Cisco Systems, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
873 F.3d 1354
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Cisco filed a §337 complaint alleging Arista imported network switches, related software, and components that infringed six patents; the ITC investigation focused on six patents (one was later terminated).
- The ALJ found infringement of three patents (’537, ’592, ’145) and no violation as to two (’597, ’164); the Commission affirmed that result and issued a limited exclusion order barring importation of "network devices, related software and components thereof."
- Technology dispute centers on Arista’s EOS software: agents coordinate via a centralized SysDB (allegedly practicing the ’537 patent); ProcMgr is a process manager that monitors agents via filesystem artifacts (relevant to the ’597 patent).
- Claim-construction dispute for the ’537 patent turned on whether the phrase "before being stored in said database" applies to user-supplied configuration commands (Arista’s reading) or to router configuration data derived from executed commands (Cisco’s/Commission’s reading).
- The Commission found Arista’s products directly infringed the ’537 claims and that Arista induced infringement (including importation of blank switches designed to run EOS); the Commission found no infringement of the ’597 patent because ProcMgr only inferred changes rather than "detect[ing]" configuration changes.
- The court reviewed the Commission’s claim construction de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence, and affirmed the Commission’s final determination and limited exclusion order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cisco) | Defendant's Argument (Arista) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of ’537 phrase "before being stored in said database" | The phrase requires storage of user-supplied configuration commands in the database | Grammatically, the clause modifies "executed," so it requires storing the user-supplied commands | The court affirmed the Commission: the phrase requires storage of router configuration data (not raw user commands) based on claims, spec, and prosecution history |
| Direct/indirect infringement of ’537 by accused products | Arista’s switches and EOS (SysDB) perform claimed functions; sales/marketing and blank switches induce post-importation infringement | Blank switches are noninfringing hardware until software is loaded domestically; components alone aren’t separately proven material | Substantial evidence supports direct infringement; Commission’s findings of induced infringement and that blank switches are material were affirmed |
| Scope of limited exclusion order re: components | Exclusion should cover articles that induce infringement, including components designed to run EOS | Order exceeds §1337 because Commission didn’t make separate findings that imported components contribute/induce infringement | Affirmed: Commission sufficiently found components ("switch hardware") are designed to run EOS and induce infringement, so exclusion of components is proper |
| Infringement of ’597 (logging module detects change) | ProcMgr’s inference of subsystem status is a form of "detecting" configuration changes; thus Arista infringes | ProcMgr lacks access to agents’ configurations and only infers changes (heartbeat timestamps), so it does not "detect" configuration changes | Affirmed noninfringement: substantial evidence shows ProcMgr only infers changes and does not detect configuration changes as claimed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLorme Publ’g Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction reviewed de novo; extrinsic subsidiary facts for clear error)
- Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; infringement is a factual determination)
- Hyundai Elecs. Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204 (Fed. Cir.) (Commission’s remedy reviewed for abuse of discretion; broad remedial discretion)
- Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (Commission may bar imports of goods that induce post-importation direct infringement)
- Poly-Amer., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir.) (exacting standard for prosecution disclaimer/disavowal)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (claim terms given ordinary meaning, informed by specification and prosecution history)
- Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC, 824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir.) (use of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in claim construction)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.) (ambiguous prosecution statements cannot form basis for disavowal)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (substantial evidence standard described)