DCT

2:24-cv-00332

WSOU Investments LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00332, E.D. Tex., 05/06/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and maintains regular and established places of business in Richardson, Texas, including a 78-acre campus and a data center.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking products, including its Catalyst switching platforms, Ultra-M platform, and optical line systems, infringe five patents related to network policy management, wireline/wireless protocol gateways, optical amplifier control, network failure protection, and congestion control.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address core technical challenges in high-performance computer networking, including quality of service, interoperability between different network types, optical signal integrity, network resiliency, and traffic management in data centers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of at least one patent-in-suit, the ’630 Patent, due to its citation on the face of a Cisco-owned patent issued in 2013. The complaint also references prior litigation between the parties filed in 2021 as a basis for willfulness allegations. To support patent eligibility, the complaint repeatedly cites statements made by patent examiners during prosecution, arguing that the claims were allowed over prior art because they represented specific, non-conventional technical solutions.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-04-30 ’630 Patent Priority Date
2008-06-10 ’630 Patent Issue Date
2009-12-30 ’721 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-10 ’286 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-24 Filing date of Cisco patent that cites the ’630 Patent
2012-09-28 ’691 Patent Priority Date
2013-05-14 ’721 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-30 ’286 Patent Issue Date
2014-06-11 ’884 Patent Priority Date
2015-03-17 ’691 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-20 ’884 Patent Issue Date
2021-02-05 Prior lawsuit WSOU v. Cisco filed
2024-05-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,386,630 - "Using Policy-Based Management To Support Diffserv Over MPLS Network"

Issued June 10, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of managing networks that combine Differentiated Services (DiffServ) for quality of service and Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for traffic engineering. This combination involves "cumbersome mappings" and requires manual, device-by-device configuration by network administrators, for which "no commercial solution" existed. (’630 Patent, col. 2:25-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized policy server to automate and simplify this management. The server translates high-level business policies into specific configurations for network devices and then deploys those configurations automatically. (’630 Patent, col. 4:25-31). This approach enables the definition of customer, network, and mapping policies that are applied consistently across the network, for instance by associating policies with interfaces that have been assigned a specific "role name." (’630 Patent, col. 4:59-65).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a centralized policy-based management system represented a significant step toward making complex, multi-technology networks scalable and manageable for large service providers. (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 18. (Compl. ¶59).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • defining a mapping policy to map between an experimental field and a unique per-hop-behavior;
    • defining a customer policy comprising a tunneling mode and a tunnel group identifier;
    • defining a network policy for the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic;
    • translating the mapping, network, and customer policies into device-specific commands; and
    • sending the commands to policy targets where each target has an interface assigned a role name associated with the customer policy.
  • The complaint states Plaintiff may assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 8,498,286 - "Radius Gateway on Policy Charging and Rules Function (PCRF) for Wireline/Wireless Converged Solution"

Issued July 30, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that communications companies typically must use two different server systems: a PCRF server using the Diameter protocol for wireless services and an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server using the RADIUS protocol for wireline services. This separation is inefficient, not easily scalable, and complicates management. (’286 Patent, col. 1:66-2:7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a converged system where a single PCRF platform can process requests from both wireless and wireline devices. It achieves this through a "Radius gateway" that translates RADIUS messages from wireline devices into a Network Access Server Request (NASReq) format understood by the PCRF. A Diameter Proxy Agent on the same platform then selects a PCRF blade (a component normally handling wireless sessions) to process the translated request, enabling unified policy and charging control. (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-20).
  • Technical Importance: This converged architecture allows service providers to use a single, scalable platform for both wireline and wireless services, which can reduce operational complexity and hardware costs. (Compl. ¶¶38-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 7. (Compl. ¶109).
  • Essential elements of claim 7 include:
    • a Radius gateway for translating a Radius message into a NASReq message and transmitting it;
    • a Diameter Proxy Agent within a PCRF server for receiving the NASReq message, selecting a PCRF cluster, and forwarding it; and
    • at least one PCRF blade within the server, configured for wireless sessions, that receives the NASReq message and creates or updates a corresponding session object.
  • The complaint states Plaintiff may assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶109).

U.S. Patent No. 8,441,721 - "System and Method of Raman Amplifier Pump Control"

Issued May 14, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses conventional Raman amplification control methods in optical networks, which can be slow to converge and sensitive to measurement errors. (’721 Patent, col. 2:27-30). The claimed solution improves stability and speed by "projecting" measured deviations from target channel powers into a mathematical space of "correctable changes," which allows the control system to focus on adjustments that the pump lasers can actually achieve while ignoring noise or uncorrectable phenomena. (’721 Patent, col. 2:64-67).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 19. (Compl. ¶128).
  • Accused Features: The "Raman Tuning" feature of the Cisco NCS 1010 Optical Line System is accused. The complaint alleges that this feature’s process of measuring channel power, calculating deviations from a target gain, and determining pump power settings during its "WORKING – CALCULATION" and "WORKING – OPTIMIZATION" states infringes the patent. (Compl. ¶¶137-149).

