Long Horizon Technologies' Edge Cloud and Firmware Patent Campaign, From Fortinet to Seven More Marshall Suits.

This page is the campaign hub for patent suits by Long Horizon Technologies LLC, which its complaints describe as a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. Each suit in the table below is in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. Six of them assert U.S. Patent 10,733,021, six assert U.S. Patent 8,738,894, one adds a third patent, and one asserts a fourth patent alone.

The four patents

The patents are U.S. Patent 10,733,021, "System of Cloud Computing and Method for Detaching Load in Cloud Computing System," issued August 4, 2020; U.S. Patent 8,738,894, "Methods for Firmware Signature," issued May 27, 2014; U.S. Patent 8,271,962, "Scripted Interactive Screen Media," issued September 18, 2012; and U.S. Patent 9,836,770, "Data Capture for User Interaction with Promotional Materials," issued December 5, 2017. The USPTO copies of the patents list those titles and issue dates. Each complaint says Long Horizon is the sole and exclusive owner of the patents it asserts. USPTO assignment records show an assignment of each of the four patents to Long Horizon recorded October 21, 2026.

What the exemplary claims cover

Claim 10 of the '021 patent covers a method of detaching load in a cloud computing system in which a cloud server and client terminals connect over a network. An edge cloud is arranged on a network node connected to the client terminal. The method determines whether identification is possible, at the edge cloud, for a cloud service request signal from a publisher client terminal; if it is, and the requested service is being operated at a cloud server of the edge cloud, the service is provided to a subscriber client terminal, and otherwise the request signal is transmitted to a core cloud. The method then determines whether the edge cloud that transmitted the request signal is connected to the subscriber client terminal, transmits a backward packet to that edge cloud based on that determination, and identifies the request signal and provides the corresponding service to the subscriber client terminal.

Claim 1 of the '894 patent covers a method in which a first device receives signature unaware firmware code and installs it through boot code configured to install both signature aware and signature unaware firmware code, and the installation includes verifying, through at least one feedback mechanism, that the code was received from a second device associated with a user who has physical access to the first device.

Claim 1 of the '962 patent covers a method that receives input from a text editor containing lines of text of a script, identifies commands in those lines that control objects in a simulation, receives an indication that the input changed a command in a line, identifies the object the changed command affects, applies the changed command to update the object's state at the increment of simulation time associated with that line, and displays the simulation graphically.

Claim 1 of the '770 patent covers a method of capturing, by a management client running on a user device, data on user interaction with promotional material. A processing device receives a request for promotional material from a non-web-browser application on the device, sends the request to a web service comprising a server while the application is active, receives and stores the material, launches the management client in response to a user request, presents the material through the management client outside the application at a later time, receives a user interaction with it, generates data representing that interaction, and transmits the data over a wireless communication network to the web service, whose server is configured to analyze it to determine the material's effectiveness.

The Fortinet suit

Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Fortinet Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00950, filed October 21, 2026, pleads one count, on the '894 patent, and asserts at least claim 1. It accuses FortiGate and FortiFirewall physical appliances, FortiOS firmware and associated BIOS and bootloader firmware-installation software, and FortiManager firmware-management and deployment software, among other Fortinet products, with the Fortigate-1001F as the example. These mappings are Long Horizon's allegations.

The October 29, 2026 suits

Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 2:26-cv-00972, is against Lenovo Group Limited, Lenovo PC HK Ltd., Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., Lenovo (Bejing) Ltd., Lenovo Centro Tecnológico S. de R.L. de C.V., and Lenovo Global Technology Monterrey, S. de R.L. de C.V. It pleads two counts, on the '021 and '894 patents. For the '021 patent it accuses ThinkEdge servers, ThinkAgile MX and HX Edge systems, Lenovo Open Cloud Automation, TruScale Hybrid Cloud for Edge, and Lenovo 5G-in-a-Box solutions, with the ThinkEdge SE455 V3 as the example; for the '894 patent it accuses ThinkSystem and ThinkEdge servers and ThinkPad laptops, with the ThinkSystem SR250 V3 as the example. A notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in that case on November 8, 2026.

Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 2:26-cv-00974, against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc., pleads one count, on the '021 patent, and uses the Ericsson Local Packet Gateway, alone or in operation with the Packet Core Controller, Packet Core Gateway, Edge Exposure Server, Cloud Core Exposure Server, and/or dual-mode 5G Core, as its example. Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Nokia Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00976, against Nokia Corporation and Nokia of America Corporation, pleads two counts: the '021 count uses the Nokia MX Industrial Edge in operation with the Nokia Digital Automation Cloud, and the '894 count accuses Nokia 7250, 7220, and 7730 router platforms and other Nokia IP routing platforms implementing field-enabled Secure Boot, with the 7250 Interconnect Router as the example.

Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Schneider Electric SE, No. 2:26-cv-00977, against Schneider Electric SE and Schneider Electric USA, Inc., pleads two counts, using the EcoStruxure Edge Apps Manager for the '021 patent and SpaceLogic MP and/or RP BACnet/IP controllers for the '894 patent. Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, No. 2:26-cv-00978, against Siemens Aktiengesellschaft and Siemens Industry, Inc., pleads three counts, using Siemens Industrial Edge for the '021 patent, PowerLink CM for the '894 patent, and Tecnomatix Process Simulate for U.S. Patent 8,271,962. These mappings are Long Horizon's allegations.

The November 8, 2026 suits

Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Sophos Limited, No. 2:26-cv-01013, pleads two counts. The '021 count uses the Sophos ZTNA Cloud Gateway, alone or in operation with Sophos Fusion, Sophos Cloud points of presence, Sophos ZTNA Gateway, Sophos Firewall, and/or Sophos ZTNA Agent, and the '894 count uses the Sophos XG Firewall, alone or in operation with Sophos Firewall OS, SFLoader, and/or associated bootloader and firmware-update functionality. Long Horizon Technologies LLC v. Xiaomi Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-01014, against Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Xiaomi Information Technology Co., Ltd., and Xiaomi Technologies Singapore Pte. Ltd., pleads one count, on U.S. Patent 9,836,770. It accuses Xiaomi and Redmi smartphones and tablets running MIUI or HyperOS, listing models from the Xiaomi 11T through the Redmi Note 15 series, along with Xiaomi software including the Mi Home application and HyperOS, with the Redmi A5 as the example. These mappings are Long Horizon's allegations.

Knowledge allegations

Each complaint alleges knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of its filing and, in the alternative and on information and belief, that the defendants adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others and so remained willfully blind. Three complaints also allege pre-suit knowledge. The Ericsson complaint alleges that Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson cited the '021 patent family in connection with its own application that issued as U.S. Patent 12,254,357, and that the '021 patent's publication number appears on the face of that patent. The Schneider Electric complaint alleges that Schneider cited the '894 patent family in connection with its own applications, including the application that issued as U.S. Patent 9,699,172. The Sophos complaint alleges that Sophos cited the '894 patent family in connection with its own application that issued as U.S. Patent 12,602,482, and that the '894 patent's parent appears among the references cited in that patent.

The counts and relief

Each count alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, along with induced infringement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). The Siemens complaint has three counts; the Lenovo, Nokia, Schneider Electric, and Sophos complaints have two; and the Fortinet, Ericsson, and Xiaomi complaints have one. Each asks for a judgment of direct or indirect infringement, a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs, and an exceptional-case finding with costs and attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. Each demands a jury trial.

The proceedings

The table lists each suit on this page by number, with the status its docket shows through November 9, 2026. Patents appear by their last three digits; the full numbers are above.

What to watch next

Watch for service on the defendants, including the foreign defendants, and their answers or Rule 12 motions, including any motion addressing venue, and for any further Long Horizon filings in the Marshall Division. Any of these cases can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.