DCT

2:25-cv-00781

Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00781, E.D. Tex., 08/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business, specifically its "Richardson Texas Campus."
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cisco Unified Wireless Network products, including its mesh access points and wireless controllers, infringe five patents related to high-performance, distributed control wireless mesh networking.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive wireless mesh networks where individual nodes can autonomously reconfigure their connections to optimize for network-wide performance goals like low latency or high throughput, moving beyond centralized, less scalable network architectures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff disclosed its patented and patent-pending technology to senior decision-makers at Defendant during partnership discussions in or around 2009. It also alleges that a formal notice letter detailing infringement of all patents-in-suit was sent to Defendant’s CEO on June 22, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-10-28 Earliest Priority Date (’952, ’243, ’691, ’537 Patents)
2006-06-19 Earliest Priority Date (’385 Patent)
2008-09-02 ’952 Patent Issued
2009-01-01 Pre-suit communications between Plaintiff and Defendant alleged to have occurred
2011-02-08 ’243 Patent Issued
2011-02-22 ’385 Patent Issued
2013-08-27 ’691 Patent Issued
2019-01-01 Alleged knowledge date for infringement of ’952, ’243, ’385 Patents
2022-06-21 ’537 Patent Issued
2022-06-22 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant
2022-01-01 Alleged knowledge date for infringement of ’691, ’537 Patents
2025-08-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,420,952 - "High performance wireless networks using distributed control," issued Sep. 2, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of using a single wireless network to support diverse applications with conflicting needs, such as low-latency for voice and high-throughput for data (U.S. Patent No. 7,420,952, col. 1:47-62). Centralized control approaches are identified as suffering from scalability issues, high costs, and creating single points of failure (U.S. Patent No. 7,420,952, col. 2:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an adaptive wireless network where a central "Access Server" sets high-level performance objectives (e.g., prioritizing low latency or high throughput), but the individual Access Point (AP) nodes execute control in a decentralized manner (’952 Patent, col. 4:1-5). The AP nodes autonomously reconfigure their relationships with each other to meet the centrally defined goals, creating a self-configuring and redundant network (’952 Patent, col. 4:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This distributed intelligence approach was designed to create highly scalable, redundant, and application-aware wireless networks that could self-optimize without the micromanagement required by prior art centralized systems (Compl. ¶¶29-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
    • An access server for setting communication criteria.
    • One or more root nodes connected to the access server.
    • One or more AP nodes, each having a unique identifier and at least two radios.
    • Each AP node automatically connects to a parent node based on communication criteria from the access server.
    • The communication criteria include latency and throughput requirements.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,885,243 - "High performance wireless networks using distributed control," issued Feb. 8, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent ’952 patent, the ’243 patent addresses the technical problems of prior art mesh networks, such as poor scalability, data collisions, high latency, and inefficient routing in networks with a large number of nodes (Compl. ¶5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for controlling a wireless mesh network where parent-child relationships between nodes are established and reconfigured based on parent selection criteria (U.S. Patent No. 7,885,243, Abstract). The detailed description explains that this process allows the network to dynamically adapt; for example, nodes can connect to intermediate APs rather than directly to a root node to improve overall network throughput, trading off a small increase in latency (hops) for a significant gain in performance (’243 Patent, col. 3:33-40).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a specific, non-conventional technique for implementing distributed intelligence in a wireless network to enhance its reliability, efficiency, and adaptability (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶76).
  • Claim 12 (Method Claim) Elements:
    • Controlling a wireless mesh network of relay nodes.
    • Establishing a first parent-child relationship for a first relay node based on first parent selection criteria.
    • Determining a first routing path for the first relay node.
    • Reconfiguring the network by establishing a second parent-child relationship for the first relay node based on second parent selection criteria.
    • Determining a second routing path for the first relay node.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,894,385 (“’385 Patent”) - "Mobility extensions for wireless multiple radio mesh," issued Feb. 22, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges the ’385 patent overcomes shortcomings of conventional networks in handling mobile nodes (Compl. ¶36). It claims a technology for enabling seamless transitions of mobile nodes between parent nodes by implementing an "intelligent scanning and sampling process" that reduces latency and optimizes throughput during handoffs (Compl. ¶37).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 2 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The functionality of Cisco's mesh networks that supports mobility and handoffs between access points (Compl. ¶¶92, 97).

U.S. Patent No. 8,520,691 (“’691 Patent”) - "Persistent Mesh for isolated mobile and temporal networking," issued Aug. 27, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’691 patent is directed to a "persistent, structured mesh architecture" that allows for adaptive network reconfiguration when nodes become isolated from a main network (Compl. ¶42). This enhances network resilience by, for example, dynamically assigning root node status to an isolated node and enabling distributed network services like DHCP to continue functioning without an external connection (Compl. ¶¶43-44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The architecture of Cisco's mesh networks that enables continued operation and service delivery when parts of the network become isolated (Compl. ¶¶108, 113).

