StageSeries B | Alive
Last Raised$725M | 2 yrs ago
Mosaic Score The Mosaic Score is an algorithm that measures the overall financial health and market potential of private companies.
+30 points in the past 30 days
About Forte Labs
Forte Labs is a blockchain gaming company. It aims to upgrade the games industry with accessible blockchain technology that benefits players and developers. It was founded in 2018 and is based in San Francisco, California.
Missing: Forte Labs's Product Demo & Case Studies
Promote your product offering to tech buyers.
Reach 1000s of buyers who use CB Insights to identify vendors, demo products, and make purchasing decisions.
Missing: Forte Labs's Product & Differentiators
Don’t let your products get skipped. Buyers use our vendor rankings to shortlist companies and drive requests for proposals (RFPs).
Research containing Forte Labs
Get data-driven expert analysis from the CB Insights Intelligence Unit.
CB Insights Intelligence Analysts have mentioned Forte Labs in 4 CB Insights research briefs, most recently on Jul 29, 2022.
Jul 29, 2022Where a16z is investing in crypto and blockchain
Mar 1, 2022 reportThe Blockchain 50: The top blockchain companies of 2022
Sep 7, 202180+ Companies Shaping The Blockchain Landscape
Expert Collections containing Forte Labs
Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.
Forte Labs is included in 4 Expert Collections, including Unicorns- Billion Dollar Startups.
Unicorns- Billion Dollar Startups
Companies in this collection build, apply, and analyze blockchain and cryptocurrency technologies for business or consumer use cases. Various industries include financial services, trade finance, supply chain, enterprise tech, consumer and retail, and healthcare.
Gaming companies are defined as those developing technologies for the PC, console, mobile, and/or AR/VR video gaming market.
Forte Labs Patents
Forte Labs has filed 4 patents.
The 3 most popular patent topics include:
- Alternative currencies
Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains, Alternative currencies, Bitcoin, Cryptography
Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains, Alternative currencies, Bitcoin, Cryptography
Latest Forte Labs News
May 16, 2023
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=b8951121-371c-4464-8682-9185ec7f605a" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> Blockchain had a challenging year but continues to grow as a technology with broad applicability. Here, we update our previous article on the state of blockchain patents and patent litigation with an overview of the landscape of patents and patent litigations in the space. Filing and Allowance of Blockchain Patents Slows The number of new patent applications filed and published stabilized in 2022 and looks to plateau by the end of 2023. This leveling-off was not unexpected after the exuberance for everything crypto that continued into late 2021 cooled. Further, this leveling-off will likely continue as we get farther from the start of the crypto bear market. The steepness of decline in the graph below is due to only having partial data for 2023. Patent Applications Published and Patents Issued for Blockchain Technology on an Annual Basis Cumulative Patents Issued for Blockchain Technology Number of Blockchain Patent Litigations Increases As we anticipated in our 2021 article, more patent litigation related to blockchain has started as companies may want to extract value from their patents. Since then, several new cases that will impact the future of blockchain patent litigation have been filed. The issue of patent eligibility (i.e., 35 U.S.C. §101) remains an important hurdle for blockchain patents in litigation. As we discussed previously , the district court case of Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, LLC served as an initial test case, where the court found the claims patent ineligible. While patent ineligibility has continued to be a universally asserted defense in blockchain patent cases, most accused infringers have not immediately moved to dismiss the complaint based on patent eligibility. This follows a general trend where courts are more inclined to look at this issue later in the case after the factual record has been developed, particularly when a patentee has alleged facts supporting patent eligibility in its complaint. TD Professional Services v. Truyo Incorporated et al.  TD Professional accuses Truyo of infringing two of its patents because its platform uses blockchain to assist in complying with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The case is currently the most progressed patent case that directly involves blockchain technology, as the court has issued a claim construction order . The order construed numerous blockchain-related terms such as “blockchain miners” and “private blockchain.” While the plaintiff did not move to dismiss the case based on patent eligibility, the court relied on multiple citations to responses by the patentee to Section 101 rejections in its claim construction order. It will be interesting to see whether the defendant moves on patent ineligibility during summary judgment, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) considered the issue of patent eligibility and confirmed the claims. Veritaseum Capital, LLC v. Coinbase Global et al. / Veritaseum Capital, LLC v. Circle Internet Financial Limited et al.  