DCT

1:13-cv-02020

Bockstar Tech LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:13-cv-02020, D. Del., 12/11/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Cisco conducts substantial business in the district, derives revenue from activities there, and has previously availed itself of the court by filing its own patent infringement lawsuits in the jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network switches and routers infringe six patents related to network data management, device configuration, resource conservation, and telephony session information.
  • Technical Context: The patents address fundamental challenges in computer networking, such as managing traffic congestion, automating device setup, and integrating voice services with data networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originated with Nortel Networks Corporation and were acquired by Rockstar Bidco, LP, following Nortel's 2009 bankruptcy. The patents were subsequently transferred to the Plaintiff, Bockstar Technologies LLC, an intellectual property company.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 5,732,080 Priority Date
1997-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,069,895 Priority Date
1997-12-24 U.S. Patent No. 6,233,245 Priority Date
1998-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 5,732,080 Issued
1999-02-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,508 Priority Date
1999-09-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,684,241 Priority Date
1999-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,778,653 Priority Date
2000-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,069,895 Issued
2001-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,233,245 Issued
2003-10-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,636,508 Issued
2004-01-27 U.S. Patent No. 6,684,241 Issued
2004-08-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,778,653 Issued
2009-01-01 Nortel filed for bankruptcy protection
2013-12-11 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,233,245, "Method and Apparatus for Management of Bandwidth in a Data Communication Network", Issued May 15, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses network congestion that occurs when high-volume traffic streams (e.g., streaming video) and other types of data traffic compete for limited bandwidth on a physical link, potentially degrading performance for all users (’245 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a router that segregates incoming data packets into separate queues based on the data's characteristics, such as its source address. A scheduler then controls the release of data from each queue onto the physical link at a specified rate, effectively allocating a portion of the total bandwidth to each traffic type and preventing one type from monopolizing the link (’245 Patent, col. 2:25-41; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a mechanism for implementing Quality of Service (QoS) in connectionless data networks, allowing for the coexistence of different traffic types without requiring a complete and costly migration to connection-oriented network architectures (’245 Patent, col. 1:47-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but reserves the right to assert any claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶13-14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's router embodiment.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A router with input and output ports for a shared physical link.
    • A memory implementing first and second queue buffers.
    • A "data type determination unit" that dispatches traffic to a selected queue based on the source address information.
    • A "scheduler" that releases data from the queues to the output port at a certain rate for transmission.

U.S. Patent No. 6,684,241, "Apparatus and Method of Configuring a Network Device", Issued January 27, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of manually configuring network devices as labor-intensive, complex, and prone to error, especially in multi-vendor environments where configuration methods differ (’241 Patent, col. 1:22-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method for a new, unconfigured network device to automatically learn its configuration settings. It achieves this by passively "snooping" on network traffic transmitted by already-configured devices to retrieve and parse configuration data, and by actively requesting information from a network manager. The device then uses this data to configure itself to operate on the network (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-33).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables "plug-and-play" functionality for enterprise-grade network devices, significantly reducing the administrative overhead, time, and potential for human error involved in network expansion and maintenance (’241 Patent, col. 1:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but reserves the right to assert any claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶19-20). Independent claim 1 is representative of the inventive method.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Retrieving packets with configuration data at an unconfigured first network device, where the packets are transmitted by a second network device on the same subnet.
    • Parsing the retrieved packets to ascertain the configuration data.
    • Storing at least a portion of the parsed data in a configuration database.
    • Utilizing at least one datum of the configuration data to produce additional configuration data.
    • Storing the additional data in the database.
    • Configuring the first network device to operate using the data in the database.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,069,895, "Distributed Route Server", Issued May 30, 2000*

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a performance bottleneck created by centralized route servers in network switches. The invention distributes routing functions to "intelligent line-cards," allowing them to route packet traffic autonomously by using periodically updated copies of routing tables, thereby increasing the switch's overall capacity and efficiency (’895 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶25).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Cisco's 12000 Series, XR 12000 Series, and CRS-1 products of infringement (Compl. ¶25).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 5,732,080, "Method and Apparatus for Controlling Data Flow Within a Switching Device", Issued March 24, 1998*

