Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Cisco ITC Complaint - Investigation I

3,758 views

Published on

On December 19, 2014, Cisco formally asked the US International Trade Commission for an injunction (in ITC parlance, an “exclusion order”) blocking Arista from importing and selling products that use Cisco’s patented technologies in the United States.

This is a copy of complaint 1.

Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler blogged on the rationale for this filing here: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/protecting-innovation-cisco-seeks-injunctive-relief

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cisco ITC Complaint - Investigation I

  1. 1. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. In the Matter of CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED Investigation No. SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (I) COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED COMPLAINANT PROPOSED RESPONDENT Cisco Systems, Inc. Arista Networks, Inc. 170 W Tasman Drive 5453 Great America Parkway San Jose, California 95134 Santa Clara, California 95054 Phone: (408) 526-4000 Phone: (408) 547-5500 COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT Steven Cherny Brian Paul Gearing KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 446-4800 | Fax: (212) 446-4900 Adam R. Alpcr KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415)439-1400 | Fax: (415) 439-1500 Michael W. De Vries KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 680-8400 | Fax: (213) 680-8500 1). Sean Trainor KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15"‘ Street. N. W. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 879-5000 | Fax: (202) 879-5200
  2. 2. TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537. 2. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296. 3. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164. 4. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597. 5. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592. 6. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145. 7. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537. 8. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 8,3 56,296. 9. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164. 10. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597. 11. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 6,741 ,592. 12. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145. 13. Confirmation of patent assignment. 14. Receipt from USPTO of recordation of patent assignment. 15. Cisco Systems, Inc. 2014 Annual Report. 16. Chart Depicting How Cisco’s Asserted Patents Are Practiced by Cisco’s Products 17. List of licensees and parties in receipt of a covenant not to assert for Cisco’s Asserted Patents (CONFIDENTIAL). 18. U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537 Infringement Claim Chart. 19. U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296 Infringement Claim Chart. 20. U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164 Infringement Claim Chart. 21. U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597 Infringement Claim Chart.
  3. 3. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592 Infringement Claim Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145 Infringement Claim Chart. Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014. Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014. Arista Press Release stating Studio Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T series switches, July 18, 2013. Studio Test Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis Missouri company, captured September 15, 2014. Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series switch, October 2, 2013. Cloudera website showing it is a California company, captured September 15, 2014. Arista Customer Case Study on America Internet Services’ use of Arista 7048T and 70508 switches, 2012. Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohio’s use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series switches, 2012. Arista Press Release and Customer Testimonials that Headlands Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19, 2012. Headlands Technologies website showing it is a California and Illinois company, captured September 15, 2014. Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 7280E series switches, July 15, 2014. Arista Press Release that T1'i—State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300/7300X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014. CDW website advertisement for Arista switches, captured September 15, 2014. Import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in California. Receipts of purchase of Arista Products. Photos of purchased product of Arista Products. 2
  4. 4. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 52. 54. 56. 57. 59. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) Code for Accused Products. Complaint, C isco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. , Case No. 14-cv- 5344. Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States (available at https2// www. youtube. com/ watch? v=xwRPA2PJsiI) Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States (available at https: //www. youtube. com/ watch‘? v=hBYvzNdT22k) Screenshots from video showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States (https: //www. youtube. com/ watch? v=9KkMiIzrXvg) Ingram Micro to Distribute Arista Products in United States Arista Redefines Cloud Networking with 7000 X Series Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company Declaration of Collin Sacks (CONFIDENTIAL). U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537 Domestic Industry Chart (CONFIDENTIAL). U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597 Domestic Industry Chart (CONFIDENTIAL). U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145 Domestic Industry Chart. Fortune Magazine’s Best Companies 2014. Tight battle for 2nd place after Cisco in Infonetics’ enterprise networking infrastructure scorecard, INFONETICS RESEARCH, July 24, 2014. Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switch Data Sheet. Cisco Catalyst 6500-E Series Chassis Data Sheet. Cisco Catalyst 6880-X Series Extensible Fixed Aggregation Switch Data Sheet. 3
  5. 5. 60. 62. 64. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 72. Cisco Catalyst Switch Module 3110 for IBM BladeCenter Data Sheet. Cisco Nexus 3548 and 3524 Switches Data Sheet. Cisco Nexus 5600 Platform Switches Data Sheet. Cisco Nexus 6001 Switch Data Sheet. Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches Data Sheet. Cisco Nexus 9500 Platform Switches Data Sheet. Cisco ASR 901 Series Aggregation Services Routers Data Sheet. Cisco ASR 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers Data Sheet. Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers Data Sheet. Cisco CRS l6—Slot Single—Shelf System Data Sheet. Cisco Industrial Ethernet 3000 Layer 2/Layer 3 Series Switches Data Sheet. Cisco 2520 Connected Grid Switch Data Sheet. Cisco XR 12000 Series and Cisco 12000 Series Routers.
  6. 6. APPENDICES Appendix Item Description A. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537. B. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296. C. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164. D. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597. E. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592. F. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145, G. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537. H. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296. >—< F‘ Exhibits for charted Arista Products. Exhibits for charted Cisco Products. Accused Product Data Sheets. -”°.0.Z§l“W Compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145.
