DCT

1:25-cv-00888

Alpha Modus Ventures LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00888, W.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district, transacts business there, and has previously consented to venue in the Western District of Texas in other litigation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's networking products, which implement the Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) standard, infringe three patents related to transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to unifying separate, expensive data center networks-Ethernet-based Local Area Networks (LANs) and Fibre Channel-based Storage Area Networks (SANs)-onto a single, converged Ethernet infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex history regarding the patents' ownership, including a memorandum of understanding, a patent assignment, a subsequent "unauthorized" assignment, state and federal court litigation between Plaintiff and the inventor's entity, and a final settlement followed by Nunc Pro Tunc assignments intended to confirm Plaintiff's ownership rights since April 2022. All asserted patents are expired, limiting the action to recovery of past damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-10-21 Priority Date for '591, '077, and '473 Patents
2008-01-01 Cisco allegedly introduces its first FCoE switch
2021-02-16 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Fifth App, AMV, and Hayes
2021-02-17 Patent Assignment Agreement (PAA) executed
2021-08-31 '591 Patent Issued
2022-03-31 "Unauthorized Assignment" of patents from AMV minority members to Hayes
2022-04-12 '473 Patent Issued
2022-04-19 '077 Patent Issued
2022-05-04 AMV allegedly discovers the "Unauthorized Assignment"
2022-10-31 Federal Court Action filed by Fifth App and Hayes against AMV
2023-10-21 '591, '077, and '473 Patents Expired
2024-12-27 Hayes Settlement resolves ownership disputes
2025-10-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"

  • Issued: August 31, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of data centers operating two separate networks: a general-purpose Ethernet LAN for typical server communication and a specialized, expensive Fibre Channel SAN for storage Compl. ¶21 '591 Patent, col. 2:25-44 This "disjointed communication infrastructure" created high costs and support overhead Compl. ¶21
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and an apparatus called a "Fibre Channel over Ethernet Transformer" (FCoE Transformer) to transport Fibre Channel data directly within Ethernet frames, without relying on the more complex Internet Protocol (IP) layer Compl. ¶¶23-24 This allows less expensive, ubiquitous Ethernet equipment to perform the functions of a SAN, thereby unifying the two networks '591 Patent, abstract '591 Patent, col. 4:1-12 Figure 8 of the patent illustrates this architecture, showing an FCoE HBA (40) communicating through a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24) to an FCoE Transformer (46), which then interfaces with a native Fibre Channel device (23).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to reduce data center cost and complexity by converging storage and data traffic onto a single, standards-based Ethernet network '591 Patent, col. 2:56-59

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶92
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • providing a Server with an FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA) that itself includes a Virtual Fibre Channel Port and an Ethernet Interface;
    • providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch;
    • providing an FCoE Transformer with an Ethernet Interface and a Fibre Channel Interface;
    • providing a Fibre Channel Device;
    • the FCoE HBA sending an FCoE Frame to the FCoE Transformer via the Layer 2 Ethernet Switch;
    • the FCoE Frame being conveyed in an Ethernet Frame without utilizing an IP packet;
    • the FCoE Transformer converting the FCoE Frame to a Fibre Channel Frame;
    • the FCoE Frame including specific Start-of-Frame (SOF) and End-of-Frame (EOF) fields for encoding the corresponding fields in the resulting Fibre Channel Frame; and
    • the FCoE Transformer sending the converted Fibre Channel Frame to the Fibre Channel Device Compl. ¶54

U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"

  • Issued: April 19, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '591 Patent, the invention addresses the cost and complexity of maintaining separate LAN and SAN infrastructures in data centers Compl. ¶¶16-21
  • The Patented Solution: The '077 Patent focuses specifically on the method performed by the FCoE transformer. It claims the steps of receiving an FCoE frame over a Layer 2 Ethernet switch and converting it into a native Fibre Channel frame. A key aspect of the claimed method is that the incoming FCoE frame itself contains SOF and EOF fields within its header, which are used to encode the start and end of the converted Fibre Channel frame, and then transporting that resulting frame (Compl. ¶60; Compl. ¶61; Compl. ¶62; Compl. ¶63, Compl. ¶abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention defines the critical protocol translation logic within the network bridge, enabling interoperability between devices on the converged Ethernet network and legacy Fibre Channel storage devices Compl. ¶24

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶111
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method of operating an FCoE transformer comprising the steps of:
    • receiving an FCoE frame at the transformer via a layer 2 Ethernet switch;
    • converting the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame, where the FCoE frame includes SOF and EOF fields within its transport header for encoding the corresponding SOF and EOF of the fibre channel frame; and
    • transporting the fibre channel frame Compl. ¶63

U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"

  • Issued: April 12, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: The '473 Patent addresses the same problem of unifying LAN and SAN networks Compl. ¶¶16-22 It claims a method from the perspective of the FCoE Host Bus Adapter (HBA), focusing on the HBA connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch and sending an FCoE frame that contains specific SOF and EOF fields within its transport header for subsequent conversion '473 Patent, abstract Compl. ¶¶69-71

