DCT

2:26-cv-00865

High Iq Networks LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00865, E.D. Tex., 09/22/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. has committed acts of infringement in the District and maintains regular and established places of business there, specifically citing a campus in Richardson and a data center in Allen, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s routers and switches, including the Cisco ASR 9000, Catalyst 9300, ME 3600X/3800X, and Industrial Ethernet 4000 series, infringe six patents related to carrier-grade network communication technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the transition from legacy circuit-switched networks (like TDM and SONET) to more flexible and efficient packet-based Ethernet transport networks, focusing on reliability, traffic management, and high-capacity architectures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of several of the asserted patents. This knowledge is alleged to stem from USPTO office actions in which the patents-in-suit were cited against Defendant’s own patent applications, Defendant’s own Information Disclosure Statements citing the patents, and a 2017 notice letter from Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest. These allegations are positioned to support a claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-01 ’607 Patent Priority Date
2001-06-07 ’397 Patent Priority Date
2004-05-04 ’607 Patent Issue Date
2005-10-04 ’397 Patent Issue Date
2006-03-02 ’931 and ’684 Patents Priority Date
2006-08-22 ’303 Patent Priority Date
2007-02-08 ’532 Patent Priority Date
2010-02-09 ’303 Patent Issue Date
2010-04-13 ’532 Patent Issue Date
2010-10-05 ’931 Patent Issue Date
2011-08-30 ’684 Patent Issue Date
2012-06-07 Alleged Cisco knowledge of ’303 Patent via USPTO rejection
2013-07-02 Alleged Cisco knowledge of ’397 Patent via USPTO citation
2014-10-28 Alleged Cisco knowledge of ’684 and ’931 Patents via USPTO citation
2017-03-20 Alleged notice letter from Plaintiff's predecessor
2022-10-19 ’607 Patent Expiration
2023-10-31 ’397 Patent Expiration
2026-03-02 ’684 Patent Expiration
2026-09-22 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,660,303 - "Point-to-Multipoint Functionality in a Bridged Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,660,303, "Point-to-Multipoint Functionality in a Bridged Network," issued February 9, 2010 Compl. ¶23

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In Layer-2 access networks, service providers often need to prevent subscribers from communicating directly with one another for security and policy reasons, while still allowing all subscribers to reach central network services. Traditional methods to achieve this separation were often complex or inefficient Compl. ¶¶4, 7
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system within a Layer-2 bridged network where switch interfaces are designated as either a “hub type” (connecting to a central service) or a “spoke type” (connecting to a subscriber) '303 Patent, col. 2:40-45 When a frame enters the network, it is internally labeled based on the type of interface it arrived on. The network’s forwarding logic then enforces a rule: frames from hubs can be sent to any other interface, but frames from spokes can only be sent to hub interfaces, effectively blocking direct spoke-to-spoke communication at Layer-2 '303 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: This approach created a scalable method for implementing "E-Tree" (Ethernet Tree) services, providing subscriber isolation within a single broadcast domain without the overhead of managing numerous separate VLANs or complex Layer-3 routing policies (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 Compl. ¶46
  • Claim 11 recites an apparatus comprising a group of switches in a Layer-2 bridged network, where each switch includes:
    • Multiple network interfaces configured as either a "first type" (e.g., root/hub) or a "second type" (e.g., leaf/spoke).
    • A frame processor that performs several functions:
      • Learns a frame's source address and creates a forwarding database entry that includes a type indication.
      • Upon receiving a frame, looks up the destination address and compares its type designation with the frame's type indication to determine forwarding.
      • Labels received frames with type indications and forwards them based on rules that permit first-type (hub) frames to go anywhere, but prevent second-type (spoke) frames from being transmitted to other second-type interfaces.
      • Updates the forwarding database based on the source address and type indication of received frames.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,931 - "High Capacity Ring Communication Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,808,931, "High Capacity Ring Communication Network," issued October 5, 2010 Compl. ¶24

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional ring networks, while reliable, have capacity limited to that of a single ring. As bandwidth demands grew, a method was needed to scale ring network capacity beyond this limit while maintaining resilience and efficient traffic distribution '931 Patent, col. 1:17-48
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a network architecture using at least three overlapping, concentric communication rings, where each ring is composed of two unidirectional "ringlets" (one clockwise, one counter-clockwise) '931 Patent, abstract When a packet is sent from an ingress node to an egress node, the ingress node identifies the subset of rings that are common to both nodes. It then selects a ringlet on one of these common rings, based on packet header fields and network status, and forwards the packet. This allows for traffic to be balanced across multiple rings, aggregating their capacity '931 Patent, col. 2:1-12
  • Technical Importance: This multi-ring architecture provides a scalable path to building high-capacity, resilient backbone networks, moving beyond the limitations of a single-ring topology Compl. ¶¶4-5

