IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FORTINET, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00206-JRG 

 (Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF FORTINET, INC. TO 

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

COMES NOW Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and hereby submits its Answer and Defenses to the Amended Complaint for Patent 

Infringement (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies Limited (“Plaintiff”). 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Fortinet admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent infringement. 

The remaining allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no 

response is required, and are therefore denied. Fortinet specifically denies that it has infringed the 

patent asserted in the Complaint. 

PARTIES 

2. Fortinet lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them. 

3. Fortinet admits that it is a Delaware corporation, that its principal place of business 

is in Sunnyvale, California, that it has a registered agent as identified in this paragraph, and that it 

is registered to do business in the state of Texas. 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 811
 2 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. Fortinet admits that Plaintiff has brought suit under the patent laws of the United 

States, Title 35 of the United States Code, but Fortinet denies that it has infringed the patent 

asserted in the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. Fortinet admits 

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 

5. For purposes of this case only, Fortinet does not deny that it is subject to specific 

jurisdiction in this District. Fortinet admits that it has an office at 6111 W. Plano Parkway, Plano, 

Texas 75093, that it is registered to do business in Texas, and that it has a registered agent as 

identified in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Fortinet otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 

5 of the Complaint. 

6. For purposes of this case only, Fortinet does not challenge venue in this District, 

but states that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is a clearly more 

convenient forum in which to litigate Plaintiff’s claims. Fortinet denies that it infringes the patent 

asserted in the Complaint. All other allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied. 

COUNT I 

[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,623,518 

7. No response is required to Plaintiff’s reference and incorporation of paragraphs 1-

6 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is deemed required, Fortinet repeats and incorporates 

by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its answers to the preceding paragraphs. 

8. Fortinet admits that the face of the ʼ518 Patent states that it is titled “Dynamic 

Access Control Lists” and bears an issue date of November 24, 2009. Fortinet further admits that 

what purports to be a copy of the ʼ518 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. Fortinet 

denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 812
 3 

9. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent and denies the allegations of 

paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

10. Fortinet admits that what purports to be a claim chart relating to claim 15 of the 

ʼ518 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 

Patent and denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent and denies the allegations of 

paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

12. Fortinet admits that paragraph 12 of the Complaint purports to include screengrabs, 

links, and references to FortiNAC documentation. To the extent the allegations of paragraph 12 

of the Complaint purport to characterize the contents of these written documents, the documents 

speak for themselves. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent and denies the allegations 

of paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

13. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent and denies the allegations of 

paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

14. Fortinet lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore, denies them. 

15. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent, denies that Plaintiff is entitled to 

any relief sought from Fortinet, and denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of the 

Complaint. 

16. Fortinet denies that it infringes the ʼ518 Patent, denies that Plaintiff is entitled to 

any relief sought from Fortinet, and denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 16 of the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 813
 4 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Fortinet denies all other allegations of the Complaint not otherwise specifically admitted 

herein. Fortinet similarly denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief against Fortinet. 

JURY DEMAND 

Fortinet admits that Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. Fortinet similarly requests a trial by 

jury. 

To the extent not expressly admitted above, the factual allegations contained in the 

Complaint are denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Subject to the responses above, and without conceding that any of the following defenses 

must necessarily be plead, or that any such defenses are not already at issue by virtue of the 

foregoing denials, Fortinet asserts the following defenses. Fortinet undertakes the burden of proof 

only as to those defenses deemed affirmative defenses by law. In addition to the defenses 

described below, Fortinet reserves the right to amend this Answer and Defenses as additional 

information is obtained. 

FIRST DEFENSE – INVALIDITY/INELIGIBILITY 

All of the claims of the Asserted Patent are invalid, unenforceable, or ineligible for 

patenting pursuant to one or more of the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, 

but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 (lack of patentable subject matter), 102 (anticipation), 103 

(obviousness), and/or 112 (indefiniteness, failure to claim the subject matter regarded as the 

invention, and failure to satisfy the written description and/or enablement requirements). 

SECOND DEFENSE - EQUITABLE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the principles of equity, 

including without limitation, by acquiescence and/or estoppel. 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 814
 5 

THIRD DEFENSE - LIMITATION ON DAMAGES AND COSTS 

Plaintiff’s claims for damages are limited or barred, in whole or in part, to the extent any 

of the claims are subject to the statutory limitations on damages and/or costs set forth in 35 U.S.C. 

§§ 286, 287 and/or 288. 

FOURTH DEFENSE – FAILURE TO MARK OR PROVIDE NOTICE 

Plaintiff’s claims for damages are barred and/or limited, in whole or in part, to the extent 

Plaintiff, its predecessors-in-interest, and/or its licensees failed to give notice of any products that 

purport to practice the Asserted Patent by marking such products or otherwise notifying Fortinet 

of the alleged infringement as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287. 

FIFTH DEFENSE – LICENSE 

Plaintiff’s claims are limited to the extent any of the claims are subject to a license and 

covenant not to sue, express and/or implied. For example, Fortinet relies on numerous component 

part suppliers and could be licensed to the extent any of those suppliers are themselves licensed. 

SIXTH DEFENSE – ENSNAREMENT 

Plaintiff cannot allege that the claims of the Asserted Patent are broad enough that an 

accused product or act would be found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because such 

a construction would ensnare the prior art, rendering the claims invalid in view of the prior art. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE - GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR 

To the extent that the Complaint accuses products or services that are provided by or for 

the government of the United States of America, there is no jurisdiction over such claims, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), outside of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

Fortinet is presently investigating the facts relating to the procurement of the Asserted 

Patent and the assertions of infringement against Fortinet and will continue to do so throughout 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 815
 6 

the discovery process. To the extent that this investigation reveals any improprieties in connection 

with such matters, Fortinet reserves the right to seek leave to amend to assert such allegations 

and/or defenses based thereon that may be appropriate. 

In addition to the defenses described above, Fortinet reserves all affirmative defenses under 

Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States and any 

other defenses, at law or in equity, which may now exist or in the future become available based 

on discovery and further factual investigation in this case. 

WHEREFORE, Fortinet requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against 

Plaintiff as follows: 

a) Adjudging and declaring that Fortinet has not infringed, directly or indirectly, and 

is not infringing, directly or indirectly, any claim of any of the’518 Patent, either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, or in any other way; 

b) Adjudging and declaring that the claims of the’518 Patent are invalid; 

c) Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, denying each and every prayer for 

relief therein, and entering judgment for Fortinet; 

d) Declaring this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and awarding Fortinet its 

costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in asserting counterclaims and defending this action; and 

e) Granting Fortinet such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary, 

just, or proper. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 816
 7 

Dated: January 30, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Melissa R. Smith 

Melissa R. Smith 

State Bar No. 24001351 

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, TX 75670 

Telephone: (903) 934-8450 

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 

Matthew C. Gaudet 

mcgaudet@duanemorris.com 

David C. Dotson 

dcdotson@duanemorris.com 

Alice E. Snedeker 

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: 404.253.6900 

Facsimile: 404.253.6901 

Brianna M. Vinci 

bvinci@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP

30 S. 17th Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: 215.979.1198 

Facsimile: 215.754.4983 

Counsel for Defendant Fortinet, Inc. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 817
 8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on January 30, 2024, a true and correct copy 

of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

will automatically send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. 

/s/ Melissa R. Smith 

 Melissa R. Smith 

Case 2:23-cv-00206-JRG Document 48 Filed 01/30/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 818