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 Compl. ¶140

  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Cisco's products that embody an FCoE HBA, such as the UCS CNA M72KR-Q adapter, of infringing by connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch (the UCS Fabric Interconnect) and sending FCoE frames structured as claimed Compl. ¶¶135-139

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Cisco's UCS CNA M72KR-Q QLogic Converged Network Adapter, its Unified Computing System (UCS), and other products that practice the FCoE standard Compl. ¶77

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products provide converged data center connectivity, combining LAN and SAN traffic onto a single physical link Compl. ¶81 The complaint alleges Cisco was a pioneer in the FCoE market, a member of the relevant standard-setting committee, and that its UCS products are used by a majority of Fortune 500 companies, generating substantial revenue Compl. ¶¶74-76 The system architecture involves a Converged Network Adapter (CNA) in a server sending FCoE frames to a Cisco Nexus switch, which acts as a Fibre Channel Forwarder (FCF), as depicted in a diagram from Cisco's technical documentation included in the complaint Compl. p. 16, Figure 1

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'591 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a Server (32) including an FCoE HBA (40); The Accused Products include Cisco UCS B-Series blade servers which are installed with a UCS CNA M72KR-Q, an FCoE/NIC mezzanine adapter. ¶81 col. 20:1-14
said FCoE HBA (40) including a Virtual Fibre Channel Port (42) and an Ethernet Interface (44); Cisco's products allow for the provisioning of virtual Fibre Channel and virtual Ethernet adapters on a server. ¶82 col. 20:1-14
providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); The Accused Products include and provide standard Layer 2 ethernet switches. ¶83 col. 20:1-14
providing an FCoE Transformer (46) including an Ethernet Interface (44) and a Fibre Channel Interface (48); Cisco's architecture allegedly transforms between Ethernet (FCoE) and native Fibre Channel, as evidenced by its virtual fibre channel interface binding to ethernet. ¶84 col. 20:1-14
providing a Fibre Channel Device (23); Cisco documentation allegedly confirms its products can function as a discrete Fibre Channel host bus adapter (HBA), which the complaint equates to a Fibre Channel Device. ¶85 col. 20:1-14
said FCoE HBA (40) sending an FCoE Frame (93) to said FCoE Transformer (46) via said Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24); Cisco's CNA (ENode) sends FIP/FCoE frames to a Fibre Channel Forwarder (FCF), which functions as the transformer, via a switch. ¶86 col. 20:15-18
said FCoE Frame (93) is conveyed in an Ethernet Frame (83) without utilizing an IP packet; The complaint cites Cisco documentation stating FCoE is encapsulated directly over Ethernet using a dedicated Ethertype (0x8906), not IP. ¶87 col. 20:25-32
said FCoE Transformer (46) converting said FCoE Frame (93) to a Fibre Channel Frame (71); The host-side CNA allegedly sends FCoE frames that are converted to native Fibre Channel frames by the UCS/NX-OS fabric's FCoE termination element (FCF/FC bridge). ¶88 col. 20:33-35
said FCoE Frame (93) including an SOF field (124)... The complaint alleges the products' authentication and encryption capabilities demonstrate they provide for an SOF field and character. ¶89 col. 20:36-40
said FCoE Frame (93) including an EOF field (126)... The complaint alleges the products' trunking and load balancing capabilities demonstrate they provide for an EOF field and character. ¶90 col. 20:41-45
said FCoE Transformer (46) sending said Fibre Channel Frame (71) to said Fibre Channel Device (23). The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a transformer that sends the converted Fibre Channel frame to the Fibre Channel device. ¶91 col. 20:46-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a series of discrete components: "Server", "FCoE HBA", "Layer 2 Ethernet Switch", and "FCoE Transformer". The complaint maps these claimed elements to various logical and physical parts of Cisco's integrated UCS architecture Compl. ¶¶81-84 A central question will be whether the accused system, which combines functionality, contains the distinct elements as claimed, or if there is a structural and functional mismatch. For example, does the function performed by the "UCS/NX-OS fabric's FCoE termination element" Compl. ¶88 meet all the limitations of the claimed "FCoE Transformer"?
    • Evidentiary Questions: The allegations for the "SOF field" and "EOF field" limitations rely on high-level product features like "authentication and encryption" and "frame-based trunking" to "demonstrate" the presence of these specific frame components Compl. ¶89 Compl. ¶90 The analysis may turn on whether Plaintiff can provide sufficient technical evidence to connect these general capabilities to the specific frame-encoding functions required by the claims.

