Fortinet, Inc. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc.

Background

Fortinet alleged that Forescout infringed three patents involving cybersecurity technology: the ’314 patent, concerning delegation of network-management tasks; the ’299 patent, concerning out-of-band network-access control; and the ’662 patent, concerning selective use of security features based on the trust level of an external network. Fortinet asserted theories of induced infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement.

Forescout moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a claim. Forescout argued that the patents claimed ineligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act and that Fortinet had not adequately pleaded the knowledge, intent, and egregious-conduct allegations required for indirect and willful infringement.

Patent Eligibility

The court applied the two-step test for patent eligibility. First, it considered whether the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea. Second, if so, it considered whether the claim elements, individually or in combination, supplied an inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.

For the ’314 patent, the court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of controlling network access by delegating authority. However, the court held that it could not decide at the pleading stage whether the combination of templates and profiles was well-understood, routine, and conventional. The court therefore declined to hold the patent invalid under Section 101 at that stage.

For the ’299 patent, the court found that the technical components and their operation were difficult to interpret and that additional facts and claim construction could clarify whether the patent described a technological solution to a technological problem. The court therefore declined to dismiss the patent as ineligible.

For the ’662 patent, the court concluded that the claimed method was directed to the abstract idea of disabling security for trusted communications. Nevertheless, the court held that factual development and possible claim construction could inform whether the claimed combination supplied an inventive concept. It therefore declined to hold the patent invalid on the motion to dismiss.

The court denied Forescout’s motion to dismiss on subject-matter eligibility grounds without prejudice, meaning Forescout could raise the issue again later in the litigation, including at summary judgment.

Infringement Allegations

The court held that Fortinet plausibly alleged an underlying claim of direct infringement. Although the complaint did not identify a particular direct infringer by name, it identified Forescout’s accused products, mapped claim language to product functionality, and cited two user manuals on Forescout’s website. The court concluded that this level of detail was sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court denied Forescout’s motion as to induced infringement. Fortinet alleged that Forescout’s instructional materials directed or encouraged customers, purchasers, users, and developers to perform steps of the patent claims. The court found that Fortinet’s allegations, including descriptions of the instructional materials and links to them, were sufficiently detailed and specific to survive dismissal, although it stated that Fortinet should provide greater clarity and specificity if it amended its complaint.

The court granted dismissal of the contributory-infringement claims. Contributory infringement requires factual allegations that the accused component was especially made or adapted for infringing use and lacked substantial noninfringing uses. The court found that Fortinet’s complaint largely repeated the statutory language and did not allege facts establishing that Forescout’s products lacked substantial noninfringing uses. The court granted Fortinet leave to amend.

The court also granted dismissal of the willful-infringement claims. Willful infringement requires allegations supporting knowledge of the patents and egregious infringement behavior. The court found that Fortinet’s allegations that Forescout knew of the patents and continued selling the accused products did not adequately allege egregious conduct. The court granted leave to amend.

Disposition

In Fortinet, Inc. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., Judge Edward M. Chen denied Forescout’s motion to dismiss on subject-matter eligibility grounds and denied the motion as to Fortinet’s induced-infringement claims. The court granted the motion as to Fortinet’s contributory- and willful-infringement claims without prejudice, with leave to amend within 30 days. The order disposed of Docket No. 24.