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.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,  D. C.

In the Matter of

CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES,  RELATED
SOFTW...
TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS

EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.  Description

1. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No.  7,023,853.

2. Cer...
22.
23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

U. S. Patent No.  7,224,668 Infri...
40.

42.

43.

44.

45.
46.
47.

49.

50.

51.

54.

56.

57.

59.

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) Code for Accused Pr...
60.

62.

as
P

Cisco Nexus 40011 Switch Module for IBM BladeCenter Data Sheet. 
Cisco Nexus 5600 Platform Switches Data S...
APPENDICES

Appendix Item Description
A.  Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No.  7,023,853.
B.  Certified copy ...
III. 

IV. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

XI. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....
I.  INTRODUCTION

1. This Complaint is filed by Cisco Systems,  Inc.  (“Cisco” or “Complainant”) under
Section 337 of the T...
equipment and components and software therein,  such as switches and their components, 
operating systems,  and/ or other ...
5. A domestic industry as required by 19 U. S.C.  §§ 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
United States relating to articles p...
Cisco also works with tens—of-thousands of contractors,  vendors,  and interns in the United States. 
Additional informati...
investments in the United States in facilities,  equipment,  labor,  and capital,  also as described in
Section X below. 
...
imported into,  sold after importation into,  and used within the United States by or on behalf of

Respondent. 

V.  THE ...
20. The ’853 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved processing
of access control lists (ACLs) in net...
improve the speed of processing access control lists by a network device to provide for higher
throughput and/ or other be...
cooperate with a spanning tree protocol engine.  The loop guard engine can prevent a port from
transitioning to a forwardi...
that may be undetectable by STP caused by,  for example,  malfunctioning or faulty network
interface cards or transceivers...
on December 20, 2028. The ’211 patent issued from U. S. Patent App.  Ser.  No.  10/282,438, filed
on October 29, 2002.

34....
VI.  UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT—-PATENT
INFRINGEMENT

38. Respondents have engaged in unlawful and unfair acts...
importation,  and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.  The
Accused Products,  at the ...
59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent.  See Appendix P (compilation of
Accused Products manuals,  white pa...
B.  Infringement of the ’577 Patent

44. On information and belief,  Respondent imports,  sells for importation,  sells af...
patent,  Messrs.  Bechtolsheim and Cheriton,  are founders of Respondent.  Moreover,  Respondent
also has had actual knowl...
48. Claim charts comparing the ’577 patent’s asserted independent method claim 1 to
Respondent’s Accused Products are atta...
include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X,  7150, 7250X,  7280B,  7300, 7300X,  and 7500E series
switches.  See Appendix 0 (Accu...
patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California,  as discussed in Section IX, 
below.  Further,  having b...
importation into the United States the Accused Products.  The Accused Products,  at the time of
importation,  are programm...
’875 patent.  See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals,  white papers,  and
training advertisements). 

57....
60. The Accused Products infringe,  directly and indirectly,  at least apparatus claims
1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, ...
and 33-36 of the ’668 patent.  On information and belief,  purchasers who deploy the Accused
Products in their networks an...
having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco
personnel,  Respondent is aware of...
importation,  and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.  In
addition,  as further alleg...
use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial noninfringing use....
who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts. ” Exhibit
24 (Arista Networks,  Inc.  F...
faeebook,  Microsoft and Yahoo! , financial services organizations such as Barclays,  Citigroup, 
and Morgan Stanley,  and ...
and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped);  Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from
videos showing Arista 7500...
Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches,  March 26, 2014);  Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website
showing it is a United States ...
X.  THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

76. There is a domestic industry,  as defined under 19 U. S.C.  §§ l337(a)(3)(A),  (B), 
and/ or...
A.  Cisco’s Practice of Cisco’s Asserted Patents

78. As noted above,  Cisco makes extensive use of Cisco’s Asserted Paten...
B.  United States Investments in the Domestic Industry

85. Cisco is the leading provider of switching and routing product...
to the Domestic Industry Products.  Cisco has numerous facilities and locations throughout the
United States,  including i...
Products included significant U. S.-based investment by Cisco in the employment of labor and
capital,  and other investment...
through the Cisco Domestic Industry Products,  including by way of example,  investments in
engineering,  research,  and d...
recruiting and relocation of engineering talent to work on Cisco’s Domestic Industry Products; 
and investments in the com...
violation of 19 U. S.C.  § 1337, and (ii) following the hearing,  determining that there has been a
violation of 19 U. S.C...
en. » ,2014

  

Rei%; £;llys1Ibmiged;  

Steven Cherny

Brian Paul Gearing
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue

New...
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

I,  Collin Sacks,  declare,  in accordance with 19 C. F.R.  §§ 210.4(c) and 210.12(a),  under

...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cisco ITC Complaint - Investigation II

3,290 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 2.