'077 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, at the the FCoE transformer, an FCoE frame via a layer 2 Ethernet switch; The Accused Products are alleged to receive FCoE frames at the component functioning as the transformer, using features like Flow Mirroring for analysis. ¶112 col. 20:4-6
converting, at the FCoE transformer, the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame... To maintain interoperability between FCoE and Fibre Channel, the Accused Products must permit this conversion at the transformer. ¶113 col. 20:7-8
...wherein: the FCoE frame includes a SOF field included in an FCoE transport header for providing an SOF character... The Accused Products' authentication and encryption capabilities are alleged to demonstrate they provide an SOF field for starting a Fibre Channel Frame. ¶114 col. 20:9-13
the FCoE frame includes an EOF field included in an FCoE transport header for providing an EOF character... The Accused Products' trunking, load balancing, and routing capabilities are alleged to demonstrate they provide an EOF field for ending a Fibre Channel Frame. ¶115 col. 20:14-18
...and transporting the fibre channel frame. The Accused Products must transport the fibre channel frame to enable data passage through its switches and devices. ¶116 col. 20:18-19
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: This method claim is performed by "a FCoE transformer." The dispute will likely involve the same component-mapping issue as in the '591 patent analysis: identifying which specific part of the accused Cisco UCS architecture constitutes the "FCoE transformer" and whether it performs all the claimed steps.
    • Technical Questions: Similar to the '591 patent analysis, the infringement allegations for the SOF and EOF field limitations are inferential, relying on high-level system capabilities Compl. ¶114 Compl. ¶115 A key question for the court will be whether these generalized features provide sufficient evidence that the accused products necessarily create and process FCoE frames with the specific header structure required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "FCoE Transformer"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the inventions across all three patents. The complaint identifies different parts of Cisco's architecture as the "transformer," including a "virtual fibre channel interface" Compl. ¶84 and an "FCoE termination element" Compl. ¶88 The case may hinge on whether Cisco's integrated system contains a component that meets the legal definition of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '591 Patent specification provides a functional definition, stating an FCoE Transformer is "the interface between the Ethernet and the Fibre Channel SAN network" and is "responsible for converting the FCoE protocol to the Fibre Channel FC-1 protocol and vise-versa" '591 Patent, col. 4:22-26 It also states the transformer can be constructed in various ways, including with an ASIC, FPGA, or "by software running on a Ethernet or Fibre Channel connected device" '591 Patent, col. 4:61-65, which may support a broader, non-physical interpretation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as Figure 8, depict the "FCoE Transformer (46)" as a distinct block, separate from the "FCoE HBA (40)" and the "Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24)". The specification also notes that "Each FCoE Transformer has at least two ports; an Ethernet Port and a Fibre Channel port" '591 Patent, col. 4:27-29, which may suggest a more concrete hardware entity than a purely logical or software-based function.

  • The Term: "without utilizing an IP packet"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation in claim 1 of the '591 Patent is critical for distinguishing the invention from prior art IP-based storage protocols. The infringement allegation relies on Cisco's documentation showing FCoE uses a dedicated, non-IP Layer 2 Ethertype Compl. ¶87 Practitioners may focus on this term because any use of IP in the accused communication path could be argued as non-infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states the invention "transports Fibre Channel data frames... over Ethernet at the MAC layer (layer 2) without using higher layer networking protocols such as IP and UDP" '591 Patent, col. 3:33-37 This suggests the exclusion of IP applies specifically to the data transport mechanism itself.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the claim language is absolute and that any use of IP, even for ancillary functions like network management in the accused system, means the communication does not occur "without utilizing an IP packet." The patent itself contemplates using SNMP for management, a protocol that typically runs over IP, which could be cited to argue the scope of the exclusion is not absolute and creates ambiguity '591 Patent, col. 15:61-16:2

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The basis for inducement is that Cisco allegedly "knowingly induces, aids, and directs others to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes," pointing to "Cisco's instructions" as evidence of specific intent Compl. ¶101 Compl. ¶104 Compl. ¶126 Compl. ¶152 This suggests Plaintiff will rely on user manuals, configuration guides, and other technical documentation provided to customers.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Cisco's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the technology Compl. ¶96 Compl. ¶121 Compl. ¶144 The complaint alleges this knowledge stems from Cisco's own work in the FCoE space and its participation as a member of the INCITS FCoE standard-setting committee Compl. ¶76

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

  1. Standing and Damages: A threshold issue, extensively addressed in the complaint's factual background Compl. ¶¶28-45, will be whether Plaintiff can definitively establish its standing to sue for the entire period of alleged infringement, particularly given the patents' complex ownership history and their 2023 expiration date. The effectiveness of the Nunc Pro Tunc assignments in retroactively curing any chain-of-title defects will be a key legal question.

  2. Architectural Mapping: A core technical and legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can the discrete components recited in the patent claims (e.g., "FCoE HBA", "FCoE Transformer") be mapped onto the corresponding functions within Cisco's highly integrated and partially virtualized Unified Computing System, or does the accused architecture represent a non-infringing alternative design?

  3. Method Claim Infringement: As all asserted claims are method claims, a central legal question will be one of direct vs. indirect infringement: does Cisco's act of making and selling a system capable of performing the patented methods constitute direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or does infringement only occur when the system is operated by an end-user, shifting the primary focus of the case to evidence of inducement?

Loading Amended Complaint