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 15 Compl. ¶73
  • Claim 15 recites a communication network comprising:
    • At least three communication rings in a concentric layout, each with two unidirectional, oppositely oriented ringlets.
    • A plurality of ring nodes connected by the rings, with at least two nodes connected to at least three of the rings.
    • Each ring node is arranged to:
      • Accept a data packet.
      • Determine an egress ring node for the packet.
      • Identify a subset of one or more "common rings" connected to both the ingress and egress nodes.
      • Select, based on a packet header field, a ringlet of a ring from the common rings.
      • Forward the packet to the egress node over the selected ringlet.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,697,532

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,697,532, "Frame Concatenation with Drop Precedence Assignment," issued April 13, 2010 Compl. ¶25
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of preserving Quality of Service (QoS) when multiple smaller packets (like ATM cells), each with its own drop precedence (DP), are concatenated into a single larger transport frame. The invention assigns a composite drop precedence (CDP) to the entire frame using a pseudo-random function that is proportional to the distribution of the DP values of the constituent packets, thereby statistically maintaining the original QoS intent across the network '532 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 10 and 19 Compl. ¶33
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is ATM over MPLS cell packing on Cisco ASR 9000 Series routers, which allegedly involves encapsulating multiple ATM cells with different Cell Loss Priority (CLP) values into a single MPLS packet and assigning a composite priority via the MPLS EXP bits (Compl. ¶¶33, 103-105).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,952,397

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,952,397, "Communication in a Bidirectional Ring Network with Single-Direction Receiving," issued October 4, 2005 Compl. ¶26
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the cost and complexity of nodes in a bidirectional ring network, which traditionally require hardware to receive traffic from both directions simultaneously. The invention proposes configuring nodes to receive traffic from only one direction at any given time, simplifying the node design. It further describes a method for balancing traffic across the entire ring by selecting the receive direction for a multiplicity of nodes '397 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶117
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 15 Compl. ¶33
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is the Resilient Ethernet Protocol (REP) with VLAN load balancing on Cisco ME 3600X and ME 3800X series switches, which allegedly achieves load balancing by configuring different nodes in a ring to block certain VLANs from one direction, thereby forcing them to receive that traffic from the other direction (Compl. ¶¶33, 125-126).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,009,684

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,009,684, "High Capacity Ring Communication Network," issued August 30, 2011 Compl. ¶27
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that led to the '931 Patent, this patent refines the multi-ring network concept by introducing an "asymmetric layout." In this topology, not all nodes connect to all rings, and one "anchor ring" is connected to all nodes. This allows for more flexible, hierarchical, and cost-effective network designs where capacity can be added to specific parts of the network without requiring all nodes to be upgraded '684 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶135
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 Compl. ¶33
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is the operation of multiple REP ring segments or High-availability Seamless Redundancy (HSR) rings on Cisco Industrial Ethernet 4000 series switches, particularly in hierarchical layouts where one ring may connect a set of switches and subordinate rings connect to subsets of those switches (Compl. ¶¶33, 142-143).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,731,607

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,731,607, "Network Interface Auto-Configuration in an Access Multiplexing System," issued May 4, 2004 Compl. ¶28
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the operational challenge of replacing a failed central switching unit in a multi-card access system (like a DSLAM). To avoid slow and error-prone manual reprogramming, the invention stores backup configuration parameters on the system's line cards. Upon startup, a new or replacement switching unit automatically retrieves these backup parameters from a line card and configures itself, enabling rapid service restoration '607 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 Compl. ¶33
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is the configuration synchronization and stateful switchover (SSO) feature in Cisco Catalyst 9300 series switches configured in a StackWise stack. In this setup, a standby switch allegedly stores a synchronized copy of the active switch's configuration and automatically takes over upon failure, using the stored backup configuration (Compl. ¶¶33, 170, 172).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are broad categories of Cisco’s networking hardware and the operating software that runs them Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶32 The complaint specifically identifies:
    • Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers running Cisco IOS XR software.
    • Cisco Catalyst 9300 and 9300X Series switches running Cisco IOS XE software.
    • Cisco ME 3600X Series Ethernet Access Switches and ME 3800X Series Carrier Ethernet Switch Routers.
    • Cisco Industrial Ethernet 4000 Series switches running Cisco IOS.

