Netskope Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Two Fortinet Network Security Patents.

The parties and the patents

The proceedings are Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., IPR2027-00011 (U.S. Patent 11,916,902) and IPR2026-00515 (U.S. Patent 12,126,695). Netskope is the petitioner. The '902 patent, issued February 27, 2024, is titled "Systems and Methods for Using a Network Access Device to Secure a Network Prior to Requesting Access to the Network by the Network Access Device." The '695 patent, issued October 22, 2024, is titled "Enhancing Security of a Cloud Deployment Based on Learnings from Other Cloud Deployments." USPTO assignment records show the '695 patent's application was first assigned to Lacework, Inc. (reel 64447, frame 0823) and was assigned by Lacework to Fortinet in an assignment executed October 1, 2024 and recorded October 7, 2024 (reel 69301, frame 0123), three weeks before the patent issued.

What the claims cover

Claim 1 of the '902 patent, as issued, covers a method for reducing network threats in which a processing device receives a request to access a known private network from a known access device connected through an external remote network, scans the remote network to identify an unsecure network element, denies access if it finds one, and otherwise requests a grant of access. A certificate of correction issued September 8, 2026 adds to claims 1, 11, and 14 that mitigating a security issue of the unsecure network element includes starting a virtual private network application, and that the request for access is made over a virtual private network. Claim 1 of the '695 patent covers a method of learning from other cloud deployments to combat security threats: identifying additional cloud deployments for cross-customer learning, receiving information describing a security threat to those deployments and the configuration settings used to combat it, and identifying configurations to adopt for the first deployment.

The grounds

IPR2027-00011 challenges claims 1 to 18 of the '902 patent on four obviousness grounds: claims 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 to 14, and 16 to 18 over Loza (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0278777) with Bansal (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0067949), Dupont (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0307753), and Bareket (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0213574); claims 5, 7, 10, and 15 over those four references and Sahay (U.S. Patent 8,707,395); claims 1 to 18 over Mishaev (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0244646) with Schwartz (U.S. Patent 10,498,758); and claims 1 to 18 over Mishaev and Schwartz with Durbin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0365381). The petition says the September 8, 2026 certificate of correction changed the scope of the claims, and it addresses the claims as corrected, including the virtual private network limitation. It contends that the examiner twice found that Bareket taught that limitation and then allowed the claims on the view that the prior art of record did not teach it.

IPR2026-00515 challenges claims 1 to 3, 5, 8 to 11, 13, and 16 to 19 of the '695 patent on three obviousness grounds, each directed to all of those claims: Chernin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0366174) alone; Chernin with Jeuk (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0123973); and Hudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0207980) with Shanks (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0063085).

Each petition names Netskope, Inc. as the sole real party in interest and lists as related matters Fortinet's original assertion of the patent in the Northern District of California, No. 4:25-cv-02360-HSG, and the severed case, No. 4:26-cv-08886-HSG.

The severed district court case

Netskope sued Fortinet in the Northern District of California in March 2025, Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-02360-HSG, on nine patents, and Fortinet counterclaimed on five of its own patents, including the '695 and '902 patents. On August 18, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted Netskope's motion to sever Fortinet's counterclaims into a new action and kept the new case, Fortinet, Inc. v. Netskope, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-08886-HSG. Fortinet's August 25, 2026 complaint there asserts the '695 patent and three others.

According to the parties' joint stipulation, which the court approved on September 23, 2026, Fortinet left the '902 patent out of that complaint until the certificate of correction issued and planned to add it by amended complaint, and Netskope moved on September 8 to dismiss the '695 and '621 patents under 35 U.S.C. 101. The order set a schedule for an amended complaint, a Netskope motion to stay pending inter partes review, and a renewed motion to dismiss. The docket shows the amended complaint filed September 23, the motion to stay filed September 30, and the renewed motion to dismiss filed October 14, with Fortinet's opposition to that motion due October 28 and Netskope's reply due November 4.

What to watch next

Under 37 CFR 42.107(b), Fortinet may file a preliminary response within three months of the notice according each petition a filing date. Under the USPTO's interim Director discretionary process, any discretionary denial brief from Fortinet is due within two months of that notice. Watch for those filings, Judge Gilliam's ruling on the motion to stay, and the institution decisions.