InfoExpress v. Fortinet: Six NAC Patents, One IPR-Driven Administrative Close
InfoExpress, Inc. filed suit against network security giant Fortinet, Inc. in the Northern District of California, asserting six U.S. patents covering network access control technology against Fortinet’s FortiNAC, FortiSwitch, and FortiAP product lines. After 641 days, the court administratively closed the case pending the outcome of inter partes review proceedings — leaving the core infringement questions unresolved.
InfoExpress targets Fortinet’s NAC portfolio with six-patent broadside
On August 25, 2023, InfoExpress, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Fortinet, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:23-cv-04389). InfoExpress asserted six U.S. patents — US8347350B2, US8578444B2, US8117645B2, US7523484B2, US8677450B2, and US8051460B2 — all directed at network access control (NAC) technology. The accused products encompass Fortinet’s FortiNAC compliant hardware and virtual servers, Zero Trust Network Access solutions, FortiSwitch routers and switches, and FortiAP wireless access points.
The case was administratively closed on May 27, 2025, after 641 days on the docket. The court’s order makes clear this closure is for statistical purposes only and does not constitute a dismissal or final disposition of any claim. The closure reflects parallel inter partes review proceedings initiated against at least some of the asserted patents — a procedural posture that frequently results in district courts suspending litigation to avoid duplicative or inconsistent adjudication of patent validity.
The 641-day timeline to administrative close, rather than a merits ruling, is consistent with IPR petitions being filed within the one-year statutory window after service of the complaint — a standard defensive move for large technology defendants. The parties are required to provide a status update within 30 days of IPR resolution, meaning the district court litigation could resume, be narrowed by cancellation of claims, or be resolved by settlement before returning to active status. The full commercial stakes — including potential damages, injunctive relief against core FortiNAC products, and the validity of six NAC patents — remain formally open.
Filing to Case Terminated in 641 days
641 days from filing to administrative close — typical NAC patent disputes run 2–4 years to trial
Administrative close pending IPR: what the court’s order actually means
Administrative close is not a dismissal — the case survives
An administrative close for statistical purposes is a housekeeping order, not a merits ruling. The court explicitly stated the order ‘shall not be construed as a dismissal or disposition of the action.’ All claims and defenses remain live. Either party may reopen the case by filing a motion, and the parties must report to the court within 30 days of IPR resolution. This mechanism is routinely used when parallel USPTO proceedings make active litigation management premature.
Case remains legally activeInter partes review drives the pause — validity is the real battleground
Inter partes review allows a petitioner to challenge the validity of issued patent claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on prior art grounds. If IPR petitions were filed against InfoExpress’s six asserted patents, the PTAB may cancel, confirm, or narrow the claims. Any cancelled claims cannot be asserted at district court, while confirmed claims return to litigation with added validity credibility. The IPR outcome will likely reshape the scope — and leverage — of this lawsuit significantly.
PTAB validity challenge ongoingInfoExpress: patent portfolio survives for now, but faces validity test
InfoExpress retains all asserted claims until the PTAB rules. A strong IPR outcome — institution denied or claims confirmed — would materially strengthen its negotiating position and restore the district court case with validated patents. Conversely, significant claim cancellations could narrow or eliminate the infringement theories underpinning the FortiNAC, FortiSwitch, and FortiAP accusations. InfoExpress’s ability to pursue damages and injunctive relief depends heavily on how many claims survive PTAB review.
Outcome contingent on IPRFortinet: IPR strategy buys time and potentially voids key claims
For Fortinet, securing IPR institution against patents covering core FortiNAC and Zero Trust NAC architecture is a high-value defensive move. Administrative close eliminates near-term litigation costs and discovery pressure while the PTAB process unfolds over 12–18 months. If Fortinet succeeds in cancelling claims at the PTAB, it may resolve some or all of the district court exposure without a damages trial. This reflects a standard dual-track defence common among large network security vendors facing multi-patent NAC assertions.
IPR as primary defence vehicleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoExpress, Inc. | Company | Network access control technology company — holder of US8347350B2 and five related NAC patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fortinet, Inc. | Company | Fortinet, Inc. — global network security vendor, maker of FortiNAC, FortiSwitch, and FortiAPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew F. Schwerin I | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brenda Helen Entzminger | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Raymond Michalek | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Casey T. Grabenstein | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph M. Kuo | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael E. Flynn-O’Brien | Attorney | Counsel for InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bunsow DeMory LLP | Law Firm | Representing InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | Law Firm | Representing InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Saul Ewing LLP | Law Firm | Representing InfoExpress, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra Lane | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alice Egan Snedeker | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brianna M. Vinci | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Carl Dotson | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jayla Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Christopher Gaudet | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert John Nolan | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Terry W. Ahearn | Attorney | Counsel for Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fortinet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive: the case is closed solely for docket management purposes while inter partes review proceedings run their course at the USPTO. The explicit carve-out — that the order ‘shall not be construed as a dismissal or disposition of the action’ — preserves all parties’ rights intact. This language is standard for administrative closes tied to parallel PTAB proceedings and signals that the Northern District anticipates the case returning to active status once IPR outcomes are known. No validity, infringement, or damages determinations have been made.