U.S. Patent No. 11,368,537 (“’537 Patent”) - "High performance wireless network," issued June 21, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a technology that enhances network scalability and performance by allowing mesh access point (MAP) nodes to "autonomously select an optimal parent node based on predefined selection criteria, such as latency, throughput, and signal strength" (Compl. ¶48). This decentralized, adaptive execution is alleged to ensure robust network performance without reliance on a single point of failure (Compl. ¶48).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶124).
  • Accused Features: The autonomous parent-selection functionality within Cisco's mesh access points (Compl. ¶¶124, 129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Cisco Unified Wireless Network," which includes a suite of hardware and software products marketed as an integrated solution (Compl. ¶9). Specific product families named include Cisco's Access Points (e.g., Catalyst 9100 Series, Aironet 1500-3700 series), wireless controllers (e.g., Catalyst 9800 Series), and control systems (e.g., Cisco Prime Infrastructure, Cisco DNA Center) (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are alleged to interoperate to form "Mesh" Wi-Fi networks (Compl. ¶9). The complaint describes the technical functionality as a system where wireless controllers detect and configure the APs, and control systems are used to configure and monitor the controllers and APs (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges that these systems provide a unified technical solution for customers to deploy and manage wireless mesh networks (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories. The following summarizes the narrative infringement allegations for the lead patents.

  • ’952 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
    The complaint alleges that the combination of Cisco's Accused Products creates a system that infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶60). The narrative suggests that Cisco's control systems, such as the Cisco DNA Center, perform the role of the claimed "access server" by setting the network's operational parameters (Compl. ¶11). The wired Cisco access points allegedly function as the claimed "root nodes," while the wireless "Mesh" APs function as the claimed "AP nodes" that form the hierarchical network structure (Compl. ¶¶9-11). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that these Cisco APs "automatically connect" to parent nodes based on performance criteria like latency and throughput, which correspond to the "communication criteria" required to be set by the access server in the claim (Compl. ¶¶6, 30).

  • ’243 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 12)
    The complaint alleges that the operation of the Accused Products infringes method claim 12 (Compl. ¶76). The infringement theory is based on the alleged dynamic and adaptive nature of Cisco's mesh networks (Compl. ¶¶4-6). The method steps of "establishing" and "reconfiguring" parent-child relationships are allegedly met by the Cisco system's ability to dynamically adjust routing paths to optimize performance (Compl. ¶6). The "parent selection criteria" recited in the claim are allegedly embodied in the logic used by Cisco's products to select connections based on network conditions to balance latency and throughput, thereby determining and updating the routing paths as claimed (Compl. ¶¶6, 30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Architectural Equivalence: The infringement reading for the ’952 Patent appears to map multiple, distinct Cisco products (e.g., controllers and management software) onto the single "access server" limitation. A potential point of contention may be whether this distributed architecture meets the claim element, or if the patent requires a more monolithic server entity.
    • Source of Control: For both patents, a central question may arise regarding the source and nature of the "selection criteria." The dispute may focus on whether the accused Cisco products operate using standardized, self-contained mesh protocols (e.g., 802.11s) where selection logic is inherent to the nodes, or whether they implement the specific claimed invention where criteria are dynamically "defined by the access server" (’952 Patent) and used to "reconfigure" the network (’243 Patent).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "access server" (’952 Patent, claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed architecture. The complaint maps this term to an array of Cisco products, including controllers and separate management systems (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether Cisco’s distributed control plane and management plane architecture can satisfy a single claim element.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the server's function as "manag[ing]" the network by "setting control parameters" for it (’952 Patent, col. 6:35-39). This functional language could support an interpretation that encompasses a system of distinct but coordinated components performing the server role.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to "The Access server (10)" as a singular entity and depicts it as a single box in diagrams (e.g., ’952 Patent, FIG. 1). This may support a narrower construction requiring a single, integrated software or hardware product.
  • The Term: "automatically connects...by selecting the single associated parent node from one or more potential parent nodes based at least in part on one or more parent selection criteria defined by the access server" (’952 Patent, claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core inventive concept of distributed execution based on centralized control. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused products' connection process is merely automated or if it performs the specific, criteria-driven selection taught by the patent. The dispute will likely center on the link between the "selection criteria" and the "access server."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "automatically" could be construed broadly to mean any connection process that occurs without contemporaneous human intervention.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the objective is to "allow the Access Server to set some latency/throughput constraints that causes each AP node to change their relationships" (’952 Patent, col. 3:52-55). This suggests "automatically connects" requires a specific process where the selection is directly influenced by parameters originating from the "access server," not just from a pre-programmed, static algorithm on the node.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents-in-suit. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant instructs and encourages customers to build and operate the infringing mesh networks through user guides, advertisements, technical support, and consulting services (Compl. ¶¶61-64). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are material components of the invention, are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶69-70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from 2009 meetings where Plaintiff disclosed the ’952 patent and related patent applications to Cisco executives (Compl. ¶¶50-51). The complaint also pleads knowledge as of at least a June 22, 2022 notice letter, and continuing post-filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶54, 68).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant’s multi-product "Unified Wireless Network"—which separates hardware controllers from higher-level software management platforms—constitutes the single "access server" recited in the claims, or will the court construe that term to require a more integrated entity?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional causality: does the accused system’s dynamic path selection operate according to generic, industry-standard mesh protocols, or does the evidence show it implements the specific, patented method where decentralized nodes reconfigure their network relationships in direct response to tunable, centrally-defined "latency/throughput" parameters originating from the alleged "access server"?