Fortinet v. Netskope (24-2305): Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 57 Days
Fortinet appealed a patentability challenge brought by Netskope over US11036856B2, a patent covering natively mounted cloud storage inspection and sandboxing. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal voluntarily under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) just 57 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs — leaving the underlying invalidity question unresolved on the merits.
A Federal Circuit patentability appeal resolved before merits briefing
Fortinet, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 11 September 2024, challenging a patentability determination in an invalidity or cancellation action brought by Netskope concerning US11036856B2. That patent, filed under application number US16/132433, covers technology for natively mounting storage for inspection and sandboxing in the cloud — a capability central to modern cloud-native security architectures.
The appeal was dismissed on 7 November 2024 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which governs voluntary dismissals at the appellate level. The dismissal order specifies that each side shall bear its own costs. The public record does not indicate whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and the court issued no ruling on the merits of the patentability dispute.
The 57-day duration — far shorter than the typical Federal Circuit appeal cycle — strongly suggests the parties reached some form of agreement, or that Fortinet elected not to pursue the appeal further, though the public record is silent on the precise motivation. The underlying validity of US11036856B2 remains formally unresolved by this proceeding, which may have commercial and licensing implications for both parties in the cloud security sector.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 57 days
57 days — resolved well under the typical 12–18 month Federal Circuit appeal cycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) means for both parties
Rule 42(b) ends the appeal — no merits adjudication
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows a party to voluntarily dismiss an appeal, typically by stipulation or on motion. The court does not evaluate the underlying merits — it simply terminates the appellate proceeding. Here, no Federal Circuit panel ever ruled on whether the patentability determination below was correct, meaning the appeal record creates no binding precedent on the validity of US11036856B2.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) can occur with or without prejudice to refiling or further challenge, but the distinction is legally significant. Dismissal without prejudice may preserve options for future challenge routes; dismissal with prejudice forecloses the specific appellate path. The order in this case does not specify either condition, and the public docket provides no clarification — practitioners should treat this ambiguity with caution when assessing future enforcement or challenge strategy.
Prejudice status: undisclosedFortinet’s patent survives this appeal — but validity is unresolved
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed without ruling on the merits, Fortinet retains US11036856B2 in its current state. The patent is neither confirmed valid nor invalidated by this proceeding. Fortinet may continue to assert the patent, but the underlying invalidity or cancellation action that prompted the appeal may have produced a prior adverse determination that the dismissal leaves intact depending on the proceeding below.
Patent status: intact but untestedCloud security sandboxing IP remains contested territory
The voluntary exit from this appeal, combined with a costs-neutral order, is consistent with a negotiated resolution between two significant cloud security vendors. For competitors and licensees operating in the cloud-native inspection and sandboxing space, the unresolved validity of US11036856B2 means freedom-to-operate risk persists. Parties building similar natively mounted cloud storage inspection capabilities should monitor future enforcement activity around this patent and related family members.
FTO risk: patent remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fortinet, Inc. | Company | Cybersecurity company — holder of US11036856B2 covering cloud storage inspectionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Netskope | Individual | Cloud security platform provider; challenger of US11036856B2 patentabilitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Holmes | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James M. Glass | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ognjen Zivojnovic | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Quincy Lu Mr. | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Dufresne | Attorney | Counsel for NetskopeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Klein Counsel | Attorney | Counsel for NetskopeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle R. Canavera | Attorney | Counsel for NetskopeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas N. Millikan | Attorney | Counsel for NetskopeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing NetskopeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s phrasing — ‘proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)’ — is a procedural termination, not a merits adjudication. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the correctness of any patentability determination below. The costs-neutral direction (‘each side shall bear their own costs’) is notable: it departs from the default that costs follow the prevailing party, suggesting a consensual exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal. No claim construction, validity holding, or precedential guidance emerges from this order.