  7. 7. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. I II. COMPLAINANT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..3 III. THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .5 IV. THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .5 V. THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INVENTIONS . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..6 A. Nontechnical Description of the ‘537 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..6 B. Nontechnical Description of the ‘296 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..7 C. Nontechnical Description of the ‘ I64 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..8 D. Nontechnical Description of the ‘597 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..9 E. Nontechnical Description of the ‘592 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .I0 F. Nontechnical Description of the ‘ 145 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .1I G. Foreign Counterparts . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .ll H. Licensees . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . . 12 VI. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT—~PATENT INFRINGEMENT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .12 A. Infringement of the ‘537 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 12 B. Infringement of the ‘296 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. l5 C. Infringement of the ‘I64 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..17 D. Infringement of the ‘597 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. I9 E. Infringement of the ‘592 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .2I F. Infringement of the ‘I45 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .23 VII. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..26 VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..30 IX. RELATED LITIGATION . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .30 X. THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..30 A. Cisco’s Practice of Cisco’s Asserted Patents . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .31 B. United States Investments in the Domestic Industry . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .32 1. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §I337(a)(3)(A) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .33 2. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §I337(a)(3)(B) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .34 3. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §I337(a)(3)(C) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .35 XI. RELIEF REQUESTED . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .37
  8. 8. I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Complaint is filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Ciseo’° or “Complainant”) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U. S.C. § 1337, based on the unlawful importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, the sale within the United States after importation, and/ or the use within the United States after importation by the proposed Respondent of certain networking equipment and components and software thereof that infringe certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,162,537 (“the ‘537 patent”), 8,3 56,296 (“the ‘296 patent”), 7,290,164 (“the ‘I64 patent”), 7,340,597 (“the ‘597 patent”), 6,741,592 (“the ‘592 patent”), and 7,200,145 (“the ‘I45 patent”) (collectively, “Cisco’s Asserted Patents”) either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 2. Cisco is an information technology (IT) company and is the worldwide leader in developing and implementing the networking technologies that enable our interconnected world and the Intemet of Everything. Cisco employs thousands of the world’s brightest networking engineers at its headquarters in San Jose, Califomia, and elsewhere, and invests billions of dollars annually in research and development focused on creating the future of networking technologies. These investments make possible a broad range of products that enable seamless, secure communication among businesses of all sizes, institutions, telecommunications companies and other service providers, and individuals. As part of its IT business, Cisco sells innovative networking products that transport data, voice, and video within buildings, across campuses, and around the world. 3. The proposed Respondent Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista” or “Respondent”) develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the United States, sells after importation into the United States, and uses after importation into the United States networking
  9. 9. equipment and components and software therein, such as switches and their components, operating systems, and/ or other software (collectively, the “Accused Products”). As set forth in Section VII below, the Accused Products are manufactured abroad in locations such as China and Malaysia, and are imported for sale into the United States. The Accused Products incorporate, without any license from Cisco, many technologies developed by Cisco and protected by patents owned by Cisco. The patents—in-suit and their asserted claims (independent claims in bold) are listed below: Patent Number Asserted Claims ’ . _ L I 1 (Independent Claims In Bold) ‘537 Patent 1-2, 8-9, 10-11, and 17-19 ‘296 Patent 1, 6, 12 ’164 Patent 1, 5-6, 9, 18 ‘597 Patent 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, 84- 86 ‘592 Patent 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 l ‘145 Patent 1, 3, 5, 7, 8-10, 11, 13, 15, 16-17, 18, 19-21, 22-24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29, 33-35, 36-37, 39-46 4. Certified copies of Cisco’s Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits I-6. Cisco owns all rights, title, and interest in each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including the right to sue for infringement. Certified copies of the assignment records for each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in Exhibits 13 and 14, additional assignments and recordation of the assignments were completed recently, and certified copies of the updated assignment records are not yet available from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The updated certified copies of the assignment records will be supplied when available from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Exhibits 13 and 14. 5. A domestic industry as required by 19 U. S.C. §§ 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the United States relating to articles protected by Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including significant 2
  10. 10. investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including through engineering, research, and development. 6. Cisco seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under 19 U. S.C. § l337(d) barring from entry into the United States directly-infringing and/ or indirectly- infringing networking equipment and components and software manufactured, sold, or used by or on behalf of Respondent. Cisco further seeks as relief a permanent cease and desist order under 19 U. S.C. § I337(t) prohibiting Respondent from marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, warehousing inventory for distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing into the United States infringing networking equipment and/ or their components and software. II. COMPLAINANT 7. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, having its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California, 95134. Cisco is the assignee of Cisco’s Asserted Patents, with the right to sue for all infringement thereof. 8. Founded in 1984, Cisco is an IT company that has become the worldwide leading supplier of, among other things, networking products. Cisco has significant operations in the United States, including with respect to Cisco’s Asserted Patents. Cisco has research, development, testing, engineering, manufacturing, assembly, packaging, installation, customer service, repair, product support, sales and marketing, and business offices in more than 100 United States locations, and has its headquarters in San Jose, California. Cisco employs about 35,000 employees in the United States — nearly as many as in the rest of the world combined. Cisco also works with tens-of-thousands of contractors, vendors, and interns in the United States.
