DCT

2:25-cv-00935

Optimnet LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00935, E.D. Tex., 09/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Cisco has regular and established places of business in the district, including a large campus in Richardson, Texas, and has transacted business and committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, the exclusive licensee of five patents, alleges that Defendant’s core networking products—spanning optical transport, routing software, VPN services, and data center switches—infringe patents related to multi-ring network operation, VLAN management, virtual networking, time-based traffic control, and network virtualization.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the architecture and management of large-scale computer networks, addressing challenges in reliability, scalability, and policy enforcement that are fundamental to carrier-grade and enterprise network infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit originated with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), which allegedly declared patents essential to the ITU-T G.8032 (ERPS) standard and committed to license them on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of the patents through its participation in standards bodies and because Defendant’s own patents cite certain of the patents-in-suit, which may be relevant to willfulness and damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-06-25 ’623 Patent Priority Date
2009-07-24 ’807 Patent Priority Date
2009-11-19 ETRI submits IPR Declaration for G.8032 / Y.1344 standard
2010-10-29 ’887 Patent Priority Date
2012-02-14 ’623 Patent Issued
2012-04-18 ’101 Patent Priority Date
2013-12-27 ’961 Patent Priority Date
2014-01-28 ’807 Patent Issued
2014-07-15 ’887 Patent Issued
2016-04-12 ’101 Patent Issued
2018-07-10 ’961 Patent Issued
2025-09-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,116,623, “Multi-Ring Network Operating Method and System,” Issued 02/14/2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes drawbacks in conventional network cross-connects. Using purely electrical switches for multi-casting data creates performance bottlenecks and increases costs as data volume grows. Conversely, using purely optical multi-casting can lead to wavelength collisions between different ring networks and signal degradation over long distances (Compl. ¶21; ’623 Patent, col. 1:51-2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid optical cross-connect (OXC) apparatus that operates in both the optical and electrical domains. Data that does not require signal regeneration or wavelength conversion is efficiently cross-connected in the optical domain. Signals that do require such processing are handled in the more flexible electrical domain, providing an efficient method for connecting multiple ring networks (Compl. ¶21; ’623 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
  • Technical Importance: This hybrid approach sought to combine the high-speed, low-latency benefits of optical switching with the sophisticated signal processing capabilities of electrical switching, addressing a core challenge in scaling metropolitan and wide-area networks.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 1 Essential Elements: A method comprising:
    • cross-connecting input and output rings (both working and protection) of first and second ring networks;
    • splitting an input multi-wavelength optical signal into portions using an optical coupler; and
    • transmitting the signal to a wavelength selective switch that selectively passes portions of the signal to an output of the second ring network;
    • wherein a multi-casting function is provided in both an optical and an electrical domain.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 8,638,807, “Method for Managing Ethernet Ring Network of VLAN-Based Bridge,” Issued 01/28/2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that prior to the invention, methods for configuring an Ethernet ring network topology within a VLAN-aware Ethernet bridge to implement Ethernet Ring Protection (ERP) technology did not exist. Specifically, there was a lack of a management method for registering VLAN IDs and updating entries in the VLAN filtering databases required to operate an ERP controller (Compl. ¶32; ’807 Patent, col. 2:8-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for managing an Ethernet ring network of a VLAN-based bridge. The method is designed to effectively register a VLAN ID and update a VLAN entry in a filtering database, thereby enabling the operation of Ethernet ring protection in a bridge capable of recognizing a VLAN (Compl. ¶32; ’807 Patent, col. 2:18-23).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a systematic process for integrating VLAN management with ring protection protocols, a critical function for building resilient and logically segregated carrier-grade Ethernet services.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Claim 13 Essential Elements: A method comprising:
    • setting ring ports of an Ethernet ring node;
    • determining whether the node is a ring protection link (RPL) owner or neighbor;
    • registering VLAN IDs (VIDs) for traffic channel blocking and Ring Automatic Protection Switching (R-APS) channel blocking in Filtering Databases (FDBs) of the ring ports; and
    • performing a topology update of the Filtering Databases.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,780,887

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,780,887, "Method of Network-Based Communication in Virtual Network Environment," Issued 07/15/2014 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of maintaining network connectivity for mobile terminals, which in conventional internet architecture are assigned a new IP address each time they connect to a different network. The invention provides a method for direct communication based on a stable virtual address within a virtual network environment, thereby supporting terminal mobility (Compl. ¶43; ’887 Patent, 3:25-47).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: Cisco Meraki auto VPN software and Meraki virtual devices, including Meraki MX and Meraki Z series devices (Compl. ¶45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,313,101

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,313,101, "Method of Controlling Traffic by Time-Based Policy," Issued 04/12/2016 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent notes that conventional network traffic policies were limited because they were based only on information contained within a data packet (e.g., source/destination IP address). The invention proposes a method for more flexible traffic control by adding a "time condition" to policy setting, enabling the execution of time-based policies (Compl. ¶54; ’101 Patent, 1:22-59).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: All Cisco products that implement time-based policies, including through Cisco's Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Catalyst Center platforms (Compl. ¶56).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,020,961

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,020,961, "Method and Apparatus for Network Virtualization," Issued 07/10/2018 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the scalability limitations of overlay-based network virtualization technologies like VXLAN, where the need for a "full-mesh" of tunnels between all nodes restricts the size of the network. The invention provides a method and apparatus designed to provide greater expandability in such overlay-based virtual networks (Compl. ¶65; ’961 Patent, 1:20-62).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: Cisco products and software that implement Cisco ACI multi-site functionalities, such as the Cisco Nexus 9000 series or newer switches (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies five categories of accused products and services, each corresponding to one of the asserted patents:

