DCT
1:25-cv-00888
Alpha Modus Ventures LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Cisco System, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00888, W.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas and having previously consented to venue in the district in prior litigation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking products that practice the Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) standard infringe patents related to methods and systems for transporting Fibre Channel data over Ethernet networks.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the unification of separate data center networks—Local Area Networks (LANs) and Storage Area Networks (SANs)—by enabling the widely-adopted Ethernet protocol to carry legacy Fibre Channel storage traffic.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex history regarding ownership of the patents-in-suit, involving the named inventor, a prior assignee (Fifth App, LLC), and the Plaintiff (AMV). This history includes a 2021 assignment agreement, a disputed 2022 assignment, subsequent state and federal litigation between the parties over ownership, and a December 2024 settlement that the complaint alleges resolved the dispute and confirmed Plaintiff’s title to the patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-21 | Earliest Priority Date for ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents |
| 2008-01-01 | Cisco introduces its first FCoE switch (approximate date) |
| 2021-02-16 | Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between Fifth App, AMV, and Hayes |
| 2021-02-17 | Patent Assignment Agreement (PAA) executed |
| 2021-08-31 | U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 Issues |
| 2022-03-03 | Fifth App and Hayes send demand letter to AMV |
| 2022-03-31 | Hayes obtains "Unauthorized Assignment" of Patents-in-Suit |
| 2022-04-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 Issues |
| 2022-04-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 Issues |
| 2022-05-04 | AMV discovers alleged improper assignment |
| 2022-05-31 | AMV initiates State Court Action (approximate date) |
| 2022-10-31 | Fifth App and Hayes initiate Federal Court Action against AMV |
| 2023-10-21 | ’591, ’077, and ’473 Patents Expire |
| 2024-12-27 | Confidential Settlement Agreement reached, resolving ownership dispute |
| 2025-04-22 | AMV files separate patent infringement suit against Broadcom, Inc. |
| 2025-10-23 | Complaint Filed in the present action |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,108,591 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the technical and financial challenges in data centers that historically required two separate, incompatible networking technologies: Ethernet for general-purpose Local Area Networks (LANs) and the more expensive, specialized Fibre Channel for high-performance Storage Area Networks (SANs) (Compl. ¶16-21; ’591 Patent, col. 2:36-54). This created a "disjointed communication infrastructure" with significant management overhead and interoperability problems (’591 Patent, col. 2:38-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and apparatus to transport Fibre Channel data directly over an Ethernet network at the MAC layer (Layer 2), thereby eliminating the need for a separate Fibre Channel infrastructure (’591 Patent, Abstract). This is accomplished using a "Fibre Channel over Ethernet Transformer" (FCoE Transformer), a functional block that converts native Fibre Channel frames into FCoE frames for transport within standard Ethernet frames, and vice-versa, without using higher-level IP protocols (’591 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 4:15-22).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the unification of LAN and SAN traffic onto a single, standards-based Ethernet infrastructure, which could reduce equipment costs, power consumption, and administrative complexity in data centers (Compl. ¶21, ¶53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing a server with a Fibre Channel over Ethernet Host Bus Adapter (FCoE HBA).
- Providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch.
- Providing an FCoE Transformer with both an Ethernet Interface and a Fibre Channel Interface.
- Providing a Fibre Channel Device.
- The FCoE HBA sending an FCoE Frame to the FCoE Transformer via the Layer 2 Ethernet Switch.
- Conveying the FCoE Frame within an Ethernet Frame "without utilizing an IP packet."
- The FCoE Transformer converting the FCoE Frame to a Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Frame including specific Start-of-Frame (SOF) and End-of-Frame (EOF) fields for encoding the corresponding delimiters of the Fibre Channel Frame.
- The FCoE Transformer sending the resulting Fibre Channel Frame to the Fibre Channel Device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,310,077 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the same problem of disjointed LAN and SAN networks described in the '591 Patent (Compl. ¶16-21).
- The Patented Solution: According to the complaint, the ’077 Patent is directed to a method of operating the FCoE Transformer itself. The claimed method focuses on the transformer receiving an FCoE frame from a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch and converting it into a native Fibre Channel frame. A central aspect of this claimed method is the structure of the FCoE frame, which must include specific SOF and EOF fields within an FCoE transport header that are used for encoding the start and end delimiters of the target Fibre Channel frame (Compl. ¶60-62).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a specific method for the protocol translation that underpins the unification of SAN and LAN traffic (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶111).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method of operating a FCoE transformer.
- Receiving, at the transformer, an FCoE frame via a Layer 2 Ethernet switch.
- Converting the FCoE frame to a fibre channel frame.