US8347350B2 and five related patents — network access control architecture
The six asserted patents — US8347350B2, US8578444B2, US8117645B2, US7523484B2, US8677450B2, and US8051460B2 — form a family of network access control (NAC) patents assigned to InfoExpress. With application dates ranging from the mid-2000s to the early 2010s (application numbers span US10/949179 through US13/523858), these patents cover foundational NAC concepts including device compliance assessment, automated policy enforcement, VLAN-based quarantine, and integration with network infrastructure such as switches and wireless access points — the core technical building blocks of modern zero trust network access.
These patents are strategically significant because they predate the commercialisation of zero trust network access as a category. Fortinet’s FortiNAC product — the primary accused product — is a market-leading NAC solution that directly implements compliance checking, dynamic network segmentation, and endpoint-based access control, placing it squarely within the technical scope these patents describe. For competitors and new entrants in the ZTNA and NAC space, this assertion signals that early-generation NAC patent portfolios held by legacy vendors can reach modern enterprise security products — making FTO diligence against pre-2015 NAC patent families a commercial priority.
Should you run an FTO against US8347350B2 and related InfoExpress NAC patents?
Any organisation developing, reselling, or deploying network access control, zero trust network access, or network policy enforcement products — particularly those integrating with managed switches, wireless access points, or virtual NAC appliances — should assess exposure against InfoExpress’s six-patent NAC portfolio. The InfoExpress v. Fortinet case demonstrates that products combining endpoint compliance, dynamic VLAN/segmentation, and multi-vector enforcement (hardware, virtual, switch, wireless) can be simultaneously targeted across an entire patent family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the claim scope of US8347350B2, US8578444B2, US8117645B2, US7523484B2, US8677450B2, and US8051460B2 against specific product architectures — identifying which claims pose live risk and which are likely neutralised by prior art or design-around opportunities. Eureka also surfaces related patent families, pending continuations, and PTAB proceedings that may affect the enforceability of each patent in real time.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8347350B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NAC and zero trust network access patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving network access control and zero trust network access patent assertions in the Northern District of California and comparable federal district courts.
What this case signals for the network access control IP landscape
A six-patent NAC assertion against Fortinet’s flagship zero trust products highlights deepening IP conflict in enterprise network security.
NAC patent portfolios are becoming enforcement assets as zero trust scales
InfoExpress’s assertion of six NAC patents against FortiNAC — Fortinet’s core compliance and zero trust enforcement product — signals that early-generation NAC patent holders are now targeting the market leaders who built commercial scale on this technology. Companies building or acquiring NAC and ZTNA capabilities should conduct FTO analysis against foundational NAC patent families from legacy NAC vendors.
IPR as a delay and invalidation tool remains central to large-vendor defence strategy
Fortinet’s apparent use of IPR to force administrative close within the litigation’s first two years is textbook large-defendant strategy. R&D and product teams at network security vendors should understand that multi-patent assertions can be neutralised or narrowed through coordinated PTAB challenges — but the process typically takes 18–24 months and outcome is not guaranteed, particularly for older, well-prosecuted patents.
InfoExpress v Fortinet — key questions answered
The case was administratively closed on May 27, 2025, for statistical purposes only while inter partes review proceedings at the USPTO are ongoing. The closure is not a dismissal — all claims remain live and either party may reopen proceedings. The parties must file a status update within 30 days of IPR resolution.
InfoExpress asserted six U.S. patents: US8347350B2, US8578444B2, US8117645B2, US7523484B2, US8677450B2, and US8051460B2. All cover network access control technology including device compliance, policy enforcement, VLAN-based quarantine, and integration with switches and wireless access points.
The accused products include FortiNAC compliant hardware and virtual servers, Zero Trust Network Access solutions incorporating FortiNAC, FortiSwitch routers and switches implementing FortiNAC, and FortiAP wireless access points. The assertion spans Fortinet’s entire NAC and ZTNA product ecosystem.
An administrative close suspends active docket management while parallel USPTO inter partes review proceedings resolve patent validity questions. It is not a dismissal — no claims are extinguished. For defendants such as Fortinet, it typically reflects a strategic choice to pursue PTAB invalidity challenges before engaging in expensive district court discovery and claim construction proceedings.
Yes. The court’s order explicitly states that ‘should further proceedings become necessary, any party may initiate them in the same manner as if this Order had not been entered.’ The parties are required to provide a status update within 30 days of IPR resolution. Depending on PTAB outcomes, the district court case could resume, be narrowed to surviving claims, or be resolved by the parties before returning to active litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.