  11. 11. Additional information concerning Cisco can be obtained from its 2014 Annual Report at Exhibit 1 5. 9. Cisco’s networking products, specifically Cisco’s routing and switching products, use the inventions claimed in Cisco’s Asserted Patents. As explained in more detail in the chart included as Exhibit 16, one or more of Cisco’s Asserted Patents is implemented in the Cisco Nexus switches (including at least the Nexus 3000, 5000, 6000, 7000, and 9000 series), the Cisco Catalyst switches (including at least the Catalyst 4500, 6500, and 6800 series), the XR 12000 Series Router, the Cisco Carrier Routing Systems (CRS), the Cisco Aggregation Services Routers (ASR) (including at least the ASR 901, 1000, and 9000), the Cisco Catalyst Blade Switches (CBS) (including at least the CBS 3110-40), the Cisco Metro Ethernet (ME) switches (including at least the Cisco ME 4900 series), the Cisco Connected Grid Switches (CGS) (including at least the CGS 2520 series), and the Cisco Industrial Internet switches (including at least the 3000 series). 10. Cisco researched and developed the technologies that are protected by Cisco’s Asserted Patents. Cisco is the full owner of all rights and title to all of Cisco’s Asserted Patents. Certified copies of the relevant assignment records are attached at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in Exhibits 13 and 14, additional assignments and recordation of the assignments were completed recently, and certified copies of the updated assignment records are not yet available from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The updated certified copies of the assignment records will be supplied when available from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Exhibits 13 and 14. 11. Cisco has made and continues to make significant investments in the design and development of products protected by Cisco’s Asserted Patents. In the United States, Cisco
  12. 12. exploits the technologies covered by Cisco’s Asserted Patents through various activities, including substantial research and development, engineering, manufacturing, assembly, installation, and product and warranty support among others, as discussed more fully in Section X below. In connection with the exploitation of these technologies, Cisco has made significant investments in the United States in facilities, equipment, labor, and capital, also as described in Section X below. III. THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT 12. On information and belief, Arista Networks, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 5453 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, Califomia 95054. 13. On information and belief, Arista develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the United States, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States networking equipment and components and software therein, including switches, operating systems, and other software, as further described in Section VI below. IV. THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE 14. The technologies at issue relate to networking equipment and certain components and software therein. 15. Specifically, the Accused Products include network devices, such as switches, and their components, and software, such as operating systems and other software. These switches, components, operating systems, and other software are imported into the United States and in turn used by businesses, institutions, service providers, and other entities in the United States to supply networks and transport data, voice, and video. By way of example, the Accused Products
  13. 13. may be deployed in data centers or dedicated computing center environments in connection with an organization’s servers, associated data, and/ or IT applications and between such items and other networks such as the Internet. The Accused Products are sold for importation into, imported into, sold after importation into, and used within the United States by or on behalf of Respondent. V. THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INVENTIONS 16. As set forth below, Cisco owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents. See Exhibits 7-12. 17. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2I0.I2(c), copies of the certified prosecution histories of each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents have been submitted with this Complaint as Appendices A-F. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2I0.I2(c), the cited references for each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents also have been submitted with this Complaint as Appendices G—L. A. Nontechnical Description of the ‘537 Patent1 18. United States Patent No. 7,162,537, entitled “Method and System for Externally Managing Router Configuration Data in Conjunction With a Centralized Database, ” issued on January 9, 2007 and lists Pradeep Kathail as its inventor. The ‘537 patent expires on January 6, 2020. The ‘537 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 09/479,607. 19. The ‘537 patent contains 22 claims, including 3 independent claims and 19 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 10-11 and I7- 1 These descriptions and any other descriptions within this Complaint are for illustrative purposes only. Nothing contained within this Complaint is intended to, either implicitly or explicitly, express any position regarding the proper construction of any claim of Cisco’s Asserted Patents.
  14. 14. 19, and method claims 1-2 and 8-9 of the ‘537 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 20. The ‘537 patent generally relates to a system and method for managing data in networking devices and networking operating systems. The ‘537 patent can, among other things, improve the performance and/ or increase the resiliency of switching devices. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘537 patent provides an apparatus and method for externally managing networking data in conjunction with a database system called “sysDB. ” The sysDB can provide a centralized storage and retrieval facility for configuration data that is used by subsystems of a networking operating system. In one aspect of the invention, certain configuration data can be managed externally from the sysDB by one of the client subsystems. Among other things, the invention of the ‘537 may enhance a networking device’s ability to store and retrieve networking device configuration data while allowing the various subsystems of that device to remain modular and independent. B. Nontechnical Description of the ‘296 Patent 21. United States Patent No. 8,356,296, entitled “Method and System for Minimal Disruption During Software Upgrade or Reload of a Network Device, ” issued on January 15, 2013 and lists John Thomas Welder, Ratheesh Krishna Vadhyar, Sudhir Rao, and Thomas W. Uban as its inventors. The ‘296 patent expires on January 26, 2024. The ‘296 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 12/852,265, filed on August 6, 2010. The ‘296 patent claims priority to U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/646,453, filed on August 21, 2003. 22. The ‘296 patent contains 18 claims, including 3 independent claims and 15 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claim 12 and method
  15. 15. claims I and 6 of the ‘296 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 23. The ‘296 patent relates generally to network devices, and more particularly to a system and method for reloading and/ or upgrading software in network devices with minimal disruption. The ‘296 patent can, among other things, improve the availability and reduce the downtime of a network device during a software upgrade. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘296 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses that copy certain data to a predetermined region of memory, temporarily suspend software operations associated with one or more data plane components of a network device during a software reset, and then, before the communication session is terminated, recover execution of the software operations. Among other things, the invention of the ‘296 Patent can allow network devices to maintain the continuity of communication sessions and be upgraded with minimal delays or network effects. C. Nontechnical Description of the ‘164 Patent 24. United States Patent No. 7,290,164, entitled “Method of Reverting to a Recovery Configuration in Response to Device Faults, ” issued on October 30, 2007 and lists Andrew G. Harvey, John Ng, and Gilbert R. Woodman, III as its inventors. The ‘I64 patent expires on June 7, 2025. The ‘164 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/792,946, filed on March 3, 2004. 25. The ‘164 patent contains 38 claims, including 5 independent claims and 33 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claim 18 and method claims I, 5, 6, 9 of the ‘164 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