U.S. Patent No. 8,982,691 - "System and Method Providing Standby Bypass for Double Failure Protection in MPLS Network"

Issued March 17, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: Standard MPLS Fast Reroute protects against single network failures but not "double failures," where both a primary path and its initial backup path fail. (’691 Patent, col. 2:5-6). The invention provides enhanced resiliency by creating a standby backup Label Switched Path (LSP) for an existing bypass LSP. The system calculates a path that is disjoint from the bypass path, providing a secondary layer of protection against double-fault scenarios. (’691 Patent, col. 2:15-17).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent non-transitory machine readable storage medium claim 6. (Compl. ¶156).
  • Accused Features: The "Flex LSP" feature and its associated "Restore Path Option" in the Cisco NCS 4200 Series Network Convergence Systems are accused. These features are alleged to protect against dual failures by signaling a "restore LSP" if both primary and protect LSPs fail, and by using Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) to calculate disjoint paths. (Compl. ¶¶161-176).

U.S. Patent No. 9,450,884 - "Software Defined Networking Based Congestion Control"

Issued September 20, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses network congestion in data centers, which is often caused by "momentary data bursts" that can overwhelm switches. (’884 Patent, col. 1:24-33). The proposed solution is an edge switch that adjusts bandwidth allocation for a target port based on a "fair-share bandwidth allocation," defined as a proportional allocation of the network switching element's total bandwidth. This allows for dynamic and equitable responses to congestion. (’884 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent edge switch claim 17. (Compl. ¶187).
  • Accused Features: The Quality of Service (QoS) architecture of the Cisco Catalyst 9000 Switching Platforms is accused. The complaint alleges these switches monitor data flows at target ports, use an Egress Queue System and an Egress Forwarding Controller to manage allocations, and that this allocation is a proportional share of the total bandwidth of the underlying ASIC, thereby meeting the "fair-share" limitation. (Compl. ¶¶202-218).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are grouped by patent and include:
    • For the ’630 and ’884 Patents: Cisco Catalyst 9000 Switching Platforms, which use Cisco IOS XE software and the Unified Access Data Plane (UADP) ASIC. (Compl. ¶59, ¶187).
    • For the ’286 Patent: The Cisco Ultra-M Platform, a virtualized mobile packet core solution that includes Virtual Machines on UCS C240 Series servers running the Cisco Prime Access Registrar (CPAR). (Compl. ¶109, ¶112).
    • For the ’721 Patent: The Cisco NCS 1010 Optical Line System. (Compl. ¶128).
    • For the ’691 Patent: The Cisco NCS 4200 Series Network Convergence Systems. (Compl. ¶156).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products represent a range of Cisco's enterprise and service provider networking hardware. The Catalyst 9000 series are widely deployed enterprise switches that form the backbone of many corporate networks, providing routing, switching, and Quality of Service (QoS) features. (Compl. ¶¶64, 190). The complaint presents a block diagram from Cisco documentation showing the architecture of the Catalyst 9000's QoS tools. (Compl. p. 85, Fig. 12).
  • The Ultra-M Platform is a solution for mobile network operators, providing a virtualized core infrastructure. (Compl. ¶112). A diagram provided in the complaint illustrates the Ultra-M architecture, showing how components like the Cisco Ultra Service Platform and virtual machines are integrated. (Compl. p. 47). The NCS 1010 and NCS 4200 series are part of Cisco's optical and network convergence portfolio, aimed at service providers building high-capacity, resilient networks. (Compl. ¶¶132, 160). These products are positioned as foundational components of modern digital infrastructure.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’630 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[18A] defining a mapping policy configured to map between an experimental field and a unique per-hop-behavior The accused products use DiffServ Aware Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) and the Modular QoS Command Line Model (MQC) to create policy maps defining the relationship between MPLS experimental (EXP) fields and QoS behaviors. ¶¶64-66 col. 4:47-49
[18B] defining a customer policy comprising a tunneling mode and a tunnel group identifier... The accused products provide "MPLS DiffServ Tunneling Modes" (e.g., pipe mode, uniform mode) and allow for the creation of multiple tunnels that can be grouped and identified. ¶¶68-75 col. 4:50-54
[18C] defining a network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic The MPLS DiffServ Tunneling Modes are alleged to be network policies that define how aggregated traffic is treated with respect to QoS as it traverses the network. ¶¶80-82, ¶86 col. 4:47-49
[18D] translating the mapping policy, the network policy and the customer policy into device-specific commands Configuring the tunneling modes is alleged to translate the high-level policies into device-specific commands that are then sent to MPLS devices (e.g., routers) over the control plane. ¶¶88-90 col. 4:54-59
[18E] sending the device-specific commands to policy targets, wherein each policy target comprises a network device that includes an interface assigned a role name associated with the customer policy... The MQC service-policy command applies a traffic policy to a specific data plane interface. The complaint alleges that this association of a policy with an interface constitutes an "interface assigned a role name." ¶¶92-94 col. 4:59-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "role name." The infringement theory alleges that applying a service policy to an interface is equivalent to assigning a role name. (Compl. ¶94). A potential counterargument is that the patent specification suggests a "role name" is a distinct identifier assigned to an interface, which is then used to associate policies, rather than being the policy application itself. (’630 Patent, col. 6:21-25).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that configuring policies via MQC involves "translating" them into device-specific commands. (Compl. ¶88). The factual accuracy of this characterization—whether it is a translation or a more direct configuration—may be a point of contention.