- The FCoE frame must include a SOF field in its transport header for providing and encoding the start-of-frame character for the fibre channel frame.
- The FCoE frame must include an EOF field in its transport header for providing and encoding the end-of-frame character for the fibre channel frame.
- Transporting the resulting fibre channel frame.
U.S. Patent No. 11,303,473 - "Transporting fibre channel over ethernet"
Technology Synopsis
- The complaint states the ’473 patent is directed to a method of operating an FCoE HBA. The method involves the HBA sending an FCoE frame through a Layer 2 Ethernet switch. The claim focuses on the structure of the transmitted FCoE frame, requiring it to contain SOF and EOF fields within its transport header for encoding the corresponding delimiters of a Fibre Channel frame (Compl. ¶69-71).
Asserted Claims
- Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶135).
Accused Features
- The accused features are Cisco products, such as the UCS CNA M72KR-Q, that allegedly operate as an FCoE HBA by connecting to a Layer 2 Ethernet switch (e.g., the UCS Fabric Interconnect) and transmitting FCoE frames with the claimed header structure (Compl. ¶135-139).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as encompassing Cisco's Unified Computing System (UCS), the UCS CNA M72KR-Q QLogic Converged Network Adapter, and other products and services that practice the FCoE standard (Compl. ¶77).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide a unified networking architecture. Specifically, the UCS CNA M72KR-Q is identified as an FCoE/NIC adapter that functions as an FCoE HBA within Cisco's UCS B-Series blade servers (Compl. ¶81). This adapter allegedly sends consolidated FCoE and standard Ethernet traffic over an Ethernet link to a component of the UCS fabric, such as a Nexus switch, which functions as both a Layer 2 Ethernet switch and an FCoE Transformer (also referred to as an FCF/FC bridge) (Compl. ¶83, ¶84, ¶88). This fabric component is alleged to convert the FCoE frames into native Fibre Channel frames for communication with a SAN (Compl. ¶88). The complaint asserts Cisco was an early market leader in FCoE technology and that its networking products generated approximately $29 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2024 (Compl. ¶74-75).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide the patent document for the ’077 Patent, precluding the creation of a complete claim chart with the requisite citations to the patent specification. The narrative infringement theory for the ’077 Patent alleges that Cisco's Accused Products, specifically the FCoE transformer/FCF component, perform the claimed method of receiving an FCoE frame via a Layer 2 switch, converting it to a Fibre Channel frame, and transporting it, where the FCoE frame includes the claimed SOF and EOF fields in its transport header (Compl. ¶112-116).
'591 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a Server (32) including an FCoE HBA (40); said FCoE HBA (40) including a Virtual Fibre Channel Port (42) and an Ethernet Interface (44) | Cisco provides UCS B-Series blade servers installed with a UCS CNA M72KR-Q, which functions as an FCoE HBA and allows for the provisioning of virtual Fibre Channel and virtual Ethernet adapters. | ¶81-82 | col. 7:23-26 |
| providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24) | The Accused Products include standard Ethernet switches, such as the Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnect, which operate in Layer-2 switching modes. | ¶83, ¶136 | col. 7:26-28 |
| providing an FCoE Transformer (46) including an Ethernet Interface (44) and a Fibre Channel Interface (48) | Cisco's UCS/NX-OS fabric includes an FCoE termination element (FCF/FC bridge) that allegedly functions as the claimed FCoE Transformer, transforming between Ethernet (FCoE) and native Fibre Channel. | ¶84, ¶88 | col. 7:28-31 |
| providing a Fibre Channel Device (23) | The Accused Products are used in environments that include Fibre Channel devices, and Cisco's documentation allegedly confirms the adapter can do the work of a discrete Fibre Channel HBA. | ¶85 | col. 7:31-32 |
| said FCoE HBA (40) sending an FCoE Frame (93) to said FCoE Transformer (46) via said Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24) | The Cisco CNA (ENode) sends FIP/FCoE frames to the FCF (Fibre Channel Forwarder) component, which acts as the FCoE Transformer. The complaint includes a Cisco network diagram illustrating this data flow. | ¶86 | col. 9:16-24 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) is conveyed in an Ethernet Frame (83) without utilizing an IP packet | Cisco's documentation is alleged to state that FCoE encapsulates Fibre Channel traffic over Ethernet using a dedicated Ethertype, allowing it to be carried on the same link as standard Ethernet traffic without an IP header. | ¶87 | col. 3:32-35 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) converting said FCoE Frame (93) to a Fibre Channel Frame (71) | The host-side CNA allegedly sends FCoE frames that are converted to native Fibre Channel frames by the UCS/NX-OS fabric's FCoE termination element (the FCF/FC bridge). | ¶88 | col. 4:18-19 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an SOF field (124)...; said SOF field (124) for encoding said SOF field Fibre Channel Frame (70) | The Accused Products' alleged authentication and encryption capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an SOF field for starting and encoding a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶89 | col. 11:10-20 |
| said FCoE Frame (93) including an EOF field (126)...; said EOF field (126) for encoding said EOF field Fibre Channel Frame (80) | The Accused Products' alleged trunking, load balancing, and routing capabilities are cited as demonstrating they provide an EOF field for ending and encoding a Fibre Channel Frame. | ¶90 | col. 11:10-20 |