Veritaseum asserts its patent in two cases against Coinbase and Circle, with both being accused of infringement for their running of validators in proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains like Ethereum. In its case, Coinbase filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Veritaseum’s infringement claims were implausible on their face and that the asserted claims were patent ineligible. Specifically, Coinbase alleged that the claimed subject matter is directed to the abstract concept of processing economic transactions using a decentralized digital currency network without needing a trusted intermediary. Coinbase argued that the claims fail to recite an inventive concept because they rely on generic computer components and data, recite conventional blockchain features, such as a distributed ledger, and use generic public key encryption techniques. This motion has not been ruled on yet. An interesting turn from this case is that an order in another case indicated that Veritaseum might not have standing to sue because the inventor had improperly assigned the patent to himself, an issue that is currently subject to discovery. The case is presently stayed to allow the plaintiff time to hire new counsel after the passing of his attorney. In the later-filed case against Circle, Circle filed a motion to dismiss for (1) lack of personal jurisdiction because Veritaseum did not name Circle’s U.S. entity and (2) lack of standing because the same issue related to the patent being improperly assigned. This motion was not fully briefed because the case was also stayed to allow the plaintiff time to hire new counsel. Pardalis Technology Licensing, L.L.C. v. International Business Machines Corporation  This case involves seven patents on tracking and controlling a supply chain distribution system using an “immutable ledger” asserted against many IBM blockchain products, including those involving the well-known Hyperledger technology. IBM answered the complaint and asserted that the patents were not infringed and were invalid on multiple grounds. The court has issued a schedule in the case, and the trial is scheduled for August 2024. Forte Labs, Inc. v. Pocketful of Quarters, Inc.  Here, Forte requested a declaratory judgment that Pocketful of Quarters’ (PoQ) patent related to blockchain gaming is invalid and, therefore, not infringed by Forte. Forte alleged that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and that there is invalidating prior art. Forte further alleged that it was in reasonable apprehension of being sued because the COO of PoQ stated at a conference that Forte infringed the patent and had copied PoQ’s technology. PoQ has moved to dismiss the request for declaratory judgment because it claimed that it was an “off the cuff” statement at a conference and it was not reasonable for Forte to believe it was about to be sued. The motion is currently awaiting action by the court. True Return Systems, LLC v. MakerDAO / True Return Systems, LLC v. Compound Protocol  These cases involve True Return’s assertion of a patent against two distributed organizations. These cases have a complicated history that we previously examined here . Since that article was published, Compound Labs Inc. has requested to intervene in the case against the “Compound Protocol,” arguing that the protocol is “just software” and that Compound Labs is the real party in interest.  TD Pro. Servs. v. Truyo Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00018-MTL (D. Ariz.).  Veritaseum Cap., LLC v. Circle Internet Fin. Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00498-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. ), and Veritaseum Cap., LLC v. Coinbase Glob., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01253 (D. Del.).  Pardalis Tech. Licensing, L.L.C. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00452-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).  Forte Labs, Inc. v. Pocketful of Quarters, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-04982-YGR (N.D. Cal.).  True Return Sys., LLC v. MakerDAO, No. 1:22-cv-08478-VSB (S.D.N.Y. ), and True Return Sys., LLC v. Compound Protocol, No. 1:22-cv-08483-JPC (S.D.N.Y. ).
Forte Labs Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
When was Forte Labs founded?
Forte Labs was founded in 2018.
Where is Forte Labs's headquarters?
Forte Labs's headquarters is located at Post Office Box 191373, San Francisco.
What is Forte Labs's latest funding round?
Forte Labs's latest funding round is Series B.
How much did Forte Labs raise?
Forte Labs raised a total of $910M.
Who are the investors of Forte Labs?
Investors of Forte Labs include Andreessen Horowitz, Animoca Brands, zVentures, Polygon Studios, Solana Ventures and 14 more.
Who are Forte Labs's competitors?
Competitors of Forte Labs include YGG Japan and 7 more.
Compare Forte Labs to Competitors
Immutable offers blockchain services and developed decentralized games. It offers instant wallet onboarding, nonfungible token (NFT) mining tools, maximizing distribution and demand, NFT trading, and more. It was formerly known as Fuel Games. It was founded in 2018 and is based in Sydney, Australia.
Oasys offers an eco-friendly blockchain for the gaming community. The platform provides blockchain technology solutions to the gaming industry. It focuses on creating an ecosystem for gamers and developers to distribute and develop blockchain-based games. The company was founded in 2021 and is based in Singapore.
Chia Network develops a blockchain and smart transaction platform. It is based on storage-based mining. It enables bitcoin miners and traditional financial institutions to purchase and deploy a cryptocurrency through a decentralized platform. It was founded in 2017 and is based in South San Francisco, California.
Provenance Blockchain provides production blockchain protocol. The company provides an online platform that acts like a global ledger, registry, and exchange across assets and markets and it facilitates loans to be originated, financed, sold, and securitized. The company was founded in 2018 and is based in San Francisco, California.
Albus Finance is a regulatory compliant platform, which allows to digitalize real world assets and bring fiat institutions to the crypto market. It also includes directly integrated AML procedures and DeFi smart contracts. It is based in Wollerau, Switzerland.
Stardust operates as a software company developing a metaverse platform. The platform enables game developers to utilize blockchain technology and implement non-fungible tokens (NFTs) into their games. It was founded in 2018 and is based in Palo Alto, California.
Discover the right solution for your team
The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.