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 Palo Alto Networks alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Intellectros purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district, including sending an infringement notice letter to Palo Alto Networks' executives and headquarters located there. The complaint also cites Intellectros's enforcement activities against another district-headquartered company, Fortinet, Inc., as evidence of sufficient minimum contacts.
• 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 advanced wireless communication technologies.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to methods for managing frequency reuse, 3D device positioning, and handling link failures in dual-connectivity mobile networks, technologies relevant to the 5G wireless standard.
• Key Procedural History: The action was filed in response to a "Notice of Infringement" letter and associated claim charts sent by Intellectros to Palo Alto Networks on November 10, 2025. The complaint notes that Intellectros, a non-practicing entity, has also filed infringement suits asserting the same patents against other companies, including Deere & Company and Fortinet, Inc.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-07-22	'563 Patent Priority Date
2013-01-18	'839 Patent Priority Date
2013-12-26	'797 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-19	'563 Patent Issue Date
2017-09-05	'797 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-17	'839 Patent Issue Date
2024-02-01	Google Maps capture of Defendant's listed address
2025-09-23	Intellectros files suit against Deere & Company
2025-10-08	Intellectros files suit against Fortinet, Inc.
2025-11-10	Intellectros sends notice letter to Palo Alto Networks
2026-01-15	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,036,563 - Method for achieving frequency reuse in wireless communications systems, issued May 19, 2015 ('563 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses co-channel interference that arises when multiple communications devices in close proximity attempt to use the same frequency channel concurrently, which can degrade overall system performance Compl. ¶36 '563 Patent, col. 1:49-54
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "network coordinating device" that manages frequency sharing '563 Patent, col. 2:1-4 This device obtains path quality information for various potential communication links, uses this information to determine which pairs of devices can transmit simultaneously without causing undue interference (i.e., which paths can "co-exist"), and then schedules these concurrent communications '563 Patent, abstract '563 Patent, col. 4:40-52
• Technical Importance: This method provides a systematic approach to dynamic spectrum sharing in dense wireless environments, aiming to maximize network capacity by enabling frequency reuse while controlling for interference.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies claim 1 as being asserted by Intellectros Compl. ¶36
• Independent claim 1 of the '563 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • obtaining a first path quality information for a first pair of communications devices;
  • obtaining a second path quality information for a second pair of communications devices;
  • determining multiple co-existing communications paths based on the first and second path quality information in accordance with a first predetermined rule by a coordinating device; and
  • sending channel resource allocation information to the pairs of devices to use the corresponding co-existing paths to communicate concurrently.

U.S. Patent No. 9,755,797 - Localization-based beamforming scheme for systems with multiple antennas, issued September 5, 2017 ('797 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide a cost-effective and accurate method for 3D positioning of a user device (UE) in a mobile network, avoiding the traditional need for four base stations, including one at a significantly different altitude, which can be costly to deploy '797 Patent, col. 2:11-21
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a UE uses signals from only three base stations. The UE performs standard Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) measurements and additionally estimates its own "elevation angle" based on the beamformed positioning reference signals (PRS) received from the serving base station '797 Patent, abstract '797 Patent, col. 2:32-44 This elevation angle provides the necessary third dimension of information, allowing the UE's 3D position to be calculated without a fourth base station '797 Patent, col. 3:4-9
• Technical Importance: This approach offers a more efficient way to implement 3D positioning, a critical capability for location-based services and emergency response, by leveraging beamforming capabilities inherent in modern wireless systems like 5G.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies claim 1 as being asserted by Intellectros Compl. ¶42
• Independent claim 1 of the '797 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • receiving a plurality of positioning reference signals (PRSs) from a plurality of base stations by a user equipment (UE);
  • estimating a plurality of 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 estimated LOS paths of the PRS from the serving base station;
  • determining whether the UE knows the plurality of base station positions; and
  • calculating a UE position based on the TOA/TDOA measurements and the elevation angle when the UE knows the base station positions.