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing data flow inside a switching device that has a common cell-switched backplane but may have different types of interface cards (e.g., packet-based Ethernet and cell-based ATM). It uses a system of "destination tags" and local tables on each card to create a unified forwarding mechanism, determining how to route data and convert it between packet and cell formats as needed (’080 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶31).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Cisco's Catalyst 6500, 4500, ASR 1000, ASR 9000, CRS-1, and 7600 Series router products of infringement (Compl. ¶31).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,636,508, "Network Resource Conservation System", Issued October 21, 2003*

    • Technology Synopsis: The technology conserves network resources by allowing two VoIP users to establish a direct voice path over a packet network (an "Intraswitched" call) rather than routing the voice traffic through a traditional telephone switch (PSTN). The system still allows the PSTN switch to handle the initial call setup and provide supplementary telephony services, but avoids tying up PSTN resources for the duration of the call (’508 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶37).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products containing Cisco's Unified CallManager software of infringement (Compl. ¶37).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 6,778,653, "Storing Information About a Telephony Session", Issued August 17, 2004*

    • Technology Synopsis: This invention describes a system for creating and using "telephony cookies" to store information about a call session. This information—which can include identifiers, user preferences, account details, or notes from a prior call—can be stored on a user's terminal and accessed in subsequent sessions to expedite interactions, enhance user convenience, and provide context for recurring calls (’653 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims but makes a general allegation of infringement (Compl. ¶43).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses products containing Cisco's Unified Contact Center Express of infringement (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses a wide range of Cisco's networking hardware and software. For the ’245 Patent, the accused products are the Catalyst 2950, 3560, and 3750 series switches (Compl. ¶13). For the ’241 Patent, the accused products are the Catalyst 3750-E, 3750, 3560-E, 3560, 2975, and 2960 switches, with specific mention of the "Smart Install" feature (Compl. ¶¶19-20). Other products, including various router series and software like Unified CallManager, are accused of infringing the other patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43).

  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused switches and routers are fundamental components of modern computer networks, responsible for forwarding data traffic between devices. The complaint alleges that certain features within these products implement the patented technologies. For the ’241 Patent, the complaint specifically calls out Cisco's "Smart Install" feature, which is alleged to provide automated configuration capabilities (Compl. ¶20). For the other patents, the infringement allegations are tied to general functionalities like traffic management, call control, and contact center operations. These products represent a significant portion of Cisco's enterprise networking portfolio. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without reference to specific claims or a detailed mapping of product features to claim elements. The following charts are based on representative independent claims and the complaint's broad infringement theories.

’245 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A router for use in a communications network... The complaint alleges that Cisco's Catalyst 2950, 3560, and 3750 series switches are routers or function as routers in a communications network. ¶13 col. 8:1-2
a memory for implementing first and second queue buffers... The accused switches allegedly contain memory used to implement multiple queue buffers for managing data traffic. ¶13 col. 8:11-14
a data type determination unit...operative to dispatch the data traffic units...to a selected one of said first and second queue buffers on a basis of the source address information... The accused switches allegedly analyze incoming data packets, using information such as source address, to sort them into different queues as part of their Quality of Service (QoS) functionality. ¶13 col. 8:15-20
a scheduler for releasing the data traffic units to said output port from each one of said first and second queue buffers at a certain rate... The accused switches allegedly use a scheduling mechanism to control the transmission of data from their various queues, thereby managing bandwidth allocation. ¶13 col. 8:21-24

