Cisco Systems Inc v. Golden Eye Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00187
• Patent #: 9,717,037
• Filed: January 7, 2026
• Petitioner(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Golden Eye Technologies LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-3 and 13-15

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Access Point Scan Method in a Wireless LAN
• Brief Description: The ’037 patent discloses an active scanning method for wireless networks. The claimed invention involves a mobile station sending a probe request and an access point (AP) selectively transmitting a probe response only if the station's "uplink quality" satisfies a predetermined standard. A key limitation, added during prosecution to secure allowance, requires the station to wait for a preset "maximum probe response time" to elapse before accessing the selected AP.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 13-15 are obvious over Choudhary, Hasty, and Chen.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Choudhary (Patent 9,161,293), Hasty (Patent 7,058,018), and Chen (Patent 8,503,390).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the prior art combination teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.

    • Choudhary formed the base system, disclosing an AP that filters incoming probe requests from stations in an IEEE 802.11 network. The AP only responds if the request’s Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) exceeds a configured threshold. This core concept mirrors the ’037 patent’s limitation of responding only when a quality standard is met.
    • Hasty was argued to supply an obvious improvement to Choudhary’s quality metric. Hasty taught using a station’s transmit power level combined with the received RSSI to calculate path loss. Petitioner contended path loss is a more robust link quality metric than RSSI alone, as it can distinguish between a nearby low-power station and a distant high-power station. This directly maps to the claims’ requirements for "signal strength information" and determining "uplink quality." Independent claim 13, for example, requires acquiring information about uplink quality, which Petitioner asserted is taught by Hasty’s path loss calculation.
    • Chen was presented to teach the timing limitation added during prosecution. Chen described the standard IEEE 802.11 procedure where a station waits for a preset maximum time period (a "maxReplyWait" timer) to gather all potential probe responses before selecting and associating with the best AP. Petitioner argued this is the same waiting period claimed in the ’037 patent, which the patent’s own specification disparaged as a "waste of time."

  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner provided a multi-step motivation for the combination.

    • A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Hasty with Choudhary to improve the link quality assessment. Choudhary explicitly contemplated using metrics "derived from RSSI," and Hasty provided a known and superior RSSI-derived metric (path loss). Using path loss would better achieve Choudhary’s stated goal of responding only to stations close enough to form a quality connection.
    • A POSITA would then implement the combined Choudhary/Hasty system using the standardized timing procedures from Chen. Doing so would ensure the system was compatible with the vast number of existing IEEE 802.11 devices, thereby increasing marketability and interoperability. Since Choudhary’s system was designed for 802.11 networks, using the standard timing protocol for scanning and association would have been a common-sense design choice.

  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. All three references operate within the well-established and predictable IEEE 802.11 framework. The combination involved applying known techniques (Hasty’s path loss metric and Chen’s standard timing) to an existing system (Choudhary’s selective response) to achieve the predictable result of a more robust and compatible network scanning process.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. The ’037 patent is the subject of co-pending litigation, Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. To mitigate Fintiv concerns, Petitioner provided a Sotera stipulation, agreeing that if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in the district court action the specific grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR trial and the cancellation of claims 1-3 and 13-15 of the ’037 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.