  16. 16. 26. The ‘164 patent relates generally to a system and method for provisioning network devices and to improved capabilities for changing the configuration of network devices. The ‘ 164 patent can, among other things, improve performance while reducing the time it takes to configure a device. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘164 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for changing the configuration of network devices that include a recovery configuration for a network device to revert to in the event the network device has a loss of connectivity resulting from the configuration change. Among other things, the invention supports the recovery of connectivity by a networking device where its configuration file is lost or modified. D. Nontechnical Description of the ‘597 Patent 27. United States Patent No. 7,340,597, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Securing a Communications Device Using a Logging Module, ” issued on March 4, 2008 and lists David R. Cheriton as its inventor. The ‘597 patent expires on January 26, 2026. The ‘597 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/664,551, filed on September 19, 2003. 28. The ‘597 patent contains 110 claims, including 5 independent claims and 105 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 1, 14, 15, 29, 71-73, 84-86 and method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 29. The ‘597 patent relates generally to the field of information networks and communication devices, and more particularly, to a system and method for securing a communications device using a logging module. The ‘597 patent can, among other things, improve the security of a networking device. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘597 patent provides a logging module coupled to a subsystem of the device which detects and 9
  17. 17. communicates configuration changes of the subsystem. Among other things, the invention can improve the security of a networking device without placing unrealistic demands on the system, either in terms of complexity or restricted configurability. E. Nontechnical Description of the ‘592 Patent 30. United States Patent No. 6,741,592, entitled “Private VLANS, ” issued on May 25, 2004 and lists Thomas J. Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as its inventors. The ‘592 patent expires on May 22, 2020. The ‘592 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 09/575,774, filed on May 22, 2000. 31. The ‘592 patent contains 26 claims, including 13 independent claims and 13 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 6-10, 20-21, and 23-24 and method claims 17-18 of the ‘592 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 32. The ‘592 patent relates generally to networking devices and Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), and more particularly to secondary VLANs. The ‘592 patent can, among other things, allow for improved protection and privacy of traffic through the network device. In an aspect of the invention, the ’592 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for separating packet traffic using a switch by defining three new types of ports, “promiscuous” ports, “isolated” ports, and “community” ports, and three new types of VLANs internal to the switch, “primary” VLANs, “isolated” VLANS, and “community” VLANs. Among other things, the ‘592 patent can keep the packet traffic of different ports separate and may assist scalability to a larger number of ports in the network. 10
  18. 18. F. Nontechnical Description of the ‘145 Patent 33. United States Patent No. 7,200,145, entitled “Private VLANs, ” issued on April 3, 2007 and lists Thomas J . Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as its inventors. The ‘145 patent expires on May 22, 2020. The ‘ 145 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/840,212, filed on May 5, 2004. 34. The ‘145 patent contains 46 claims, including 25 independent claims and 21 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 and method claims 1, 18-28, 40, and 43 of the ‘145 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 35. The ‘145 patent relates generally to networking devices and Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), and more particularly to secondary VLANs. The ‘145 patent can, among other things, allow for improved protection and privacy of traffic through the network device. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘145 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for separating packet traffic using a router by defining three new types of ports, “promiscuous” ports, “isolated” ports, and “community” ports, and three new types of VLANs internal to the router, “primary” VLANs, “isolated” VLANs, and “community” VLANs. Among other things, the ‘145 patent can keep the packet traffic of different ports separate and may assist scalability to a larger number of ports in the network. G. Foreign Counterparts 36. Cisco is aware of no foreign counterparts or foreign counterpart applications corresponding to Cisco’s Asserted Patents. 11
  19. 19. H. Licensees 37. Confidential Exhibit 17 includes a list of entities that are either licensed under Cisco’s Asserted Patents or have received a covenant not to assert from Cisco with respect to Cisco’s Asserted Patents. Vl. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT——PATEN'I‘ INFRINGEMENT 38. Respondents have engaged in unlawful and unfair acts including the sale for importation into the United States, importation into the United States, sale within the United States after importation, and/ or use within the United States after importation of the Accused Products that infringe one or more of the following claims (independent claims in bold): Patent Number ‘Asserted Claims 9 (Independent Claims In Bold) ‘537 Patent 1-2, 8-9, 10-11, and 17-19 ‘296 Patent 1, 6, 12 ’l64 Patent 1, 5-6, 9, 18 ‘597 Patent 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, 84- 86 ‘592 Patent 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 ‘145 Patent 1,3,5, 7, 8-10,11,13,15, 16-17,18, 19-21, 22-24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29, 33-35, 36-37, 39-46 A. Infringement of the ‘537 Patent 39. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘537 patent. 40. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 10-11 and 17-19, and method claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 of the ‘537 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ‘537 patent by importing, selling 12
  20. 20. for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 18 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 7,162,537). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 10, 11, and 17-19 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1, 2, 8, and 9, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 705OX, 7150, 7250X, 7280B, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 41. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ‘537 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ‘537 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ’537 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’537 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘537 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of 13
  21. 21. the above, Respondent knowingly induces infiingement of the ‘537 patent with specific intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ‘537 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 42. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the ‘537 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ’537 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’537 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘537 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘537 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 43. Claim charts comparing the ‘537 patent’s asserted independent claims 1, 10, and 19 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 18. Representative Product 7150S- 52, charted at Exhibit 18, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing a manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth i11 Section Vll, below. 14
  22. 22. B. Infringement of the ‘296 Patent 44. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘296 patent. 45. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claim 12 and method claims 1 and 6 of the ‘296 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the ‘296 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 19 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 8,356,296). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 12 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes this apparatus claim by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1 and 6, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix () (Accused Products data sheets). 46. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the ‘296 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1, 15