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

Cisco ITC Complaint - Investigation II

  1. 1. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. In the Matter of CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (II) COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED COMPLAINANT Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134 Phone: (408) 526-4000 COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT Steven Cherny Brian Paul Gearing KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 446-4800 1 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Adam R. Alpcr KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 439-1400 l 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 D. Sean 'l'rainor KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 15”‘ Street. N. W. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 879-5000 | Fax: (2()2) 879-5200 PROPOSED RESPONDENT Arista Networks, Inc. 5453 Great America Parkway Santa Clara, California 95054 Phone: (408) 547-5500 Investigation No.
  2. 2. TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 1. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,023,853. 2. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 6,377,577. 3. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492. 4. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,061,875. 5. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668. 6. Certified copy of U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211. 7. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,023,853. 8. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 6,377,577. 9. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492. 10. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,061,875. 11. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668. 12. Certified copy of assignment records for U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211. 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. 7,023,853 Infringement Claim Chart. 19. U. S. Patent No. 6,377,577 Infringement Claim Chart. 20. U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492 Infringement Claim Chart. 21. U. S. Patent No. 7,061,875 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. 7,224,668 Infringement Claim Chart. U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211 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 7050S 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 Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300/73 00X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014. CDW website advertisement for Arista switches, captured September 15, 2()14. 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. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 54. 56. 57. 59. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) Code for Accused Products. Complaint, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc, Case No. l4-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 https: //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. 7,023,853 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 6,3 77,577 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,061,875 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668 Domestic Industry Chart. U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211 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 Nexus 3548 and 3524 Switches Data Sheet. 3
  5. 5. 60. 62. as P Cisco Nexus 40011 Switch Module for IBM BladeCenter 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 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. 7,023,853. B. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 6,377,577. C. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492. D. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,061,875. E. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668. F. Certified copy of file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211. G. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,023,853. H. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 6,377,577. 1. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,460,492. J. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U . S. Patent No. 7,061,875. K. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668. L. Technical references cited in file wrapper for U. S. Patent No. 8,051,211. M. Exhibits for charted Arista Products. N. Exhibits for charted Cisco Products. 0. Accused Product Data Sheets. P. Compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements.
  7. 7. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..1 COMPLAINANT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .3 THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .5 THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .5 THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE IN VENTIONS . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..6 A. Nontechnical Description of the ’853 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .6 B. Nontechnical Description of the ’577 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .7 C. Nontechnical Description of the ’492 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .8 D. Nontechnical Description of the ’875 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .9 E. Nontechnical Description of the ’668 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. l0 F. Nontechnical Description of the ’211 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. l0 G. Foreign Counterparts . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..11 H. Licensees . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .1 1 UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT—PATENT INFRINGEMENT . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .12 A. Infringement of the ’853 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .12 B. Infringement of the ’577 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .15 C. Infringement of the ’492 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .17 D. Infringement of the ’875 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .19 E. Infringement of the ’668 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .21 F. Infringement of the ’211 Patent . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .24 SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .26 HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..30 RELATED LITIGATION . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .30 THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .3l A. Cisco’s Practice of Cisco’s Asserted Patents . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..32 B. United States Investments in the Domestic Industry . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..33 1. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(A) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .33 2. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §1337(a)(3)(B) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..34 3. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §l337(a)(3)(C) . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..35 RELIEF REQUESTED . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..37