’241 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
retrieving packets having configuration data at the unconfigured first network device, the retrieved packets being transmitted by the second network device... The complaint alleges that the accused switches, via the "Smart Install" feature, retrieve configuration data by monitoring packets from other devices on the network. ¶¶19-20 col. 7:51-54
parsing the retrieved packets to ascertain the configuration data; The "Smart Install" feature allegedly parses these packets to extract configuration parameters needed for the switch to operate on the network. ¶20 col. 8:55-56
storing at least a portion of the configuration data parsed...in a configuration database... The accused switches allegedly store this extracted configuration data in a local database or memory. ¶20 col. 8:57-60
utilizing at least one datum of the configuration data to produce additional configuration data; and storing the additional configuration data in the configuration database... The "Smart Install" feature allegedly uses the initial data to derive or produce further necessary configuration settings, which are then also stored. ¶¶19-20 col. 8:61-9:2

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’245 Patent will be whether the accused switches' QoS functionality operates "on a basis of the source address information" as strictly required by the claim, or if it relies on other criteria not covered by the patent. For the ’241 Patent, a question is whether the "retrieving" step, as performed by "Smart Install," meets the claim's requirements, which could be interpreted as requiring passive "snooping" versus active requests.
  • Technical Questions: The core of the dispute will likely be factual and technical: does the actual operation of Cisco's "Smart Install" feature map to all the specific steps of claim 1 of the ’241 patent, including "producing additional configuration data"? Similarly, for the ’245 Patent, does the scheduling algorithm in the accused switches function as the claimed "scheduler" that releases data "at a certain rate" in the manner described by the patent? The lack of detail in the complaint leaves these critical technical comparisons as open questions for discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms are likely to be central.

  • Term from ’245 Patent: "data type determination unit"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the heart of the claimed invention, defining how traffic is segregated. The infringement case depends on whether the accused switches perform segregation based on a "data type" that falls within the patent's definition, which the claim links to "source address information."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of "data type" could be argued to encompass more than just the source address, potentially including other packet header information that Cisco's products might use.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly states the unit is "operative to dispatch...on a basis of the source address information," suggesting a narrower construction where the "data type" is directly derived from or equivalent to the source address. The specification's focus on identifying high-bandwidth sources like video servers could be used to argue for this narrower scope (’245 Patent, col. 3:26-35).

  • Term from ’241 Patent: "retrieving packets"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "retrieving" is critical to determining whether the ’241 patent covers the specific auto-configuration method used by Cisco's "Smart Install." Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of acquisition (passive listening vs. active requesting) is a key technical distinction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "retrieving" itself does not inherently exclude active methods. The specification describes a subprocess where the device actively "accesses" a manager server to get information, which could support a construction that includes both active and passive retrieval (’241 Patent, col. 6:28-44).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily emphasizes "passively" retrieving data by "snooping" on or "monitoring" traffic (’241 Patent, col. 4:6-9, 25-27). A defendant could argue these detailed descriptions limit the general term "retrieving" to the passive embodiments disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Cisco providing customers with technical support, instructions, and documentation that allegedly "promote and demonstrate" how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶14, 20). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the assertion that the accused products are "especially made or adapted for use in infringing" the patents and have no substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶14, 20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Cisco has been aware of the asserted patents and its infringement "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶14). This allegation, if proven, would only support a finding of post-suit willful infringement, as there is no allegation of pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint's generalized allegations, which identify numerous product families but fail to specify accused claims or map features to claim limitations, are sufficient to proceed. The case may face early challenges regarding the specificity required to provide Defendant with fair notice of the infringement claims across six distinct patents.
  2. Technical Congruence: The central substantive question is one of technical and operational alignment. Does the functionality of Cisco's commercial products, such as "Smart Install" or its QoS traffic management, actually practice the specific, and in some cases dated, methods described and claimed in the Nortel-era patents? The outcome will likely depend on a granular, feature-by-feature comparison presented through expert testimony.
  3. Claim Scope and the Prior Art: A key legal battle will be over claim construction. Can Bockstar achieve broad interpretations of terms like "data type determination unit" or "retrieving packets" that are expansive enough to read on modern, multifaceted Cisco features? Conversely, Cisco will likely argue for narrower constructions limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patents, and may point to the evolution of networking technology since the patents' priority dates to distinguish its products.