547 F.Supp.3d 112
D. Mass.2021Background
- Egenera sued Cisco for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 alleging Cisco’s Unified Computing System (UCS) practices the claimed platform for deploying virtual processing area networks.
- Court previously construed “logic to modify” as a means-plus-function term tied to specific structures (virtual LAN server 335, virtual LAN proxy 340, physical LAN driver 345; storage configuration logic 605); claim construction was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- A bench trial found an inventor (Peter Schulter) was wrongly omitted, invalidating the patent; the Federal Circuit held the omission was correctable and reinstated Schulter, remanding for further proceedings.
- Key factual disputes on remand concern: whether Cisco’s configConfMos command “specifies a number of processors” given claim construction of “processor” as a CPU; whether CPUs (vs. virtual NICs/I/O modules) satisfy the claim’s Ethernet-emulation limitations; and sufficiency of Egenera’s virtual marking for pre-suit damages.
- Parties cross-moved on infringement, unclean hands, anticipation, injunctive relief, pre-suit damages, willfulness/indirect infringement, and sought exclusion of damages/infringement expert opinions (Drs. Jones, Sullivan, Becker).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclean hands | Egenera: inventors’ trial testimony was consistent with prior claim positions and not egregious misconduct. | Cisco: inventors (hired consultants) testified falsely to preserve the patent. | Egenera: motion allowed; Cisco: summary judgment denied. No dismissal. |
| Infringement — "specifying a number of processors" | Egenera: configConfMos specifies a server with a known CPU count (via model), satisfying the limitation. | Cisco: configConfMos lacks an explicit numerical-CPU parameter and maps to a processing node, not a CPU. | Denied summary judgment for Cisco; jury question remains (no categorical noninfringement). |
| Infringement — Ethernet emulation limitation | Egenera: CPUs participate via use of virtual MACs and virtual interfaces; emulation need not be solely on CPUs. | Cisco: Ethernet emulation resides in virtual NICs/I/O modules, not CPUs, so limitation not met. | Summary judgment granted for Cisco as to claims 1 and 5 (CPUs do not show required emulation). |
| Exclude Dr. Jones (infringement) | Egenera: Dr. Jones applied court’s constructions and gave plausible mapping of UCS. | Cisco: Dr. Jones ignored CPU construction and equated processors to nodes. | Motion denied, subject to clarifying diagram labels to map "computer processors" to CPUs. |
| Anticipation | Egenera: prior art lacks a control node connected to internal network; PTAB refused to institute. | Cisco: expert charts map prior systems (e.g., Catalyst) to claim elements; control node need not be physically distinct. | Egenera’s no-anticipation motion denied; factual issues remain. |
| Injunctive relief entitlement | Egenera: continues to sell PAN Manager and competes; delay was justified. | Cisco: long pre-suit delay, ceased selling hardware, has licensed tech — money damages adequate. | Cisco motion denied as premature; issue reserved for post-trial. |
| Pre-suit damages / marking (35 U.S.C. §287) | Egenera: used virtual marking (website listing patents + manuals) as constructive notice beginning 2013. | Cisco: virtual marking insufficient; hardware combinations could have been physically marked; licensees/distributors not marked. | Court granted Cisco summary judgment in part: Egenera not entitled to pre-suit damages (marking insufficient). |
| Exclude Dr. Sullivan (reasonable royalty — cost-savings/TCO method) | Egenera: TCO savings are economic basis for per-server royalty; acquisition and apportionment methods valid. | Cisco: TCO does not equal Cisco revenue; Dr. Sullivan includes non-accused components; TCO-based revenue link unsupported. | Dr. Sullivan’s cost-savings/TCO analysis excluded; other valuation methods survived. |
| Exclude Dr. Becker (Cisco’s damages) | Cisco: used Egenera’s company valuation and apportioned value to derive royalty; plausible market-based approach. | Egenera: capping at company valuation ignores value of Cisco’s use and is improper. | Denied — Dr. Becker’s methodology deemed sufficiently plausible for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933) (doctrine of unclean hands requires misconduct directly related to litigation equity).
- Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for equitable defenses like unclean hands).
- Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (experts must apply the court’s claim constructions).
- Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (summary-judgment standard for noninfringement and literal/equivalent infringement).
- TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (anticipation requires a single prior art reference disclosing every claim element).
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) (invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence).
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for injunctive relief in patent cases).
- Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (2015) (knowledge requirement for induced infringement; reasonableness of noninfringement belief).
- Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) (standards for willful infringement and enhanced damages).
- Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (separateness of claim elements and limits on collapsing distinct elements in prior-art mapping).
- Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE–USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (jury may infer missing explicit claim detail from functional/operational evidence).
- AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (value of a patented combination can include value of conventional elements when the combination yields new marketable value).
- McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.P.A., 712 F. Supp. 2d 283 (D. Del. 2010) (virtual marking on software/login screens may be insufficient to associate patents with specific products).