  23. 23. 6, and 12 of the ‘296 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘296 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘296 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘296 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘296 patent with specific intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the ‘296 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 47. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the ‘296 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘296 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘296 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘296 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘296 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 48. Claim charts comparing the ‘296 patent’s asserted independent claims 1 and 12 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 19. Arista SEC disclosures state that 16
  24. 24. Arista products are manufactured abroad and imported into the United States for sale by Arista or its distribution partners. See Exhibits 24-25. For example, Arista’s Founder, Chairman, and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim exhibited a 7500E product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. Exhibits 42-43. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. C. Infringement of the ‘164 Patent 49. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘164 patent. 50. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus claim 18 and method claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 of the ‘164 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the ‘ 164 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 20 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 7,290,164). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claim 18 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes this apparatus claim by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1, 5, 6, and 9, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the Arista 17
  25. 25. 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280B, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 51. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the ‘164 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the ‘164 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘164 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘164 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘164 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘164 patent with specific intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the ‘164 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 52. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the ‘164 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘164 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘164 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded 18
  26. 26. by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘164 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘164 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 53. Claim charts comparing the ‘164 patent’s asserted independent claims 1 and 18 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 20. Representative Product 7048T-A, charted at Exhibit 20, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. D. Infringement of the ‘597 Patent 54. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘5 97 patent. 55. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus claims 1, 14, 15, 29, 71-73, 84-86 and method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 21 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 7,340,597). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 1, 14, 15, 29, 71-73, 84-86 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84- 19
  27. 27. 86, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280B, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 56. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63- 64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent. Respondent is aware of the ‘597 patent at least because the named inventor on the ‘597 patent, Mr. Cheriton, is a founder of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ‘597 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘597 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘597 patent with specific intent to do so by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 57. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63- 64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ‘597 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused 20
  28. 28. Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent is aware of the ‘597 patent at least because the named inventor on the ‘597 patent, Mr. Cheriton, is a founder of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ‘597 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘597 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘597 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘597 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 58. Claim charts comparing the ‘597 patent’s asserted independent claims 1, 39, 71, and 84 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 21. Representative Product 7l50S-52, charted at Exhibit 21, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. E. Infringement of the ‘592 Patent 59. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘592 patent. 60. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 6-10, 20-21, and 23-24 and method claims 17-18 of the ‘592 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the ‘592 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United 21
  29. 29. States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 22 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 6,741,592). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 6-10, 20-21, and 23-24 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 17 and 18, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7150, 7010, 7050, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, and 7300X series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 61. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the ‘592 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 of the ‘592 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘592 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘592 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘592 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘592 patent with 22
  30. 30. specific intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the ‘592 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 62. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the ‘592 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘592 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘592 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘5 92 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘592 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 63. Claim charts comparing the ‘592 patent’s asserted independent claims 6, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 22. Representative Product 7150S-52, charted at Exhibit 22, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. F. Infringement of the ‘145 Patent 64. On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after importation into the United States, and/ or uses after importation into the United States Accused Products that infringe the ‘ 145 patent. 23
  31. 31. 65. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 3, 5, 7-1 1, 13, 15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 and method claims 1, 18-28, 40, and 43 ofthe ‘ 145 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-1 1, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the ‘145 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 23 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 7,200,145). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 3, 5, 7-1 1, 13, 15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1, 18-28, 40, and 43, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, sellinglfor importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7150, 7010, 7050, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, and 7300X series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 66. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the ‘145 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-1 1, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the ‘145 patent. Respondent 24
