Palo Alto Networks Inc v. Intellectros LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Delaware / California)
  • Defendant: Intellectros LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morrison & Foerster LLP
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00442, N.D. Cal., 01/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Palo Alto Networks asserts that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action, including Defendant's patent enforcement activities, were directed at Palo Alto Networks at its headquarters within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its PA-400 Series Next-Generation Firewalls do not infringe three patents owned by Defendant related to wireless communication and networking technologies.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve methods for managing and optimizing high-speed wireless networks, including efficient frequency reuse, 3D device positioning via beamforming, and handling radio link failures in multi-cell environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Intellectros has previously sued other technology companies, including Fortinet, Inc. and Deere & Company, for infringement of the same patents-in-suit. This declaratory judgment action was filed after Plaintiff received a notice letter from Defendant alleging infringement and enclosing claim charts.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,036,563 - “Method for achieving frequency reuse in wireless communications systems”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of co-channel interference in dense, high-frequency wireless networks. When multiple devices use the same frequency channel in close proximity, their signals can interfere with each other, degrading overall system performance and capacity (’563 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized management method where a "network coordinating device" actively manages frequency reuse. This device collects "path quality information" from various pairs of communicating devices to determine which pairs can transmit on the same frequency at the same time without causing excessive interference. Based on this analysis, it creates a "concurrent access table" and schedules simultaneous transmissions to compatible device pairs, leveraging "smart antenna technology" to direct signals and minimize interference (’563 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-53).
• Technical Importance: The described method aims to increase the total data throughput of a wireless network by enabling more simultaneous communications within a finite amount of radio spectrum (’563 Patent, col. 1:49-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Obtaining first and second "path quality information" for first and second pairs of communications devices, respectively.
  • A "coordinating device" determining multiple "co-existing communications paths" based on the path quality information and a predetermined rule.
  • Sending channel resource allocation information to the device pairs to use the co-existing paths to communicate concurrently.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to address dependent claims, though such reservations are common practice.

U.S. Patent No. 9,755,797 - “Localization-based beamforming scheme for systems with multiple antennas”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional 3D device positioning in cellular networks often requires signals from four separate base stations, which increases infrastructure costs. Further, conventional methods for directing antenna beams (beamforming) can be slow and inefficient, requiring extensive scanning or high feedback overhead from the user device (’797 Patent, col. 1:50-63; col. 2:11-21).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method to achieve 3D positioning using only three base stations. A user equipment (UE) uses the signals from a multi-antenna "serving base station" to estimate its own "elevation angle." This elevation data, when combined with standard time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) measurements from all three base stations, allows the system to calculate the UE’s precise 3D coordinates. This location information can then be used for efficient beamforming (’797 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-8).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to reduce the cost and complexity of deploying networks capable of accurate 3D positioning, a key enabler for location-based services and advanced antenna techniques in modern wireless standards (’797 Patent, col. 2:20-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Receiving positioning reference signals (PRSs) from multiple base stations.
  • Estimating line-of-sight (LOS) paths for time of arrival (TOA) and time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurements.
  • Estimating an "elevation angle" of the UE based on the LOS path from the serving base station.
  • Calculating a UE position based on the TDOA measurements and the estimated elevation angle.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to address dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,794,839 - “Mechanism for radio link monitoring and radio link failure handling in small cell networks”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,794,839, “Mechanism for radio link monitoring and radio link failure handling in small cell networks,” issued October 17, 2017 (Compl. ¶22).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing connection reliability when a user device is simultaneously connected to two different base stations: a primary "anchor" station and a secondary "drift" station. The invention provides procedures for the user device to monitor the connection quality to the drift station and for the network to handle a radio link failure on that secondary connection in a way that preserves the overall session continuity (’839 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
• Accused Features: The infringement theory is alleged to be based on the accused firewalls operating in a "multi radio dual connectivity" (MR-DC) mode. The complaint counters that the firewalls instead use a "failover" mode, which is functionally different (Compl. ¶¶50-51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Palo Alto Networks PA-400 Series Next-Generation Firewalls (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are network security firewalls that can be configured with a 5G cellular interface. This interface can serve as either the primary internet connection or as a secondary, redundant connection that activates if the primary connection fails (a "failover" configuration) (Compl. ¶50). The complaint includes a Google Maps Street View image of Defendant's listed address, which appears to be a mail stop, to support its arguments regarding personal jurisdiction and venue (Compl. ¶12). Defendant's infringement allegations against Palo Alto Networks, as well as against other companies, are based on the accused products' compliance with the 5G standard (Compl. ¶¶25-26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,036,563 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue is whether Palo Alto Networks can be held liable for direct infringement when a necessary element of the claim—the "determining" step performed by a "coordinating device"—is allegedly performed by a third-party 5G network provider, not by Palo Alto Networks or the end user of its firewall (Compl. ¶38). This raises the legal question of divided infringement.

9,755,797 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The dispute centers on a factual question of technical operation. The complaint asserts that the accused firewalls do not perform the specific functions of "estimat[ing] an elevation angle" or "calculat[ing] a UE position based on the elevation angle" as required by the claim (Compl. ¶44). The case may turn on evidence demonstrating the precise positioning methods, if any, used by the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’563 Patent: "coordinating device"

• The Term: "coordinating device"
• Context and Importance: The identity and location of the "coordinating device" is central to the infringement analysis. Palo Alto Networks' defense of non-infringement relies on this device being part of the third-party network core, which it does not make, use, sell, or control (Compl. ¶38). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether liability for the entire claimed method can be attributed to a single actor.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 functionally defines the device as one that performs the "determining" and "sending" steps, without structurally limiting it to a specific type of network component like a base station or core controller (’563 Patent, col. 8:12-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "coordinating device" as managing the network, broadcasting "beacon frames," and providing timing and synchronization, which are functions characteristic of a central network controller or base station, not an end-user device (’563 Patent, col. 4:36-44). Figure 1 depicts the "DEVICE X / COORDINATOR" as a distinct entity managing communications between other device pairs.

Term from the ’797 Patent: "estimating an elevation angle"

• The Term: "estimating an elevation angle"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because Palo Alto Networks alleges its products do not perform this function at all (Compl. ¶44). The dispute will likely focus on the technical requirements of "estimating" in the context of the patent, versus the actual functionality of the accused firewalls.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "estimating," which could be argued to encompass any method, direct or indirect, that results in a value for the elevation angle.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific technical process for this estimation, involving analysis of a channel impulse response from beamformed reference signals to determine an angle of departure (’797 Patent, col. 4:18-21; col. 5:26-31). A party could argue that "estimating" should be limited to this disclosed method or its technical equivalents, not just any generic calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Defendant accuses Palo Alto Networks of "instructing Palo Alto Networks customers to use" the accused firewalls, which suggests a claim for induced infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶36).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint denies willful infringement (Compl. ¶37). The basis for a potential willfulness claim by Intellectros would be the "Notice of Infringement" letter sent to Palo Alto Networks on November 10, 2025, which allegedly provided pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶27).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of control and attribution: For the ’563 patent, can Palo Alto Networks be liable for infringing a method claim where essential steps are allegedly performed by a third-party 5G network provider outside of its direction or control?
• A second key issue will be one of technical implementation: For the ’797 and ’839 patents, the dispute will likely turn on factual evidence regarding the specific mode of operation of the accused firewalls. Do they, as a matter of technical fact, perform the "elevation angle estimation" claimed in the ’797 patent or operate in the "multi radio dual connectivity" mode central to the infringement theory for the ’839 patent?