  8. 8. I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Complaint is filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco” 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. 7,023,853 (“the ’853 patent”), 6,377,577 (“the ’577 patent”), 7,460,492 (“the ’492 patent”), 7,061,875 (“the ’875 patent”), 7,224,668 (“the ’668 patent”), and 8,051,211 (“the ’21l 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 Internet of Everything. Cisco employs thousands of the world’s brightest networking engineers at its headquarters in San Jose, California, 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 I 5 ’ (Independent Claims In Bold) ’853 Patent 46-52, 54, 56, 59, 60-63 ’577 Patent 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, 28-31 ’492 Patent 1-4, 9-14, 17-18 ’875 Patent 1-4, 10-13, 15 ’668 Patent 1-10,12-13, 15-18, 19, 20-28, 30-31, 33-36, 37, 38-43, 45-49, 51-54, 55, 56-64, 66-67, 69-72 [’211 Patent 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 17-20 4. Certified copies of Cisco’s Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits Error! Reference source not found. -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.
  10. 10. 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 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. § 1337(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. § l337(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.
  11. 11. Cisco also works with tens—of-thousands of contractors, vendors, and interns in the United States. Additional information concerning Cisco can be obtained from its 2014 Annual Report at Exhibit 15. 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, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, and 9000 series), the Cisco Catalyst switches (including at least the Catalyst 4500 and 6500 series), and Cisco 12000 Series Router. 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 assigmnent 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 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
  12. 12. 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, California 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 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,
  13. 13. 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 2l0.12(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 2l0.12(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 ’853 Patent‘ 18. United States Patent No. 7,023,853, entitled “Access Control List Processing in Hardware, ” issued on April 4, 2006 and lists Andreas V. Bechtolsheim and David R. Cheriton as its inventors. The ’853 patent expires on June 30, 2018. The ’853 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/087,342, filed on March 1, 2002. The ’853 patent claims priority to U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 09/ 108,071, filed on June 30, 1998. 19. The ’853 patent contains 63 claims, including 5 independent claims and 58 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 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. 20. The ’853 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved processing of access control lists (ACLs) in network devices. The ’853 patent can, among other things, improve the speed of processing access control lists by a network device to provide for higher throughput and/ or other benefits. In an aspect of the invention, the ’853 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for maintaining access control patterns in an associative memory, matching information to the access control patterns stored in the associative memory in parallel to generate matches having priority information, selecting one of the results, and making a routing decision. In another aspect of the invention, the ’853 patent provides a novel method for processing a packet, including by selecting an output interface to which to forward the packet in parallel with determining the forwarding permission for the packet. Among other things, the invention may address a problem that prior art software processing of packets to enforce access control in a network device can be relatively slow. B. Nontechnical Description of the ’577 Patent 21. United States Patent No. 6,377,577, entitled “Access Control List Processing in Hardware, ” issued on April 23, 2002 and lists Andreas V. Bechtolsheim and David R. Cheriton as its inventors. The ’577 patent expires on June 30, 2018. The ’577 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 09/108,071, filed on June 30, 1998. 22. The ‘577 patent contains 31 claims, including 1 independent claim and 30 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12- 16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 23. The ’577 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved processing of access control lists (ACLs) in network devices. The ’577 patent can, among other things, 7
  15. 15. improve the speed of processing access control lists by a network device to provide for higher throughput and/ or other benefits. In an aspect of the invention, the ’577 patent provides novel methods for maintaining access control patterns in an associative memory, matching information to the access control patterns stored in the associative memory in parallel to generate matches having priority information, selecting one of the results, and making a routing decision. Among other things, the invention may address a problem that prior art software processing of packets to enforce access control in a network device can be relatively slow. C. Nontechnical Description of the ’492 Patent 24. United States Patent No. 7,460,492, entitled “Spanning Tree Loop Guard, ” issued on December 2, 2008 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shyamasundar S. Kaluve, and Marco E. Foschiano as its inventors. The ’492 patent expires on February 2, 2022. The ’492 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 11/451,888, filed on June 12, 2006, and was previously published as U. S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0233168, on October 19, 2006. The ’492 patent claims priority to U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/020,667, filed on December 7, 2001. 25. The ’492 patent contains 24 claims, including 5 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 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 26. The ’492 patent generally relates to network devices that implement a system and method for preventing the formation of loops that are not detected by spanning tree protocols (“STP”). The ’492 patent can, among other things, improve the performance of a network that implements a STP. In an aspect of the invention, the ’492 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for transitioning ports among a plurality of port states and a loop guard engine to 8
  16. 16. cooperate with a spanning tree protocol engine. The loop guard engine can prevent a port from transitioning to a forwarding state thereby preventing the formation of loops. Among other things, this can improve the performance of a network that implements STPs by preventing loops that may be undetectable by STP caused by, for example, malfunctioning or faulty network interface cards or transceivers, a busy CPU, software bugs, or congestion algorithms. D. Nontechnical Description of the ’875 Patent 27. United States Patent No. 7,061,875, entitled “Spanning Tree Loop Guard, ” issued on June 13, 2006 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shyamasundar S. Kaluve, and Marco E. Foschiano as its inventors. The ’875 patent expires on September 17, 2024. The ’875 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/020,667, filed on December 7, 2001. 28. The ’875 patent contains 15 claims, including 2 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 method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 29. The ’875 patent generally relates to network devices that implement a system and method for preventing the formation of loops that are not detected by spanning tree protocols (“STP”). The ’875 patent can, among other things, improve the performance of a network that implements a STP. In an aspect of the invention, the ’875 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for transitioning ports among a plurality of port states and a loop guard engine to cooperate with a spanning tree protocol engine. The loop guard engine can prevent a port from transitioning to a forwarding state thereby preventing the formation of loops. Among other things, this can improve the performance of a network that implements STP by preventing loops