  1. Cisco's Optical Transport Platforms (e.g., Cisco NCS 1004, NCS 2000) (’623 Patent) (Compl. ¶23).
  2. Cisco's IOS software platforms (IOS Classic, IOS-XE, IOS-XR) supporting the ITU-T G.8032 standard (e.g., Cisco ASR 900 and 1000 Series) (’807 Patent) (Compl. ¶34).
  3. Cisco Meraki auto VPN software and virtual devices (e.g., Meraki MX and Z series) (’887 Patent) (Compl. ¶45).
  4. Cisco products implementing time-based policies (e.g., Identity Services Engine (ISE), Catalyst Center platforms) (’101 Patent) (Compl. ¶56).
  5. Cisco products implementing Cisco ACI multi-site functionalities (e.g., Cisco Nexus 9000 series switches) (’961 Patent) (Compl. ¶67).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these products represent a wide array of Cisco's networking portfolio, from optical hardware to routing software, security platforms, and data center solutions (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6). The accused functionalities are central to modern networking, including providing high-availability ring protection (G.8032), secure virtual private networks (Meraki), policy-based traffic management (ISE), and scalable data center fabrics (ACI) (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6). The complaint references Cisco's own configuration guides as evidence that Cisco instructs users on how to implement the accused G.8032 functionality (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 34, 45, 56, 67). The following is a prose summary of the infringement theories.

’623 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Cisco's Optical Transport Platforms directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’623 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory would need to establish that the accused platforms perform the claimed method of cross-connecting optical ring networks by using hardware components that function as the claimed "optical coupler" and "wavelength selective switch." A central element of the theory would be demonstrating that the accused platforms provide a "multi-casting function" in both the optical domain (for signals not requiring regeneration) and the electrical domain (for signals that do), as required by the claim (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the specific hardware components within Cisco's complex optical platforms meet the definitions of "optical coupler" and "wavelength selective switch" as construed from the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question may be whether the accused platforms actually provide multi-casting in both the optical and electrical domains. The evidence will need to distinguish between signals that are passed through optically and those that undergo optical-to-electrical conversion for processing, and show that both paths are used for multi-casting as claimed.

’807 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Cisco's IOS software platforms that support the ITU-T G.8032 standard for Ethernet Ring Protection Switching (ERPS) directly infringe at least Claim 13 of the ’807 Patent (Compl. ¶34). The infringement theory is predicated on the allegation that implementing the G.8032 standard on accused devices, such as the Cisco ASR 900 and 1000 Series routers, necessarily practices the claimed method steps. This includes the software processes for setting ring ports, determining the role of a node as an RPL owner or neighbor, and, critically, "registering" specific VLAN IDs in "Filtering Databases" to manage both traffic and R-APS control messages (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The construction of terms like "registering... in Filtering Databases" and "performing a topology update" will be central. The dispute will likely focus on whether the specific data structures and operational logic within Cisco's IOS software align with the patent's description of these steps.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether Cisco's implementation of the G.8032 standard includes every limitation of Claim 13. A defense could suggest the possibility that the standard can be practiced in a way that omits or alters one of the claimed method steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’623 Patent

  • The Term: "a multi-casting function... provided both in an optical domain and in an electrical domain" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core hybrid nature of the invention. Proving infringement requires demonstrating that the accused products possess and utilize both types of multi-casting capabilities. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from prior art that was purely optical or purely electrical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" describes the solution broadly as providing an apparatus with this dual-domain function to solve the problems of both approaches, which may support a functional interpretation (Compl. ¶21; ’623 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures may depict specific embodiments where the electrical domain multi-casting is performed by a distinct "electrical cross-connect/grooming switch," potentially supporting an argument that a specific hardware architecture is required to meet this limitation (’623 Patent, FIG. 8, element 820).

For the ’807 Patent

  • The Term: "registering VLAN IDs (VIDs) ... in Filtering Databases (FDBs) of the ring ports" (Claim 13)
  • Context and Importance: This term relates to a specific data management operation within the network device. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the data structures and software processes used in Cisco's IOS to manage VLANs for ERPS fall within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent background describes the problem as a lack of a "management method related to registration of a VLAN ID," suggesting the invention is a functional solution that could be read on any software process that achieves this end (Compl. ¶32; ’807 Patent, col. 2:13-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including any flowcharts or detailed descriptions of the registration process, may disclose a specific sequence of steps or a particular database structure. This could be used to argue that only an implementation following that specific logic meets the claim limitation (’807 Patent, FIGS. 7A-7B).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Cisco provides instructions, user manuals, and educational materials that encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 35, 46, 57, 68). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are especially made or adapted to infringe and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 36, 47, 58, 69).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge stems from Cisco’s awareness of the G.8032 standard and ETRI’s associated IPR declarations, as well as from citations to the ’887 and ’961 patents on the face of Cisco’s own issued patents (Compl. ¶¶ 4-8, 46, 68). Post-suit knowledge is alleged to have occurred, at the latest, upon the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶26).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards implementation: Given ETRI's declaration of patents as potentially essential to the G.8032 standard, to what extent does Cisco's standards-compliant ERPS functionality practice every limitation of the '807 patent's claims, and how might the associated RAND licensing commitment influence the determination of a reasonable royalty?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the hardware and software architecture of Cisco's accused optical transport platforms (’623 patent) and data center virtualization products (’961 patent) map onto the specific functional and structural elements required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?
  • The case will likely test the threshold for pre-suit knowledge: Does a defendant's general participation in standards bodies, or the mere presence of a patent-in-suit as a citation on its own patent, constitute the subjective knowledge required to support a claim of willful infringement, or will more direct evidence of awareness of the specific infringement be required?