Netskope Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Three More Fortinet Cloud Security Patents.

The proceedings and the patents

The proceedings are Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., IPR2026-00472 (U.S. Patent 12,244,621), IPR2026-00473 (U.S. Patent 11,290,527), and IPR2026-00474 (U.S. Patent 11,449,623). The '621 patent, issued March 4, 2025, is titled Using Activity Monitored by Multiple Data Sources to Identify Shadow Systems. The '527 patent, issued March 29, 2022, is titled Automatic Tagging of Cloud Resources for Implementing Security Policies. The '623 patent, issued September 20, 2022, is titled File Access Control Based on Analysis of User Behavior Patterns. The front page of each patent names Fortinet, Inc. as the assignee.

Each petition names Netskope, Inc. as the sole real party in interest. In mandatory notices filed October 6, 2026 in each proceeding, Fortinet identifies itself as the real party in interest.

What the claims cover

Claim 1 of the '621 patent covers a method of using activity monitored by multiple data sources to identify shadow systems: gathering, from resources or their providers, first information describing access to the resources by a user's devices; gathering, from client applications on at least some of those devices, second information describing access to the resources; and identifying as shadow systems the user devices engaged in shadow information technology activity that correspond to accesses described in the first information but not in the second.

Claim 1 of the '527 patent covers a method in which a cloud-tagging orchestrator service running on a security manager for a private network receives information on each of several cloud providers used by the network and, for each cloud resource they host for the network, retrieves information on the resource, identifies a unified tag for it based on a predefined global tagging policy, and assigns the tag through the hosting provider's application programming interface.

Claim 1 of the '623 patent covers a method in which servers associated with an enterprise network store information on users' historical behavior from their file access requests, receive a request from a user for a file stored in encrypted form, determine a risk score for the user from factors including that history, the request, and data observed from it, and, based on the score, return the file's decryption key with full access below a first threshold, withhold the key above a second threshold, and return the key with limited access in between.

The grounds

IPR2026-00472 challenges claims 1 to 3, 5 to 11, and 13 to 19 of the '621 patent on two obviousness grounds: Karunakaran (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0288045) alone, and Chien (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0220605) with Lipman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0199751). The petition contends that the challenged claims find support only in material first disclosed in a continuation-in-part application filed June 9, 2022, from which the '621 patent continues, so they are entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than June 9, 2022, not the November 27, 2017 provisional date on the patent's face, and that Karunakaran is prior art under that later date.

IPR2026-00473 challenges claims 1 to 20 of the '527 patent on six obviousness grounds: Foskett (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0063720) against claims 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 17, and 20; Foskett with Whitlock (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0276254) against claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19; Foskett with Juniper (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0059370) against claim 18; Kung (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0234459) with Serhiienko (a 2019 IEEE/ACM symposium paper on declarative management of cloud resources across providers) against claims 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 13 to 17, and 20; Kung and Serhiienko with Whitlock against claims 5, 12, and 19; and Kung and Serhiienko with Juniper against claim 18.

IPR2026-00474 challenges claims 1 to 15 of the '623 patent on seven obviousness grounds built on Cheng (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0232543) and Ford (International Patent Publication WO 2015/164521). Cheng with Bleckmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0144813) is asserted against claims 1 to 15, with Kirti (U.S. Patent 10,063,654) added against claims 2, 4, and 10 to 13 and Van Dijk (U.S. Patent 8,978,159) added against claims 3, 9 to 13, and 15. Ford with Van Dijk, and Ford with Van Dijk and Bleckmann, are each asserted against claims 1 to 15, with Kirti added to each against claims 2 and 10 to 13.

Netskope supports each petition with a technical expert's declaration. Each petition argues that no discretionary denial factors are present, stating among other things that none of its prior art was before the examiner and that no trial date is set in the district case. Each petition, and each of Fortinet's mandatory notices, lists the original and severed Northern District of California cases as related matters.

The severed district court case

Netskope sued Fortinet in Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-02360-HSG (N.D. Cal.), and Fortinet counterclaimed there on five patents, including the '623, '527, and '621 patents, according to the parties' joint stipulation. On August 18, 2026, the court granted the motion to sever and opened Fortinet, Inc. v. Netskope, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-08886-HSG. Fortinet's August 25, 2026 complaint there asserts the '623, '527, and '621 patents and U.S. Patent 12,126,695, alleges that Fortinet is the original and current owner by assignment of each, and accuses, among other offerings, Netskope's Behavior Analytics under the '623 patent, its Cloud Security Posture Management services under the '527 patent, and its Shadow IT and Cloud Access Security Broker products and services under the '621 patent.

The parties' joint stipulation, which Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. approved on September 23, 2026, recites that Netskope intends to move to stay the case pending requests for inter partes review it has filed or will file against Fortinet's patents. The docket shows a motion to stay filed September 30, 2026 and a renewed motion to dismiss filed October 14, 2026.

What to watch next

Under the Board's September 21, 2026 notices, Fortinet may file a brief requesting discretionary denial within two months of the notice in each proceeding under the USPTO's interim Director discretionary process, Netskope may file a brief opposing that request within three months of the notice, and Fortinet may file a preliminary response no later than three months from the notice, the period 37 CFR 42.107(b) sets. On October 29, 2026, Netskope filed a notice in each proceeding stipulating that, if review is instituted, it will be bound in the district court case by the full estoppel of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), forgoing any invalidity ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in the review. Watch for those filings, Judge Gilliam's ruling on the motion to stay, and the institution decisions across the three proceedings.