  17. 17. that may be undetectable by STP caused by, for example, malfunctioning or faulty network interface cards or transceivers, a busy CPU, software bugs, or congestion algorithms. E. Nontechnical Description of the ’668 Patent 30. United States Patent No. 7,224,668, entitled “Control Plane Security and Traffic Flow Management, ” issued on May 29, 2007 and lists Adrian C. Smethurst, Michael F. Keohane, and R. Wayne Ogozaly as its inventors. The ’668 patent expires on August 23, 2025. The ’668 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/307,154, filed on November 27, 2002. 31. The ’668 patent contains 72 claims, including 4 independent claims and 68 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ‘668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30- 31, and 33-36, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 32. The ’668 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved immunity to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks and/ or to improved Quality of Service (QoS) for networking devices. The ‘668 patent can, among other things, improve the security of a networking device while potentially minimizing any impact on transit traffic and system performance. In an aspect of the invention, the ‘668 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for using a control plane port entity and providing control plane port services for packets destined for the control plane. Among other benefits, the invention can provide enhanced security of a control plane through improved management of control plane traffic. F. Nontechnical Description of the ’211 Patent 33. United States Patent No. 8,051,211, entitled “Multi-Bridge LAN Aggregation, ” issued on November 1, 2011 and lists Norman W. Finn as its inventor. The ’211 patent expires 10
  18. 18. on December 20, 2028. The ’211 patent issued from U. S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/282,438, filed on October 29, 2002. 34. The ’211 patent contains 32 claims, including 3 independent claims and 29 dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondent’s networking equipment and components and software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 12-13 and 17- 20 and method claims 1-2 and 6-9 of the ‘211 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 35. The ’211 patent relates generally to computer networks and, more specifically, to a multi-bridge LAN aggregated system and method for use by a device in a computer network. The ‘211 patent can, among other things, improve the reliability and availability of data transmitted to and from a switching device. In an aspect of the invention, the ’2l1 patent provides a method of aggregating a plurality of I. ANs coupling a host to a first and a second network device. Among other things, the method of the ’211 patent enables link aggregation to be used on redundant physical connections between a host and multiple network devices. G. Foreign Counterparts 36. Cisco is aware of the following foreign counterparts or foreign counterpart applications corresponding to Cisco’s Asserted Patents: WO 2004/040844, EPl557015, CN1708963, AU2003287253, AT527785T, and CA2503963. 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. 11
  19. 19. VI. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT—-PATENT 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 , p (Independent Claims In Bold) ’853 Patent 46-52, 54, 56, 59, 60-63 ’577 Patent 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, 28-31 ’492 Patent 1-4, 9-14, 17-18 ’875 Patent 1-4, 10-13, 15 ’668 Patent 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 19, 20-28, 30-31, 33-36, 37, 38-43, 45-49, 51-54, 55, 56-64, 66-67, 69-72 ’211 Patent 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, 17-20 | A. Infringement of the ’853 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 ’853 patent. 40. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent by importing, selling 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. 7,023,853). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after 12
  20. 20. 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 claim 63, and Respondent directly infringes this claim 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 this method claim 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 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 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 apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 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 apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent. Respondent is aware of the ’853 patent at least because the named inventors on the ’853 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ’853 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’85 3 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 ’853 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 apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 13
  21. 21. 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 42. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the ’853 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused 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 ’853 patent at least because the named inventors on the ’853 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ’853 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’853 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 persomiel, Respondent is aware of the ’853 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 ‘853 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 43. Claim charts comparing the ’853 patent’s asserted independent apparatus claim 46 and method claim 63 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 18. Representative Product 7508E, charted at Exhibit 18, was purchased in the United States. Photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. 14
  22. 22. B. Infringement of the ’577 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 ’577 patent. 45. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 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. 6,377,577). 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, 5, 7-10, 12- 16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31, 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 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix 0 (Accused Products data sheets). 46. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12- 16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 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 method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 patent. Respondent is aware of the ‘577 patent at least because the named inventors on the ’577 15
  23. 23. patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ’577 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’577 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 ‘577 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 method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 47. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12- 16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the ’577 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused 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 usc. Respondent is aware of the ’577 patent at least because the named inventors on the ‘577 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the ’577 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’577 patent against Respondent in the Northem 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 ’577 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 ’577 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 16