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 ('839 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

The '839 Patent describes a method for managing communication links in a "multi radio dual connectivity" (MR-DC) environment, where a user device is simultaneously connected to an "anchor" base station (handling the primary connection) and a "drift" base station (handling a secondary connection) '839 Patent, abstract The invention details the configuration of separate cell groups for each connection and specifies procedures for monitoring link quality and handling link failures on either the primary or secondary cell '839 Patent, col. 3:3-9 '839 Patent, col. 9:1-4

Asserted Claims

The complaint identifies claim 1 as being asserted by Intellectros Compl. ¶48

Accused Features

Intellectros's infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused firewalls, when using their 5G capabilities, operate in an MR-DC mode and thereby practice the claimed method Compl. ¶50

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the Palo Alto Networks PA-400 Series Next-Generation Firewalls Compl. ¶30

Functionality and Market Context

The PA-400 Series are network security appliances designed for distributed enterprise branches and midsized businesses Compl. Ex. D, p. 4 The feature relevant to this dispute is the integrated 5G cellular modem available in certain models, such as the PA-415-5G, which allows the firewalls to use 5G networks for either primary or backup WAN connectivity Compl. Ex. D, p. 5 The complaint asserts that this 5G capability is used for simple failover, where the device connects to one radio access technology at a time, and not the "multi radio dual connectivity" (MR-DC) mode alleged by Intellectros Compl. ¶¶50-51 The complaint includes an image from Defendant's claim charts showing the various models within the PA-400 series Compl. Ex. D, p. 4

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'563 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) obtaining a first path quality information for each of a first set of multiple communications paths...	The accused firewall, as a 5G-compliant User Equipment (UE), obtains path quality information by receiving beam measurement reports from a 5G base station (gNB) in accordance with the 5G standard.	¶36; Ex. D, p. 6	col. 5:21-27
(b) obtaining a second path quality information for each of a second set of multiple communications paths...	The accused firewall obtains a second path quality information for a second pair of devices in the same manner as for the first pair.	¶36; Ex. D, p. 8	col. 5:21-27
(c) determining multiple co-existing communications paths based on the first and the second path quality information in accordance with a first predetermined rule by a coordinating device;	This step is allegedly performed by a "5G-NR core network device," which acts as the coordinating device. The core network determines co-existing paths by analyzing measurement reports and selecting paths with optimal signal power and minimal interference.	¶38; Ex. D, p. 11	col. 6:40-51
(d) sending channel resource allocation information to the first pair and the second pair of communications devices to use corresponding co-existing communications paths...	The 5G network (gNB) sends channel resource allocation information to the UEs to enable concurrent communication (Multi-User MIMO) using the determined co-existing paths.	¶36; Ex. D, p. 16	col. 7:15-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Divided Infringement: A central issue is whether a single entity performs all steps of the claim. Palo Alto Networks alleges that the "determining" step is performed "by a coordinating device," which Intellectros identifies as a "5G-NR core network device" Compl. ¶38 Palo Alto Networks argues that it "does not direct or control activities performed by any 5G network provider," raising the question of whether liability can be established when the accused instrumentality (the firewall) and a third-party network perform different steps of the claimed method Compl. ¶38
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether Palo Alto Networks can be held liable for the actions of a third-party network provider that performs the "determining" and "sending" steps as alleged by Intellectros.

'797 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a) receiving a plurality of positioning reference signals (PRSs) from a plurality of base stations by a user equipment (UE)...	The accused firewall, acting as a UE, receives PRS from multiple base stations as part of standard 5G positioning functionality.	¶42; Ex. D, p. 30	col. 9:30-33
b) estimating a plurality of line-of-sight (LOS) paths...for time of arrival (TOA) and time difference of arrival (TDOA) measurements;	The accused firewall, as part of the 5G-compliant DL-TDOA positioning method, estimates LOS paths from the received PRS to calculate TOA and TDOA.	¶44; Ex. D, p. 41	col. 9:34-39
c) estimating an elevation angle of the UE based on the estimated LOS paths of the PRS from the serving base station...	The accused firewall, as part of the 5G-compliant DL-AoD positioning method, allegedly estimates an elevation angle based on the PRS received from the serving base station.	¶44; Ex. D, p. 47	col. 9:40-44
e) calculating a UE position based on the TOA/TDOA measurements and the elevation angle...	The accused firewall allegedly calculates its own position using the TDOA measurements and the estimated elevation angle, facilitated by knowledge of the base station positions provided by the network.	¶44; Ex. D, p. 56	col. 10:1-5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The primary point of contention is a factual dispute over the accused product's functionality. Palo Alto Networks asserts that its firewalls "do not perform the limitations requiring 'estimating an elevation angle'" and do not "calculate a UE position based on the elevation angle" Compl. ¶44 This suggests a fundamental disagreement about whether the accused products technically perform the core steps of the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '563 Patent