  32. 32. has actual knowledge of the ‘145 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘145 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘145 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘145 patent with specific intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/ or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-1 I, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the ‘145 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 67. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the ‘145 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘145 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘145 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ‘ 145 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘145 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 68. Claim charts comparing the ‘145 patent’s asserted independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22-24, 26, 29, 33-35, and 39-46 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as 25
  33. 33. Exhibit 23. Representative Product 7150S-52, charted at Exhibit 23, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. VII. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE 69. On information and belief, Respondent, either itself or through subsidiaries or third parties acting on behalf of Respondent, is engaged in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation into the United States, and/ or use after importation into the United States of infringing networking equipment or components or software therein. The Accused Products are manufactured abroad and imported for sale into the United States. 70. According to Arista’s public statements, the Accused Products are manufactured by contract manufacturers, working closely with Arista on-site personnel, and then imported into the United States. In Arista’s June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company stated that “Our products are manufactured, assembled and tested by third-party contract manufacturers in Asia who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts. ” Exhibit 24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 17. Specifically, “[a]s of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, two suppliers provided all of our electronic manufacturing services” and the two suppliers are “Jabil Circuit and Foxconn. ” Exhibit 24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 10, 48. These contract manufacturers work closely with Arista on-site personnel and “review on an ongoing basis forecasts, inventory levels, processes, capacity, yields and overall quality, ” and Arista “retain[s] complete control over the bill of material, test procedures and quality assurance programs. ” Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 26
  34. 34. 108.] Additionally, in Arista’s June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company also stated that “[O]ur contract manufacturers [] manufacture and assemble our products and deliver them to us for labeling, quality assurance testing, final configuration and shipment to our customers. ” Exhibit 24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 27. 71. On information and belief, Arista and its distribution partners sell and have sold the imported products in the United States. See, e. g., Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 60 (“We market and sell our products through our direct sales force and in partnership with channel partners . . . 83.0% of our revenue was generated from the Americas, substantially all from the United States”); Exhibit 45 (Arista Press Release) (“Arista Networks today announced it has signed an agreement with Ingram Micro Inc. (NYSE: IM), the world’s largest technology distributor, to distribute Arista’s 10 Gigabit Ethernet data center solutions. The contract covers distribution in the United States and its territories”); Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 2 (“Our customers include six of the largest cloud services providers based on annual revenue, including eBay, facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo! , financial services organizations such as Barclays, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley, and a number of media and service providers, including AOL, Comcast, Equinix, ESPN, Netflix, and Rackspace. ”); Exhibit 26 (Arista Press Release stating Studio Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T series switches, July 18, 2013); Exhibit 27 (Studio Network Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis, Missouri, United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series switch, October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a California, United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study on America Internet Services’ use of Arista 7048T and 7050S switches, 2012); Exhibit 31 27
  35. 35. (Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohio’s use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series switches in the United States, 2012); Exhibit 32 (Arista Press Release and Customer Testimonials that Headlands Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19, 2012); Exhibit 33 (Headlands Technologies website showing it is a California and Illinois, United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 7280E series switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300/7300X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014); Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the sale of the 7250X and 7300/7300X series); Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company); Exhibit 42 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 43 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from video showing Arista 75 00E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for Arista switches including the 7010 series switch, captured September 15, 2014). 72. U. S. Customs records also evidence that Arista is importing networking equipment, including the Accused Products, to the United States from overseas. See, e. g., Exhibit 37 (import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in California). 73. The following accused products have been purchased in the United States, further showing that Arista’s products are imported. For example, an Arista 7150 series accused switch 28
  36. 36. has been purchased in the United States, which has a casing marked “Manufactured in Malaysia. ” An Arista 7048 series accused switch has been purchased in the United States, which has a casing marked “Manufactured in China. ” Photographs of an Arista 7500E series accused switch in the United States indicate that it was “Manufactured in China. ” See Exhibit 38 (receipts of purchase); Exhibit 39 (photos of purchased product). Additionally, Arista press releases discuss the implementation of the accused products by United States companies. See Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series switch, October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a Califomia, United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study on America Internet Services’ use of Arista 7048T and 7050S switches, 2012); Exhibit 31 (Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohio’s use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series switches in the United States, 2012); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 728013. series switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014); Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company); Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the sale of the 7250X and 7300/7300X series); Exhibit 42 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 43 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from video showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently 29
  37. 37. being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for Arista switches including the 7010 series switch, captured September 15, 2014). VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS 74. On information and belief, the Accused Products fall within at least the 8517.62.00 classification of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) of the United States. See Exhibit 40. The identified HTS number is intended to be for illustration only and is not exhaustive of the products accused of infringement in this Complaint. The HTS number is not intended to limit the scope of the Investigation. IX. RELATED LITIGATION 75. On December 5, 2014, Cisco filed a Complaint in the Northern District of California, accusing Arista of infringing Cisco’s Asserted Patents. See Exhibit 41 (Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc, Case No. 14-cv-5343). Arista was served on December 9, 2014, and has not yet responded to the Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced in this action. X. THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 76. There is a domestic industry, as defined under 19 U. S.C. §§ 1337(a)(3)(A), (B), and/ or (C), comprising significant investments in physical operations and employment of labor and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of Cisco’s Asserted Patents. 77. Cisco makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in Cisco’s Asserted Patents in numerous products and has made and continues to make significant domestic investments in these products, as set forth more fully in the accompanying Confidential Declaration of Collin Sacks, attached at Exhibit 48. For example, Cisco has sold and sells in the United States switches that practice Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including the 3000 Series Industrial Internet 30
