Stormborn Technologies LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.

On October 27, 2022, Stormborn Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Howard L. Wernow of Sand, Sebolt, & Wernow Co., LPA, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory relief and damages for alleged infringement of the U.S. patent owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, with Judge Sean D. Jordan presiding.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. patent No. RE44,199 (the “‘199 Patent” or the “Patent-in-Suit”) entitled “Variable throughput reduction communications system and method” owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Plaintiff is presently the owner of the ‘199 Patent, having received all right, title and interest in and to the ‘199 Patent from the previous assignee of record. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘199 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant offers solutions, such as the ‘Fortinet FortiGate/FortiWiFi 60D-3G4GVZW’ (the ‘Accused Product’), that practice a method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different sub-channel signals transmitted over a wireless channel which infringe the ‘199 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendant has directly infringed the ‘199 Patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents” and “Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the ‘199 Patent at least as of the service of the present Complaint.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant has directly infringed at least Claim 13 and Claim 14 of the ‘199 Patent by using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, the Accused Product without authority in the United States. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ‘199 Patent, Plaintiff has been damaged.”

Plaintiff then alleged that “Defendant has induced others to infringe at least Claim 13 and Claim 14 of the ‘199 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by encouraging infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that “Defendant materially contributed to their own customers’ infringement of the ‘199 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling the Accused Products to customers for use in a manner that infringed one or more claims of the ‘199 Patent. Moreover, the Accused Products are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant committed these acts of infringement without license or authorization. As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ‘199 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s past infringement, together with interests and costs.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief from alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory relief along with an award of damages, enhanced damages, and an accounting of all infringing sales. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.