Functionality and Market Context

  • These products are enterprise and carrier-grade routers and switches that form the backbone of modern telecommunications, corporate, and industrial networks Compl. ¶32
  • The complaint alleges that specific software features within these products implement the patented technologies. These features include EVPN E-Tree for rooted-multipoint services, StackWise for creating a unified virtual switch from multiple physical units, REP and HSR for resilient ring topologies, and ATM over MPLS for legacy service transport Compl. ¶8
  • The complaint alleges that Cisco has built a substantial business selling these products to a wide range of customers, including telecommunications carriers and government entities Compl. ¶8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,660,303 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Apparatus for communication, comprising a group of switches, which are coupled together in a Layer-2 bridged network... The Accused '303 Products are Cisco ASR 9000 routers, which are Layer-2 switches coupled together in an EVPN E-Tree service, described as a "rooted-multipoint Ethernet service" that functions as a Layer-2 bridged network. ¶50 col. 5:56-64
...each switch comprising: multiple network interfaces, which are configured so that at least one interface ... is configured as a first type ... and a plurality of other interfaces are configured as a second type... Each ASR 9000 router has multiple interfaces (attachment circuits). These are configured as either a "root" type (the first type) or a "leaf" type (the second type) using configuration commands. ¶¶51-52 col. 5:35-47
...a frame processor, which is operative: to create an entry comprising a source address of the frame and a number equal to a type indication of the frame to identify the first interface, and to add the entry to a forwarding database... The network processors of the router line cards act as the frame processor. When a frame arrives, they learn its source MAC address and create an entry in the forwarding database that includes an indication of whether the frame came from a root or leaf interface (the "leaf indicator"). ¶¶53-56 col. 7:3-9
...to look up the destination address in the forwarding database, and to compare the type designation with a type indication of the frame in order to determine whether to forward the frame through the second interface; Upon receiving a frame from a leaf interface, the router looks up the destination MAC address. It compares the destination's known type (root or leaf) with the source's type (leaf). If both are leaf, the frame is dropped. ¶¶58-59 col. 9:16-30
...to label the received frames with corresponding first and second type indications, and to cause the interfaces to forward the frames... by permitting the frames that are labeled with the first type indication to be transmitted through any of the interfaces, while ... preventing the frames that are labeled with the second type indication from being transmitted through the interfaces of the second type; Frames from leaf sites are tagged with an "etree leaf label" (the second type indication) when sent into the MPLS core. Ingress filtering and egress filtering rules use this label to allow leaf-to-root traffic but block leaf-to-leaf traffic. Frames from root sites (first type) are not so restricted. ¶¶60-63 col. 9:39-10:2
...to update the forwarding database using a database learning process responsively to the source address and to the type indication of the frame. The MAC learning process is responsive to the frame's origin. MAC addresses learned from a leaf interface are advertised via BGP with a "leaf-indication flag," so remote routers learn both the address and its type. ¶64 col. 10:33-67

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,931 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A communication network, comprising: at least three communication rings in a concentric layout, each comprising two unidirectional ringlets oriented in mutually-opposite directions; A stack of Catalyst 9300 switches forms the network. The StackWise fabric consists of six counter-rotating, unidirectional rings, which the complaint alleges constitute three communication rings of paired, oppositely-directed ringlets in a concentric layout. ¶¶77-79 col. 5:14-26
...a plurality of ring nodes connected by the rings, wherein at least two ring nodes are each connected to at least three of the communication rings... The stack member switches are the ring nodes. Each of the (up to eight) switches in the stack is connected to all three communication rings via its two StackWise ports. ¶¶80-81 col. 5:43-46
...each ring node is arranged to accept a data packet... to determine an egress ring node to which the data packet is to be forwarded... Each stack member accepts Ethernet packets. The ingress switch determines the egress switch (egress ring node) that owns the destination port for the packet. ¶¶82-83 col. 8:57-62
...to identify a subset of the rings comprising one or more common rings that are connected to both the ring node and the egress ring node... Each stack member discovers the stack topology via Stack Discovery Protocol (SDP). In a full-ring stack, all three rings are common to all nodes. ¶84 col. 8:1-16
...to select, responsively to a respective value of at least one of the header fields of the packet, a ringlet of a ring among the one or more common rings... The ingress switch uses a hash of packet header fields to select which stack port (and thus which direction, or ringlet) to use for forwarding the packet. ¶85 col. 9:43-48
...and to forward the data packet to the egress ring node over the selected ringlet. The packet is forwarded across the stack from the ingress switch to the egress switch over the selected ringlet path. Destination-based stripping is used. ¶86 col. 10:20-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A recurring point of contention may be whether modern, highly integrated, and often virtualized networking constructs meet the scope of claim terms drafted for earlier, more physically distinct hardware. For the '303 Patent, a question is whether an EVPN E-Tree service, which is a Layer-2 overlay on a Layer-3 MPLS network, constitutes a "Layer-2 bridged network" as contemplated by the patent Compl. ¶50 For the '931 Patent, a question is whether a stack of switches connected by proprietary cables constitutes "communication rings in a concentric layout" (Compl. ¶78).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on specific functional comparisons. For the '303 Patent, a key question is whether the accused EVPN "E-Tree leaf label" and associated BGP extended community functions as the claimed "labeling" with "first and second type indications" to control forwarding in the specific manner recited by the claim Compl. ¶¶60-63 For the '931 Patent, a question is what evidence demonstrates that the accused StackWise system selects "a ringlet of a ring" based on a packet's header fields, as opposed to another load-balancing or routing mechanism Compl. ¶85