’286 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[7A] a Radius gateway for translating a Radius message into a Network Access Server Request (NASReq) message and for transmitting the NASReq message The Cisco Prime Access Registrar (CPAR) component is described as a RADIUS/Diameter server that supports translation between the two protocols, allegedly meeting this element. ¶¶114-115 col. 2:15-18
[7B] a Diameter Proxy Agent within a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) server for receiving a NASReq message... for selecting one of at least one PCRF cluster... and for forwarding the NASReq message... CPAR allegedly acts as a Diameter Proxy Agent by allowing the configuration of Diameter server groups and performing group-based load balancing, which the complaint equates to selecting a PCRF cluster. ¶¶117-119 col. 1:35-40
[7C] at least one PCRF blade within the PCRF server... configured to handle communication sessions for wireless devices... for creating or updating a NASReq session object... The accused system's ability to perform load-balancing and use a Session-Id to correlate a message with a user-session is alleged to meet the requirement of a PCRF blade creating or updating a session object. ¶121 col. 2:18-20

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The claim requires a "Diameter Proxy Agent within a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) server." The complaint alleges the Accused CPAR Products, where CPAR is installed on a virtual machine in the Ultra-M platform, meets this limitation. (Compl. ¶112). A potential dispute is whether this virtualized, component-based architecture constitutes a DPA "within" a PCRF server, as opposed to a separate component that interoperates with it.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint equates CPAR’s feature of creating "groups of Diameter remote servers" with the claim limitation of "PCRF cluster." (Compl. ¶118). What evidence the complaint provides to support this terminological and functional equivalence raises a key question for the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’630 Patent

  • The Term: "role name" (from claim 18)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for the final limitation of claim 18. The infringement theory hinges on the court construing the act of applying a Cisco service-policy to an interface as being equivalent to an "interface assigned a role name."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "network interfaces are assigned role names and the policies are specified and associated with the roles name," which could be read broadly to cover any mechanism that links a policy to an interface. (’630 Patent, col. 6:21-23).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4E depicts "ROLE NAMES" as a distinct logical object that links "DEVICES" and "NETWORK POLICIES," suggesting it is a specific named attribute, not merely the act of association. (’630 Patent, Fig. 4E). The specification also describes role names as a tool to "achieve better scalability." (’630 Patent, col. 6:20-21).

For the ’286 Patent

  • The Term: "within a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF) server" (from claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: The physical and logical location of the "Diameter Proxy Agent" is a central issue. Infringement depends on whether the accused CPAR software, running as a virtual machine on the Ultra-M platform, is considered "within" the PCRF server.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes the Diameter Proxy Agent as being "on the same platform as the PCRFs," which may support an interpretation where functionally integrated components on a common hardware or virtualized platform are considered "within" the overall server system. (’286 Patent, col. 1:35-37).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "within" requires a more tightly integrated, monolithic architecture. The specification's consistent use of "on the platform" rather than "within the server" could be cited to support a narrower construction where the two are distinct but co-located entities.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all patents-in-suit, based on Defendant’s advertising, product manuals, and other instructions that allegedly direct customers on how to configure and use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶106).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents-in-suit. For the ’630 Patent, this is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from a Cisco patent (filed in 2011) that cites the ’630 Patent, as well as a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant in 2021. (Compl. ¶¶103-105). For the other patents, the willfulness allegations appear to be based primarily on the prior litigation.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent-specific terms such as "interface assigned a role name" (’630 Patent) and a proxy agent "within a PCRF server" (’286 Patent) be construed to cover the distinct architectures and terminologies used in Cisco’s accused products, such as the service-policy command and the virtualized Ultra-M platform? The case may turn on whether the court finds a direct mapping or a fundamental mismatch between the patent's language and the accused technology's implementation.
  • A second key question will be one of architectural equivalence: does the operational logic of the accused products—such as the QoS system in the Catalyst 9000 switches (’884 Patent) or the failure recovery mechanism in the NCS 4200 series (’691 Patent)—perform the specific, ordered steps required by the asserted claims, or are there material differences in their technical operation?
  • Finally, a significant question for damages will be willfulness: given the specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge for the ’630 Patent via a patent citation and for all asserted patents via prior litigation, the court will need to assess the objective reasonableness of Defendant’s non-infringement positions to determine if any infringement was willful.