  24. 24. 48. Claim charts comparing the ’577 patent’s asserted independent method claim 1 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 19. Representative Product 7508E, charted at Exhibit 19, was purchased in the United States. Photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below. C. Infringement of the ’492 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 ‘492 patent. 50. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 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. 7,460,492). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 1- 4 and 17-18 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 9-14, 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 17
  25. 25. include the 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 apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 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 apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ’492 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’492 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 lfired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ’492 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ’492 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 apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 52. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims 1-4 and 17- 18, and method claims 9-14 of the ’492 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 ’492 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’492 18
  26. 26. 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 ’492 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 ‘492 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 53. Claim charts comparing the ’492 patent’s asserted independent apparatus claims 1 and 17 and method claim 9 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 20. Representative Product 7l50S—52, 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 ’875 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 ’875 patent. 55. The Accused Products infringe. directly and indirectly, at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 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. 7,061,875). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after 19
  27. 27. 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 1-4, 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, 730OX, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets). 56. Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 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 method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘875 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘875 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 ‘875 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ‘875 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 method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the 20
  28. 28. ’875 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 57. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the ’875 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 ‘875 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’875 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 ’875 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 ’875 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 58. Claim charts comparing the ’875 patent’s asserted independent method claim 1 and apparatus claim 10 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 ’668 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 ’668 patent. 21
  29. 29. 60. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 ofthe ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the ’668 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the ’668 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/ or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 22 (infringement claim charts for U. S. Patent No. 7,224,668). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 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 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36, 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, 728OE, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E 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 apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15- 18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, 22
  30. 30. and 33-36 of the ’668 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 apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the ’668 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ’668 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’668 patent against Respondent in the Northem 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 ’668 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ’668 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 apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69- 72 of the ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the ’668 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 62. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the ’668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30- 31, and 33-36 of the ‘668 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 ’668 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’668 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, 23
  31. 31. having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the ’668 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 ’668 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 63. Claim charts comparing the ’668 patent’s asserted independent apparatus claims 1, 37, and 55, and method claim 19, to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 22. Representative Product 7508E, charted at Exhibit 22, was purchased in the United States. 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 ’211 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 ’2l 1 patent. 65. The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus claims 12-13 and 17-20 and method claims 1, 2, 6-9 of the ’2ll patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 of the ’21l 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. 8,051,211). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 12 and 13 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, 6-9, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after 24
  32. 32. 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 75001:‘ 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, 2, 6—9, 12—13, and l7— 20 of the ’21l 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, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-20 of the ’21l patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the ‘211 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ’211 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 persomiel, Respondent is aware of the ’2ll patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the ’211 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, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-20 of the ’211 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements). 67. Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-13, and 17- 20 of the ’211 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 25
