Congruent Media Resourcing Sues Fortinet Over FortiAIGate on a Secure Application Patent.

The complaint

The case is Congruent Media Resourcing LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00952 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), a 16 page complaint for patent infringement filed October 22, 2026, ECF No. 1, with the patent attached as an exhibit. The docket shows the case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap on October 22 and a summons issued to Fortinet the same day. The complaint describes Congruent Media Resourcing as a Texas limited liability company based in Austin, and alleges, on information and belief, that Fortinet is a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Frisco, Texas.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It alleges, on information and belief, that Fortinet is subject to personal jurisdiction through its business in Texas, including at least part of the alleged infringement, and through its Frisco place of business. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), alleging, on information and belief, that Fortinet maintains a place of business in Frisco and committed at least part of the alleged infringement in the district.

What the patent covers

U.S. Patent 9,135,418, System and Method for Creating Secure Applications, issued September 15, 2015. Claim 1 covers a method of operating a secure application that was created from a target application by imposing a second set of functions, with a second application behavior, on the target application's first set of functions: on a request to activate the secure application, the method forces it to override the first behavior with the second, which takes priority, and performs the second behavior through a processing unit. Claim 5 covers the method of claim 1 in which the secure application is encapsulated to prevent data sharing with a non-secure application. The complaint asserts claims 1 and 5 and alleges Congruent is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in the patent.

The accused product

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Fortinet directly infringes by using and performing the claimed method with FortiAIGate, which it describes as combining application delivery with AI runtime security, applying input and output guardrails between a large language model application and the model. It alleges, on information and belief, that FortiAIGate creates a secure application in part by modifying inputs and providing sanitized outputs, and, for claim 5, that a containerized FortiAIGate deployment intercepts sensitive data and redacts, blocks, or modifies it before it reaches an external model.

It also alleges, on information and belief, induced and contributory infringement of claims 1 and 5 from at least the date of service of the complaint. Because only method claims are asserted, the complaint says the marking requirement of 35 U.S.C. 287(a) does not apply.

The relief sought

Congruent asks for a judgment that claims 1 and 5 have been and are being infringed, damages and costs with an accounting, a preliminary and permanent injunction, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other relief. It demands a jury trial.

The same-day suit on the patent

Congruent filed a second complaint on the same patent the same day in the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division, No. 7:26-cv-00432, asserting claims 1 to 4.

What to watch next

Watch for service on Fortinet and for an answer, a Rule 12 motion, or a motion to transfer venue.