| said FCoE Transformer (46) sending said Fibre Channel Frame (71) to said Fibre Channel Device (23) | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products include an FCoE Transformer which sends the converted Fibre Channel Frame to a Fibre Channel Device. | ¶91 | col. 12:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "FCoE Transformer." The patent claims require "providing" a server, a switch, and a transformer as distinct elements. The complaint alleges an integrated "FCoE termination element" or "FCF/FC bridge" within Cisco's fabric product meets this limitation (Compl. ¶88). This raises the question of whether an integrated functional block within a multi-function switch satisfies the "FCoE Transformer" limitation as it is described and depicted in the patent (e.g., ’591 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Technical Questions: The claims require specific functionality related to "converting" frames and "encoding" SOF/EOF fields. The complaint cites high-level product capabilities like authentication, trunking, and load balancing as evidence for these specific low-level encoding steps (Compl. ¶89-90). A potential point of contention is what technical evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform these precise encoding and conversion steps as claimed, rather than a different, non-infringing method of protocol encapsulation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "FCoE Transformer"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core apparatus of the invention. Its construction is critical because the infringement theory depends on mapping this claim element onto a functional block within Cisco's integrated UCS fabric architecture (Compl. ¶84, ¶88). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused functionality, which is part of a larger switch/fabric product, constitutes the claimed "Transformer."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the transformer "can be placed on an Ethernet NIC, in an Ethernet MAC, in an Ethernet switch...or anyplace in between a Fibre Channel device and an Ethernet device," suggesting it is a functional component whose location is flexible (’591 Patent, col. 5:1-5). This could support an interpretation where the transformer is a logical function within a larger device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and claim language may support a narrower definition. Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent recites separate steps of "providing a Layer 2 Ethernet Switch" and "providing an FCoE Transformer" (’591 Patent, col. 19:22-29). Figure 8 also depicts the "FCoE Transformer (46)" as a distinct block separate from the "Layer 2 Ethernet Switch (24)." This could be argued to require some degree of logical or physical separateness.
The Term: "converting said FCoE Frame (93) to a Fibre Channel Frame (71)"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the method performed by the "FCoE Transformer." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused Cisco fabric performs an operation that meets the definition of "converting," particularly as it relates to the specific handling of SOF/EOF fields also recited in the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention states the apparatus "transforms Fibre Channel data into Ethernet frames and visa-versa" and is "responsible for converting the FCoE protocol to the Fibre Channel FC-1 protocol and vise-versa," suggesting a general protocol translation function (’591 Patent, col. 4:17-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description specifies that conversion involves detailed mapping of frame fields, such as encoding the Fibre Channel SOF character (70) into the FCoE SOF field (124) and vice-versa upon receipt (’591 Patent, col. 11:10-20; col. 12:31-34). This suggests "converting" requires a specific, granular process of field-level re-encoding rather than a more abstract form of encapsulation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, asserting that Cisco knowingly "induces, aids, and directs" customers and others to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner, consistent with Cisco's instructions (Compl. ¶101, ¶104, ¶126, ¶149).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint bases this on the allegation that Cisco "knew or was willfully blind to the patented technology" and acted with "blatant disregard for AMV's patent rights" (Compl. ¶96, ¶121, ¶144). The allegation that Cisco was a member of the INCITS FCoE standard-setting committee may be used to support the claim of pre-suit knowledge of the relevant technology field (Compl. ¶76).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural scope: can the "FCoE Transformer" limitation, which the claims recite separately from the "Layer 2 Ethernet Switch," be construed to read on an integrated functional block (an "FCoE termination element" or "FCF") within a single, multi-function Cisco fabric device? The case may depend on whether the patent requires logical or physical separateness between these claimed components.
- A second central question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the Accused Products perform the specific low-level act of "converting" frames by "encoding" the SOF and EOF fields as claimed, rather than employing a technically distinct, non-infringing method of protocol translation or encapsulation?
- A key threshold issue may concern standing and damages: given the complex and contentious ownership history detailed in the complaint, including litigation between the plaintiff and the inventor, the defendant may challenge the plaintiff's chain of title and its right to sue for infringement or collect damages for specific periods.