, Andrew Gerald DiNovo and Daniel Louis Schmid of DiNovo Price Elwanger & Hardy LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc. (“Defendant”),  seeking compensatory damages along with ongoing royalty, for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,252,848 (’848 Patent), 6,553,005 (’005 Patent), 6,870,844 (’844 Patent), 7,103,046 (’046 Patent), 7,107,352 (’352 Patent) and 7,719,963 (’963 Patent) (collectively, ‘Patents-in-Suit’). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle presiding.

 

In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint, Defendant, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘Patents-in-suit’, including contributory infringement of the ‘Patents-in-suit’ under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or § 271(f), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, the infringing products. Defendant knows that the infringing products (i) constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’848 Patent and ’046 Patent; (ii) are especially made or adapted to infringe the ’848 Patent and ’046 Patent; (iii) are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for non-infringing use; and (iv) are components used for or in its switches and routers to implement class-of-service (CoS) and QoS components to classify, police, shape, and mark traffic in an infringing manner and are components used for or in its switches and routers to utilize one or more packet processors that categorize packets into categories based on the source of the packet, place the packets into queues, and process the packets via a CPU based on a priority of those categories.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant’s contributory infringement includes without limitation, Defendant’s offer to sell, a component of a product or apparatus for use in a process, that (i) is material to practicing the invention claimed by claim 1 of the ’005 Patent, ’844 Patent, ’352 Patent and ’963 Patent (ii) is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and (iii) Defendant is aware or knows to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’005 Patent, ’844 Patent, ’352 Patent and ’963 Patent.”

 

There are six claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged infringement of ’848 Patent; second claim is for the alleged infringement of ’005 Patent; the third claim is for the alleged infringement of ’844 Patent; the fourth claim is for the alleged infringement of ’046 Patent; the fifth claim is for the alleged infringement of ’352 Patent; and the sixth claim is for the alleged infringement of ’963 Patent.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to declare that one or more claims of the ‘Patents-in-Suit’ is infringed by Defendant, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, award damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the patent infringement that has occurred, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, and an ongoing royalty for continued infringement.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    6:21-CV-00138

  • Filing Date:

    04/09/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Texas Eastern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Jeremy D. Kernodle

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Parity Networks, LLC

Defendant

Fortinet, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Adam G Price

Attorney at DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP

7000 North Mopac Expressway, Suite 350

Austin, TX 78731

Andrew Gerald DiNovo

Attorney at DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP

7000 North Mopac Expressway, Suite 350

Austin, TX 78731

Daniel Louis Schmid

Attorney at DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP

7000 North Mopac Expressway, Suite 350

Austin, TX 78731

 

Court Documents

#9

(#9) Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Parity Networks, LLC.( Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

#8

(#8) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Parity Networks, LLC.( Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

#7

(#7) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Parity Networks, LLC. Fortinet, Inc. served on 4/13/2021, answer due 5/4/2021. (Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

#6

(#6) SUMMONS Issued as to Fortinet, Inc. (ndc) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

#5

(#5) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Daniel Louis Schmid on behalf of Parity Networks, LLC (Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

#4

(#4) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Adam G Price on behalf of Parity Networks, LLC (Price, Adam) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

#3

(#3) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

#2

(#2) DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Parity Networks, LLC. (DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

1 #7

Exhibit 6

1 #6

Exhibit 5

1 #5

Exhibit 4

1 #4

Exhibit 3

1 #3

Exhibit 2

1 #2

Exhibit 1

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against Fortinet, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8349110.), filed by Parity Networks, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6)(DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

5 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/26/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint #9 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Fortinet, Inc. to 6/18/2021. 15 Days Granted for Deadline Extension. (Filed by Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant)( mll, ) (Entered: 05/26/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Parity Networks, LLC.( Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint #8 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Fortinet, Inc. to 6/3/2021. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension. (Filed by Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant)( mll, ) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Parity Networks, LLC.( Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Parity Networks, LLC. Fortinet, Inc. served on 4/13/2021, answer due 5/4/2021. (Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • DocketIn accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form #Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (mll, ) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketDistrict Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle added. (mll, ) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS Issued as to Fortinet, Inc. (ndc) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Daniel Louis Schmid on behalf of Parity Networks, LLC (Schmid, Daniel) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Adam G Price on behalf of Parity Networks, LLC (Price, Adam) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Parity Networks, LLC. (DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Fortinet, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0540-8349110.), filed by Parity Networks, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6)(DiNovo, Andrew) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Parity Networks, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Fortinet, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Daniel L. Schmid

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Andrew G. DiNovo