This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/26/2022 at 07:53:38 (UTC).

Stormborn Technologies LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    4:22-CV-00919

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Sean D. Jordan

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Stormborn Technologies LLC

Defendant

Fortinet, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorney

Howard Leigh Wernow

Attorney at Sand, Sebolt, & Wernow Co., LPA

Aegis Tower - Suite 1100, 4940 Munson St.

Canton, OH 44718

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Exhibit A-USRE44199E

1 #2

Exhibit B-Schilling Declaration w Exhibits

1 #3

Exhibit C-Claim Chart

1 #4

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Wernow, Howard) (Main Document 2 replaced with flattened image on 10/27/2022) (daj, ). (Entered: 10/27/2022)

#3

(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Stormborn Technologies LLC (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

#4

(#4) SUMMONS Issued as to Fortinet, Inc. (daj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

#5

(#5) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Stormborn Technologies LLC. Fortinet, Inc. served on 11/3/2022, answer due 11/24/2022. (Wernow, Howard) (Main Document 5 replaced on 11/8/2022) (daj, ). (Entered: 11/07/2022)

#6

(#6) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Stormborn Technologies LLC.( Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 11/08/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/18/2022
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed FIRST Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Fortinet, Inc. to 1/12/2023. 45 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( daj, ) (Entered: 11/18/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/08/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Stormborn Technologies LLC.( Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 11/08/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/07/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Stormborn Technologies LLC. Fortinet, Inc. served on 11/3/2022, answer due 11/24/2022. (Wernow, Howard) (Main Document 5 replaced on 11/8/2022) (daj, ). (Entered: 11/07/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/31/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) SUMMONS Issued as to Fortinet, Inc. (daj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • 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. (daj, ) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • DocketCase assigned to District Judge Sean D. Jordan. (daj, ) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Stormborn Technologies LLC (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 mailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Wernow, Howard) (Main Document 2 replaced with flattened image on 10/27/2022) (daj, ). (Entered: 10/27/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/27/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Fortinet, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXEDC-9200177.), filed by Stormborn Technologies LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-USRE44199E, #2 Exhibit B-Schilling Declaration w Exhibits, #3 Exhibit C-Claim Chart, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 10/27/2022)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Fortinet, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Stormborn Technologies LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Howard L. Wernow