Palo Alto Networks Inc v. Intellectros LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Delaware)
  • 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 alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district, including sending a notice of infringement letter to Plaintiff’s executives located there. The complaint further alleges Defendant has litigated against another company headquartered in the district and, as a non-practicing entity with only a mailing address in Texas, would not be unduly burdened by litigating in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its PA-400 Series Next-Generation Firewalls do not infringe three of Defendant’s patents related to wireless communication technologies.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to advanced functionalities in wireless networks, including methods for reusing frequency channels, 3D device positioning via beamforming, and managing radio link failures in small cell environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant previously asserted the same patents against other technology companies, including a lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc., which resulted in settlement discussions. The current declaratory judgment action was filed after Plaintiff received a notice of infringement letter from Defendant dated November 10, 2025, which included 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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,036,563, “Method for achieving frequency reuse in wireless communications systems,” issued May 19, 2015 (the ’563 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of reusing limited radio frequency spectrum in dense wireless networks without causing debilitating co-channel interference between different communicating devices (’563 Patent, col. 1:43-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system managed by a "network coordinating device" that gathers "path quality information" for various communication links. Using this data, it determines which pairs of devices can transmit on the same frequency at the same time without interfering with each other, creating a "concurrent access table" to schedule these simultaneous communications (’563 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-21). The system leverages smart antennas to create directional beams, which helps isolate the concurrent transmissions and reduce interference (’563 Patent, col. 1:55-63).
• Technical Importance: This method seeks to increase the overall data capacity of a wireless system by enabling multiple, non-interfering conversations to occur simultaneously on the same frequency channel (’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 path quality information for a first pair of communications devices.
  • Obtaining second path quality information for a second pair of communications devices.
  • Determining multiple co-existing communications paths based on the path quality information in accordance with a rule "by a coordinating device."
  • Sending channel resource allocation information to the device pairs to enable them to communicate concurrently over the same channel.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,755,797, “Localization-based beamforming scheme for systems with multiple antennas,” issued September 5, 2017 (the ’797 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that conventional 3D positioning of a device in a cellular network requires signals from four separate base stations, with one often needing to be deployed at a different height, which increases network cost and complexity (’797 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to achieve accurate 3D positioning using only three base stations. It utilizes the multi-antenna array on the primary ("serving") base station to transmit beamformed positioning signals. The user equipment (UE) analyzes these signals to estimate its "elevation angle" relative to the serving base station. This elevation angle provides the necessary third dimension of data, which, when combined with time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) measurements from the three base stations, allows for calculation of the UE's precise 3D coordinates (’797 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-44).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide accurate 3D positioning services more economically by reducing the required number of base stations from four to three (’797 Patent, col. 1:20-22).

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:
  • A user equipment (UE) receiving positioning reference signals (PRSs) from multiple base stations, including PRSs from a serving base station transmitted with "distinct beamforming vectors."
  • Estimating line-of-sight (LOS) paths for TOA/TDOA measurements.
  • Estimating an "elevation angle" of the UE based on the LOS paths of the PRS from the serving base station.
  • Calculating a UE position based on the TDOA measurements and the estimated elevation angle.

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 (the ’839 Patent) (Compl. ¶22).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for managing radio link failures in a network where a user device is connected simultaneously to an "anchor" base station for control functions and a "drift" base station for data, a configuration known as "multi radio dual connectivity" (MR-DC). The invention specifies procedures for how the user device and the network detect and handle a radio link failure with either the anchor or the drift base station (’839 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶50).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is the subject of the non-infringement claim (Compl. ¶49).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegation centers on the accused firewalls operating in the MR-DC mode described by the patent (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as firewalls equipped with a 5G cellular interface. This interface can be configured either as a primary internet connection or as a secondary "failover" connection that becomes active only if the primary connection fails. The complaint emphasizes that the firewalls use "one radio access technology at a time" and do not connect to multiple carriers simultaneously (Compl. ¶50). The 5G modems used in the firewalls are allegedly manufactured by Semtech Corporation (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts provided by Intellectros but does not attach them as exhibits (Compl. ¶31). The infringement theories are therefore summarized based on the complaint’s narrative description.