  33. 33. 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 ‘211 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco filed a Complaint asserting the ‘211 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 ’21l 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 ’2ll patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 68. Claim charts comparing the ‘211 patent’s asserted independent claims 1 and 12 to Respondent’s Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 23. Representative Product 7l50S—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 U nitcd 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 26
  34. 34. 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 F oxconn. ” 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 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, 27
  35. 35. faeebook, 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, Netfiix, 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 (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 videos of Arista Chairman and CD() 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 videos of Arista Chairman and CD0 Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States 28
  36. 36. and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from videos showing Arista 7500E 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 Califomia). 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 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 7280E 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 29
  37. 37. 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 videos 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 videos 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 videos showing Arista 7500E 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). 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 .5)/ .s'tems, Inc. v. Arista Nezwor/ cs‘, 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. 30
  38. 38. X. THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 76. There is a domestic industry, as defined under 19 U. S.C. §§ l337(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 Catalyst 45 00 Series Switches that practice the ‘492 and ’875 patents; the Catalyst 6500 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, ‘492, ’875, ‘668, and ‘211 patents; the Nexus 3000 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, ‘492, ‘875, and ‘211 patents; the Nexus 4000 Series Switches that practice the ‘492 and ’875 patents; the Nexus 5000 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, ‘492, ’875,and ‘211 patents; the Nexus 6000 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, ‘492, and ’875 patents; the Nexus 7000 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, ‘492, ’875, ‘668, and ‘211 patents; and the Nexus 9000 Series Switches that practice the ‘853, ‘577, and ‘2ll patents. Similarly, Cisco has sold and sells in the United States network devices that practice Cisco’s Asserted Patents, including the 12000 Series Routers that practice the ‘668 patent. Exhibit 48 at Table 1; Exhibits 57-65 (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. 31
  39. 39. 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. 79. Cisco’s Catalyst 6500 Series Switch practices at least claim 46 of the ’853 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 6500 to claim 46 of the ’853 patent is attached as Exhibit 49. 80. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ’577 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the ’577 patent is attached as Exhibit 50. 81. Cisco’s Catalyst 4500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ’492 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 4500 to claim 1 of the ’492 patent is attached as Exhibit 51. 82. Cisco’s Catalyst 4500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the ’875 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 4500 to claim 1 of the ’875 patent is attached as Exhibit 52. 83. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim l of the ’668 patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the ’668 patent is attached as Exhibit 53. 84. Cisco’s Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim l of the ’2ll patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the ’2ll patent is attached as Exhibit 54. 32
  40. 40. 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 Products in the United States for a large total net sales amount. Cisco expects 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 111] 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 33
  41. 41. 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, six different Cisco Business Units (“BUS”) based in San Jose, California, with support from personnel, resources, and facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 11[ 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 111] 10, 16, and Table 3. Cisco’s U . S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics, planning and other interfacing activities with Cisco’s CMs. See Exhibit 48 at 1] 10. 2. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §l337(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 34
  42. 42. 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 1]1] 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 Califomia, Cisco employs over 31,000 people, including 15,694 Cisco employees and 15,542 contractors, vendors, and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 1] 7. Many of these individuals are involved in engineering, research, and development of the Domestic Industry Products. For example, as explained above, six 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 1]1] 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 1] 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 intems. 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 1] 10. 3. Domestic Industry Under 19 U. S.C. §l337(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 35
  43. 43. 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 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 1]1] 3, 13-18, 23-33, 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 1]1] 6-8, 13-18, 23-33, 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 1]1] 13-18, 23-33, 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, 36
  44. 44. 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 1]1] 23-33 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 1]1] 23-33 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 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 1]1] 7, 18. XI. RELIEF REQUESTED 95. WIIEREFORE, 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. § l337(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 ’853, ’577, ’492, ’875, ’668, and ’2ll 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 37
  45. 45. 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 ’853, ’577, ’492, ’875, ’668, and ’211 patents; d) Issue a permanent cease and desist order, pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § l337(f), prohibiting Respondent, or others acting on its behalf, from importing, marketing, advertising, 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 ’853, ’577, ’492, ’875, ’668, and ’211 patents; e) Impose a bond, pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 13370), upon importation of any networking equipment and components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Cisco’s ’853, ’577, ’492, ’875, ’668, and ’211 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. en. » ,2014 Rei%; £;llys1Ibmiged; 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 210.12(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

×