• The Term: "coordinating device"
• Context and Importance: The identity of the "coordinating device" is critical to the divided infringement defense. If this term is construed to mean a network-side entity that Palo Alto Networks does not control, it may support the non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because Intellectros's own allegations identify it as a "5G-NR core network device," an entity separate from Palo Alto Networks' firewall Compl. ¶38
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly limit the location of the device. One could argue any device that "determines" co-existing paths based on the claimed inputs could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "coordinating device" as managing the network, providing timing, and allocating channel access time, functions typically associated with a central base station or network controller '563 Patent, col. 3:38-52 Figure 3 depicts the "COORDINATION MODULE" (60) as part of a distinct "DEVICE X / COORDINATOR" (23), separate from the communicating devices A and B '563 Patent, FIG. 3

For the '797 Patent

• The Term: "estimating an elevation angle of the UE"
• Context and Importance: This functional step is a cornerstone of the invention and a key point of factual dispute. The construction of "estimating" will determine what level of processing or calculation is required to meet the limitation. Palo Alto Networks' defense hinges on its assertion that the accused firewalls do not perform this function at all Compl. ¶44
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify a particular algorithm for estimation. An argument could be made that any processing of received beamformed signals that yields data related to elevation, even if indirect, constitutes "estimating."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the estimation of the elevation angle (AoD α) directly to the ability to solve for the 'z' coordinate in a 3D space, suggesting a specific, purposeful calculation rather than a mere derivation of angular data '797 Patent, col. 3:4-9 '797 Patent, FIG. 2 The detailed description suggests this is an active calculation performed to overcome the limitations of traditional OTDOA '797 Patent, col. 2:32-44

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Palo Alto Networks seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "directly or indirectly" Compl. ¶(1) Prayer for Relief This is likely a preemptive response to allegations in Intellectros's notice letter, which stated Palo Alto Networks was "instructing Palo Alto Networks customers to use" the accused firewalls, language that typically forms the basis for an induced infringement claim Compl. ¶30

Willful Infringement

The complaint also seeks a declaration of non-infringement "willfully or otherwise" Compl. ¶(1) Prayer for Relief The basis for a potential willfulness claim by Intellectros is the November 10, 2025 notice letter, which provided Palo Alto Networks with pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the infringement allegations Compl. ¶27

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

1. A question of attribution and control: For the '563 patent, can Intellectros overcome the divided infringement defense by proving that Palo Alto Networks directs or controls the "5G-NR core network device" that allegedly performs the "determining" step, or otherwise satisfies the requirements for joint infringement under a single entity theory?
2. A question of technical fact: For the '797 and '839 patents, the case will turn on an evidentiary battle over the actual operation of the accused firewalls. Does the evidence show that the PA-400 Series firewalls, when connected to a 5G network, perform the specific function of "estimating an elevation angle" as required by the '797 patent and operate in a "multi radio dual connectivity" (MR-DC) mode as required by the '839 patent, or do they, as Palo Alto Networks contends, utilize a simpler, non-infringing functionality?
3. A question of definitional scope: Can the term "user equipment (UE)" as used in the context of the '797 and '839 patents, which are directed at mobile handset technologies, be construed to read on a stationary network firewall appliance, or does this represent a fundamental mismatch between the patented invention and the accused product category?