  38. 38. Switches that practice the ‘592 and ‘145 patents; the 2520 Connected Grid Switches (CGS) that practice the ‘592 and ‘145 patents; the Catalyst CBS 3110-40 Series Switches that practice the ‘592 and ‘ 145 patents; the Catalyst 4500 Series Switches that practice the‘592, and ‘ 145 patents; the Catalyst 6500 Series Switches that practice the ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; the Catalyst 6800 Series Switches that practice the ‘597 patent; the Nexus 3000 Series Switches that practice the ‘164, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; the Nexus 5000 Series Switches that practice the ‘164, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; the Nexus 6000 Series Switches that practice the ‘164, and patents; the Nexus 7000 Series Switches that practice the ‘296, ‘164, ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; and the Nexus 9000 Series Switches that practice the ‘164, ‘592, and ‘145 patents. Similarly, Cisco has sold and sells in the United States network devices that practice Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including the Carrier Routing System (CRS) that practices the ‘537 patent; the Aggregation Services Routers (ASR) 1000 Series that practices the ‘296 patent; the ASR 9000 Series that practices the ‘296 and ‘537 patents; the ASR 901 Series that practices the ‘597 patent; the XR 12000 Series Routers that practice the ‘537 patent. Exhibit 48 at Table l; Exhibits 57-72 (Cisco product data sheets). As set forth in greater detail below, these products collectively practice each of Cisco’s Asserted Patents (“the Domestic Industry Products”). Cisco’s investments and expenditures in its domestic industries for Cisco’s Asserted Patents are significant, continuing and on-going. A. Cisco’s Practice of Cisco’s Asserted Patents 78. As noted above, Cisco makes extensive use of Cisco’s Asserted Patents in many different products. The allocations of R&D expenses and related items for these patent protected products are captured in the accompanying Confidential Declaration of Collin Sacks (Confidential Exhibit 48). Specific examples of use are described in the above section and charted in associated exhibits identified below. 31
  39. 39. 79. Cisco’s Carrier Router System practices at least claim 10 of the ‘537 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Carrier Router System to claim 10 of the ‘537 patent is attached as Exhibit 49. 80. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ‘296 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the ‘296 patent is attached as Exhibit 50. 81. Cisco’s Nexus 5000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ‘164 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 5000 to claim 1 of the ‘164 patent is attached as Exhibit 51. 82. Cisco’s Catalyst 6500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ‘597 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 6500 to claim 1 of the ‘597 patent is attached as Exhibit 52. 83. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 6 of the ‘592 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 6 of the ‘592 patent is attached as Exhibit 53. 84. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 5 of the ‘145 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 5 of the ‘145 patent is attached as Exhibit 54. B. United States Investments in the Domestic Industry 85. Cisco is the leading provider of switching and routing products in the United States. Cisco has made long-standing and continuing significant investments in the United States in the engineering, research, development, testing, manufacturing, and/ or product support of the Domestic Industry Products. Moreover, in 2013 and 2014, Cisco sold a significant number of its Domestic Industry Product in the United States for a large total net sales amount. Cisco expects 32
  40. 40. that its continuing activities and investments in the United States will increase, particularly if Arista is prohibited from unlawfully using Cisco’s patented inventions. Exhibit 48 (Confidential Declaration of Collin Sacks) at {[11 4, 9, and Table 2. 86. Specifically, and as discussed in greater detail below, there is a domestic industry as defined under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(A) at least because Cisco has made significant investments in plant and equipment in the United States used in connection with the engineering, research, and development in the United States, and/ or warranty and product support in the United States of the Domestic Industry Products. There is a domestic industry as defined under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(B) at least because Cisco has also made significant investments in the employment of United States labor and capital in connection with engineering, research and development in the United States, and/ or warranty and product support in the United States of the Domestic Industry Products. There is a domestic industry as defined under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(C) at least because Cisco has further made substantial investments in the exploitation of Cisco’s Asserted Patents-through engineering, research, and/ or development directed to each of these products in the United States. 1. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(A) 87. There is a domestic industry as defined under Subsection (A) at least because Cisco has made significant investment in plant and equipment in the United States with respect to the Domestic Industry Products. Cisco has numerous facilities and locations throughout the United States, including its headquarter campus in San Jose, California, which spans approximately 1,000 acres and has 53 buildings, and its campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, which spans more than 300 acres and has 12 buildings. For example, collectively, ten different Cisco Business Units (“BUS”) based in San Jose, California, with support from personnel, resources, and facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 33
  41. 41. contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 111] 7, 13-20, and Table 5. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco invested a significant amount of money in connection with plant and equipment comprising operating expenses, such as rent, facilities maintenance costs, and equipment maintenance costs for the facilities used by Cisco’s engineers in the United States in connection with engineering, research, and development related to the Domestic Industry Products. See also Exhibit 48 at Table 5. 88. Cisco’s U. S.-based contract manufacturers (“CMS”) manufacture and assemble a large number of the Domestic Industry Products in the United States, including at Foxconn, Inc. in Houston, Texas and Solectron Texas, Inc. in Austin, Texas. See Exhibit 48 at 11] 10, 16, and Table 3. Cisco’s U. S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics, plarming and other interfacing activities with Cisco’s CMs. See Exhibit 48 at 11 10. 2. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(B) 89. There is a domestic industry as defined under Subsection (B) at least because Cisco has made significant employment of labor and capital in the United States with respect to the Domestic Industry Products. Research and engineering teams based in the United States contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 1[1[ 13-18, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. Cisco’s design and development of the Domestic Industry Products included significant U. S.-based investment by Cisco in the employment of labor and capital, and other investments, related thereto. See Exhibit 48 at 1111 21-22, and Tables 6-7. 90. Specifically, Cisco employs more than 35,000 individuals throughout the United States. See Exhibit 48 at 1[ 3. For example, at Cisco’s headquarter campus in California, Cisco employs over 31,000 people, including 15,694 Cisco employees and 15,542 contractors, vendors, and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 11 7. Many of these individuals are involved in engineering, research, and development of the Domestic Industry Products. For example, as explained above, 34
  42. 42. ten Cisco BUS based in San Jose, California, with support from personnel, resources, and facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, were involved in the development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 1111 7, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco spent a significant amount of money on salaries for its thousands of U. S.-based engineers in connection with the engineering, research, and development contributing to the Domestic Industry Products, and spent a significant amount of money on capital expenses related to the purchase of computer and networking equipment and computer software in the United States to support the work of these engineers in connection with the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 11 21-22 and Tables 6-7. As another example, one of Cisco’s main customer support centers for the Domestic Industry Products is located at Cisco’s Research Triangle Park, North Carolina campus where over 9,000 individuals are employed, including 4,787 Cisco employees and 4,410 contractors, vendors, and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 1] 7. Additionally, Cisco’s U. S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics and other activities associated with the CM manufacturing process in the United States. See Exhibit 48 at 11 10. 3. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(C) 91. There is also a domestic industry as defined under Subsection (C) at least because Cisco has also made substantial U. S. investments in exploitation of Cisco’s Asserted Patents through the Cisco Domestic Industry Products, including by way of example, investments in engineering, research, and development. 92. Since its founding thirty years ago, Cisco has pioneered many of the important technologies that created and enabled the era of connectivity in which we live. During the past three decades, Cisco has invested billions of dollars and the time and dedication of tens of thousands of its engineers in the research and development of networking products and services. In 2014 alone, Cisco invested more than $6 billion in research and development, and in 2013 35
  43. 43. Cisco invested approximately $5.9 billion. These substantial investments have culminated in the development of Cisco’s substantial patent portfolio, including Cisco’s Asserted Patents, and the highly-successful Domestic Industry Products at issue here. See Exhibit 15 (Cisco 2014 Annual Report); Exhibit 48 (Confidential Sacks Decl. ) at 111] 3, 13-18, 23-43, and Table 8. 93. Cisco invests substantially in engineering, research, and development in the United States for the technology claimed by Cisco’s Asserted Patents. See Exhibit 48 (Confidential Sacks Decl. ) at 111] 6-8, 13-18, 23-43, and Table 8. In particular, and as discussed above, Cisco has made substantial investments in its headquarters in San Jose, California and its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina campus, as well as in the employment of substantial engineering staff and the necessary equipment to support them. Cisco invests in U. S.-based engineers who design, research and develop, and engineer products. See Exhibit 48 at 111] 13-18, 23-43, and Table 8. Cisco has made substantial investments contributing to the engineering, research, and development of its Domestic Industry Products by investing in the following engineering, research, and development expenses in the United States: investments in equipment and designs used in connection with engineering, research, and development activities; training of engineering personnel, including by attending trade shows and travel costs related thereto, recruiting and relocation of engineering talent to work on Cisco’s Domestic Industry Products; and investments in the compensation packages for Cisco’s engineers, including in salaries and overtime pay. See Exhibit 48 at 1111 23-43 and Table 8. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco invested substantially in engineering, research, and development contributing to Cisco’s Domestic Industry Products in the United States. See Exhibit 48 1111 23-43 and Table 8. 94. Cisco further invests in U. S.-based personnel who provide technical and warranty support to Cisco customers in the U. S. who have purchased Cisco’s networking products in the 36
  44. 44. U. S. Cisco has made substantial investments in the U. S.-based facilities that house the employees that provide this support, including those at its main customer support center in Research Triangle Park, as well as investments in the U. S. equipment, salaries, and operating costs associated with Cisco’s customer support teams. See Exhibit 48 at 1111 7, 18. XI. RELIEF REQUESTED 95. WHEREFORE, by reason of the foregoing, Cisco respectfully request that the United States International Trade Commission: a) Institute an immediate investigation, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U. S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B)(i) and (ii), with respect to violations of Section 337 based upon the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, and use after importation into the United States of Respondent’s certain networking equipment and components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Complainant’s ‘537, ‘296, ’l64, ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; b) Schedule and conduct a hearing pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 1337 for the purposes of (i) receiving evidence and hearing argument concerning whether there has been a violation of 19 U. S.C. § 1337, and (ii) following the hearing, determining that there has been a violation of 19 U. S.C. § 1337; c) Issue a permanent limited exclusion order, pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 1337(d)(1), barring from entry into the United States all certain networking equipment and components and software therein made by or on behalf of Respondent, that infringe one or more asserted claims of Cisco’s ‘537, ‘296, ‘164, ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; d) Issue a permanent cease and desist order, pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 1337(f), prohibiting Respondent, or others acting on its behalf, from importing, marketing, advertising, 37
  45. 45. demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, offering for sale, selling, licensing, using, or transferring outside the United States for sale in the United States any networking equipment or components or software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Cisco’s ‘537, ‘296, ‘164, ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents; e) Impose a bond, pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 1337(j), upon importation of any networking equipment and components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Cisco’s ‘537, ‘296, ‘164, ‘597, ‘592, and ‘145 patents during any Presidential Review; and f) Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper based on the facts determined by the investigation and the authority of the Commission. 38
  46. 46. Dated: 014 Steven Cherny Brian Paul Gearing KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212)446-4800 Facsimile: (212)446-4900 Adam R. Alper KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 Michael W. De Vries KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 D. Sean Trainor KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15”‘ Street. N. W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 Counsel for Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. 39
  47. 47. VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT I, Collin Sacks, declare, in accordance with 19 C. F.R. §§ 210.4(c) and 2l0.12(a), under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true: 1. I am currently an Operations Manager in Cisco Systems, Inc. ’s Legal Department. I am duly authorized by Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. to verify the foregoing Complaint. 2. The Complaint is not being filed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. 3. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the claims and other legal contentions set forth in the Complaint are warranted by existing law or by a good faith, non-frivolous argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or by the establishment of new law. 4. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the allegations of the Complaint are well grounded in fact and have evidentiary support, or, where specifically identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Executed on December 18, 2014 COLLIN SACKS

×