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'303 Patent

  • The Term: "Layer-2 bridged network"

  • Context and Importance: The accused EVPN E-Tree technology is a Layer-2 service provisioned over a Layer-3 MPLS core Compl. ¶50 Defendant may argue this is fundamentally different from the "Layer-2 bridged network" recited in the claim. The construction of this term is therefore critical to determining whether the accused products are within the claimed environment.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the network may include "a virtual bridged network, such as a virtual private LAN service (VPLS) provisioned over an underlying Layer-2 or Layer-3 network," and that interfaces may be "virtual interfaces" '303 Patent, col. 5:56-64 This language may support an interpretation that includes overlay and virtual networks.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background section primarily discusses MAC bridges in the context of connecting Local Area Networks (LANs) as defined by the IEEE 802.1D standard '303 Patent, col. 1:11-30 This could support an argument for a more traditional, non-overlay definition.

  • The Term: "label the received frames"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on the "etree leaf label" in the accused MPLS-encapsulated frames being the "label" required by the claim (Compl. ¶60). Practitioners may focus on whether "labeling" a frame requires modifying the frame itself, versus adding an external transport label during encapsulation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "[a]ny suitable type indication may be used to mark the frame" '303 Patent, col. 8:20-22, suggesting flexibility in the mechanism. The term "mark" could be interpreted broadly to include external labels.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides as an example of a type indication the CFI bit of an IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tag '303 Patent, col. 8:33-35 This is a bit within the frame header itself, which could support a narrower interpretation that the "label" must be integral to the Layer-2 frame, not part of a separate transport encapsulation.

'931 Patent

  • The Term: "communication rings in a concentric layout"
  • Context and Importance: The accused instrumentality is a stack of switches connected by proprietary StackWise cables Compl. ¶77 The case may turn on whether this proprietary backplane architecture, which is physically a daisy-chain loop, qualifies as "at least three communication rings in a concentric layout."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "parallel communication rings" may be "multiplexed onto a single physical medium" '931 Patent, col. 5:23-26 This could support an argument that multiple logical rings running over the same physical cables meet the "concentric" requirement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts three distinct, parallel, circular paths '931 Patent, Fig. 1 This visual representation could be used to argue that "concentric" requires physically or logically separate, nested ring structures rather than multiple channels over a single looped path.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Cisco induces infringement by providing its customers with extensive documentation, including configuration guides, command references, white papers, and technical presentations, that allegedly instruct users on how to configure and operate the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶66 Compl. ¶88 Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the specific software features (e.g., the E-Tree leaf-label software) are especially made for the infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶89
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint provides specific dates and events, including USPTO rejections of Cisco's own patent applications that cited the patents-in-suit (e.g., '303 Patent in 2012), Cisco's own submissions of the patents to the USPTO, and a 2017 notice letter from Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest Compl. ¶¶37-44 The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Cisco continued to develop and sell the accused features Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶92

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the context of earlier networking paradigms—such as "Layer-2 bridged network," "communication rings in a concentric layout," and "switching unit" with separate "line cards"—be construed to cover modern, highly integrated, and virtualized technologies like EVPN services over an MPLS core and proprietary switch stacking architectures?
  • A second central question will be one of functional implementation: does the accused functionality, as described in Cisco's own documentation, perform the specific steps required by the claims? For example, does the accused ATM-over-MPLS cell packing feature on the ASR 9000 use a "pseudo-random assignment function that depends on a distribution of the DP values" as required by the '532 patent, or does it use a different, non-infringing method to set the composite priority?
  • A third critical question will relate to willfulness: given the extensive allegations of pre-suit knowledge, including citations in Defendant's own patent prosecution files and a prior notice letter, the court will need to determine whether Defendant had a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity, or whether its continued sales of the accused products constituted deliberate or reckless disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights.