Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.
| Netskope, Inc. |
| Fortinet, Inc. |
| 3:2022cv01852 |
| March 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Jacqueline Scott Corley |
| Susan van Keulen |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 Declaratory Judgement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Netskope, Inc. re #19 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 5/11/2022) |
Filing 19
ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting #18 Motion to Extend Time for Defendant Fortinet Inc. to Respond to Complaint. The deadline is extended to June 7, 2022. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2022)
|
| Filing 18 MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendant Fortinet Inc. to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint filed by Netskope, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Thomas N. Millikan, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 5/11/2022) Modified on 5/12/2022 (kkp, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 17 NOTICE to Withdraw Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint by Netskope, Inc. re #16 Stipulation (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 5/11/2022) Modified on 5/12/2022 (kkp, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 16 STIPULATION to Extend Time for Defendant Fortinet, Inc. to Respond to Complaint filed by Netskope, Inc. , Inc.. (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 5/6/2022) |
| Filing 15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Netskope, Inc.. Fortinet, Inc. served on 4/26/2022, answer due 5/17/2022. (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 4/26/2022) |
| Filing 14 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 6/23/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/30/2022 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom videoconference. (Attachments: #1 Judge Corley's Standing Order) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2022) |
| Filing 13 Please disregard. See docket number #14 . CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 6/23/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/30/2022 at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom videoconference. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2022) Modified on 4/7/2022 (ahm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/7/2022 (ahm, COURT STAFF). |
|
Filing 12
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen no longer assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 4/6/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2022)
|
| Filing 11 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (jhf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2022) |
| Filing 10 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Netskope, Inc... (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 4/6/2022) |
| Filing 9 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding a patent or trademark (Corrected) (cc: form mailed to register). (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/28/2022) |
| Filing 8 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 6/21/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/28/2022 09:30 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor. (anj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2022) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Fortinet, Inc.. (anj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2022) |
| #Electronic filing error. Incorrect Clerk of Court, the current Clerk is Mark B. Busby. Please correct and refile. Re: #3 Patent/Trademark Report filed by Netskope, Inc. (anj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2022) |
| Filing 6 Certificate of Interested Entities by Netskope, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Netskope, Inc. for Netskope, Inc.. (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/24/2022) |
| Filing 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 4/7/2022. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2022) |
| Filing 4 Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Netskope, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Netskope, Inc. for Netskope, Inc.. (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/24/2022) |
| Filing 3 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding Patents: 10,237,282, 9,225,734, 11,032,301, 10,826,941, 8,793,151 (cc: form mailed to register). (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/24/2022) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons. (Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/24/2022) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 10,237,282, 9,225,734, 11,032,301, 10,826,941, 8,793,151, AND 9,197,601 against Fortinet, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-17022654.). Filed by Netskope, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A to complaint, #2 Exhibit B to complaint, #3 Exhibit C to complaint, #4 Exhibit D to complaint, #5 Exhibit E to complaint, #6 Exhibit F to complaint, #7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Millikan, Thomas) (Filed on 3/24/2022) Modified on 3/25/2022 (anj, COURT STAFF). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Netskope, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Thomas Nathan Millikan |
| Represented By: | Andrew Nicholas Klein |
| Represented By: | Joseph P. Reid |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Fortinet, Inc. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