US11036856B2 — Natively Mounted Cloud Storage Inspection and Sandboxing
US11036856B2, filed under application US16/132433, protects technology for natively mounting storage resources in a cloud environment for the purposes of content inspection and sandboxing. This approach — inspecting files within the cloud rather than routing them through an on-premises appliance — reflects a foundational architectural shift in enterprise security. The patent’s grant indicates the USPTO recognised a novel technical contribution in how cloud-native environments handle potentially malicious content without requiring network hairpinning.
For the cloud security sector, this patent sits at the intersection of two high-growth markets: cloud access security broker (CASB) technology and advanced threat sandboxing. Fortinet’s ownership of this IP creates competitive leverage against vendors offering similar cloud-native inspection capabilities. The fact that Netskope — a direct CASB and zero-trust network access competitor — mounted a patentability challenge signals that the patent’s claims are considered commercially material, not peripheral. Monitoring the patent’s continuation family and any reexamination history is strategically important for all cloud security platform vendors.
Should your team run an FTO against US11036856B2?
Any R&D team building cloud-native security infrastructure that involves mounting, scanning, or sandboxing cloud storage content — particularly in SaaS inspection, CASB, or zero-trust architectures — should assess freedom-to-operate against US11036856B2. The patent remains in force, its validity is unresolved by this proceeding, and Fortinet has demonstrated willingness to assert it in inter partes proceedings. Product teams deploying natively integrated cloud storage inspection pipelines are most directly in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11036856B2 against your technical architecture, surface related continuation and family patents, identify prior art that was or was not considered during examination, and flag any pending reexamination or IPR proceedings. For companies in the cloud security space, this analysis can inform both product design decisions and licensing negotiation positioning before litigation exposure materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11036856B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in cloud security and cybersecurity patentability
Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving cloud security and network inspection patents — cases that parallel the Fortinet v. Netskope dispute over US11036856B2.
What this case signals for the cloud security IP landscape
A fast voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit in a patentability dispute typically signals more than procedural convenience.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals in 57 days suggest off-record resolution
When a patentability appeal at the Federal Circuit resolves in under two months — before full merits briefing — it strongly suggests the parties reached a side agreement, licensing arrangement, or strategic accommodation. Neither party receiving a cost award is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal driven by legal weakness.
US11036856B2 remains enforceable with unresolved validity cloud overhead
The dismissal leaves US11036856B2 in legal limbo: not confirmed valid, not cancelled. Any company operating in cloud-native security inspection, sandboxing, or natively mounted cloud storage should run a current FTO analysis against this patent before product launch or expansion, as Fortinet retains full enforcement rights.
Fortinet v Netskope — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit voluntarily dismissed Fortinet’s appeal in case 24-2305 on 7 November 2024, just 57 days after filing. The dismissal was entered under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued on the patentability of US11036856B2.
US11036856B2, filed as US16/132433, covers technology for natively mounting cloud storage for inspection and sandboxing — a cloud-native approach to malware detection without on-premises routing. Netskope challenged its patentability in an invalidity or cancellation action, suggesting the claims were considered commercially significant in the competitive CASB and cloud security market.
The Federal Circuit’s dismissal under Rule 42(b) issued no validity ruling, so the patent remains in force. However, the underlying invalidity proceeding that gave rise to this appeal may have produced its own adverse findings. Practitioners should review the lower tribunal record before concluding the patent emerged from this case fully intact.
Rule 42(b) allows voluntary dismissal of an appeal without the court adjudicating the merits. The effect on future proceedings depends on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a distinction the public order does not specify in this case. The lower tribunal’s record and any separate agreements between the parties would govern what options remain available.
Fortinet was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with attorneys including Andrew Holmes, James M. Glass, Ognjen Zivojnovic, and Quincy Lu. Netskope was represented by Perkins Coie LLP, with attorneys including Andrew Dufresne, Andrew Klein, Kyle R. Canavera, and Thomas N. Millikan.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.