’563 Patent Infringement Allegations

Palo Alto Networks contends that its firewalls do not perform the step of "determining multiple co-existing communications paths... by a coordinating device" as required by claim 1 (Compl. ¶38). The complaint states that Intellectros’s theory identifies this "coordinating device" as a "5G-NR core network device," which is part of the cellular provider's network infrastructure (Compl. ¶38). Palo Alto Networks argues that it does not direct or control the activities of any 5G network provider, and therefore cannot be liable for direct infringement for steps performed by the network (Compl. ¶38).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Does the claim term "coordinating device," which the patent describes as a peer device within a local wireless system (’563 Patent, FIG. 1), read on a remote "5G-NR core network device" as allegedly asserted?
  • Legal Questions: This allegation raises the issue of divided infringement. The central question is whether all steps of the claimed method are attributable to a single actor, or if Palo Alto Networks can be held responsible for the actions of a third-party network provider.

’797 Patent Infringement Allegations

Palo Alto Networks asserts that its firewalls do not infringe claim 1 because they do not perform the claimed functions of "estimating an elevation angle of the UE" or "calculating a UE position based on the... elevation angle" (Compl. ¶44). The complaint states that the accused firewalls "do not perform any NG-RAN (Next Generation Radio Access Network) positioning methods" (Compl., p. 11:1-2).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: This presents a direct factual dispute over the technical capabilities of the accused products. What evidence demonstrates that the PA-400 Series firewalls actually perform the specific elevation angle estimation and position calculation steps required by the claim?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’563 Patent

• The Term: "coordinating device"
• Context and Importance: The identity and location of the "coordinating device" is central to the divided infringement issue. If the term is construed to mean a component of the core network infrastructure controlled by a third-party carrier, Palo Alto Networks' non-infringement argument may be strengthened.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for a "method," and the specification discusses a "coordinated network," which could suggest that the "coordinating device" is simply the functional entity that performs the coordination, wherever it resides in the system (’563 Patent, col. 4:37-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description consistently depict the "coordinating device" (e.g., "DEVICE X / COORDINATOR") as one of the peer devices within the local wireless network it manages, not a remote network element (’563 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). This may support a narrower construction limited to devices within the local ad-hoc system.

’797 Patent

• The Term: "calculating a UE position based on the TOA/TDOA measurements and the elevation angle"
• Context and Importance: Palo Alto Networks’ defense relies on its products not performing this function. The construction of this term will determine what specific actions constitute "calculating," which is critical for assessing infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the functional term "calculating" without reciting a specific algorithm. This could support an interpretation where any process that uses the specified inputs to determine a position meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific mathematical approaches for this calculation, including using a modified Jacobian matrix and an iterative least-squares method (’797 Patent, col. 8:56-62, FIG. 8). A party could argue that the term "calculating" should be construed in light of these specific embodiments, potentially narrowing its scope to those or equivalent methods.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Intellectros accused Palo Alto Networks of infringement by "instructing Palo Alto Networks customers to use" the accused firewalls, suggesting an allegation of induced infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶36).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "willfully or otherwise," acknowledging that Intellectros’s letter of November 10, 2025 established pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶27, ¶37).

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

1. A central issue for the ’563 Patent will be one of divided infringement: Can the claim, which requires steps performed by a "coordinating device," be directly infringed by Palo Alto Networks, when that device is allegedly a core network component operated by a third-party cellular provider?
2. The dispute over the ’797 and ’839 Patents will likely depend on a key evidentiary question of technical function: Do the accused firewalls in fact perform the specific "elevation angle" estimation (’797 Patent) and "multi radio dual connectivity" operation (’839 Patent) as claimed, or is Palo Alto Networks' characterization of the products' functionality as a simple, single-radio failover system accurate?
3. A core legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "coordinating device," described in the patent in the context of a local ad-hoc network, be construed broadly enough to encompass a remote 5G core network server? Similarly, can the term "multi radio dual connectivity" be construed to read on a device that connects to only one radio technology at a time?