Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC
873 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Authored by Ethan Green
Statement of Facts: On January 27, 2015, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) brought a complaint alleging that Arista Networks, Inc. (“Arista”) was infringing six of Cisco’s patents based on its imports of certain “network devices, related software, and components thereof.” The six patents in question were: U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (“’537 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296 (“’296 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164 (“’164 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 (“’597 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,741,592 (“’592 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 7,200,145 (“’145 patent”).
Based on the questions presented to the Federal Circuit, the only patents relevant to the appeal are ’537 and ’597, which are briefly described below. The ’537 patent pertains to a data management system in network devices. 873 F.3d at 1357. Specifically, the ’537 patent provides a method to improve the functionality of network devices which normally use different subsystems to complete different tasks. This practice is inefficient and makes completing certain network tasks difficult. However, the ’537 patent describes a centralized database that enables each subsystem to function independently and complete specialized tasks. Id. at 1358.
The ’597 patent provides a method to secure communications devices with a logging module. Id. Previously, logging modules were targets of hackers who could infiltrate the entire network device by reconfiguring a single subsystem, but the ’597 patent contemplates a logging module that can identify attempted attacks on a subsystem by detecting configuration and subsystem changes. Id.
Arista sells network switches that connect devices to networks and facilitate data routing primarily to computer data centers. Arista sells both fixed and modular switches that each use software called Extensible Operating System (“EOS”). EOS functions through agents which complete discrete tasks and are coordinated through a database called SysDB. Additionally, EOS includes ProcMgr, a process manager that runs and monitors agents based on content in EOS’s file system directories. Id. at 1359. Cisco challenges Arista’s importation of fully assembled switches that were not installed with EOS software. Arista installed EOS software on the imported switches abroad to test the compatibility but removed the software before importation, only to reinstall the EOS software on the switches once inside the United States.
Procedural History: On January 27, 2015, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) commenced an investigation under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (2012) (“§ 337”) after Cisco alleged in a complaint that Arista’s imports of network devices and software infringed six of their patents: the ’537, ’296, ’164, ’597, ’592, and ’145 patents. In February of 2016, following this investigation, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for the ITC concluded that Arista had violated § 337 with respect to the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents. The ALJ did not find a § 337 violation with respect to the ’597 and ’164 patents. The ’296 patent had been terminated from the investigation based on Cisco’s motion on August 20, 2015. Cisco and Arista each filed a petition for review before the ITC. In June of 2016, the ITC affirmed the ALJ’s findings with respect to all five patents and issued a limited exclusion order against Arista’s imports of “certain network devices, related software, and components thereof.” Arista appealed the ITC’s claim construction of a ’537 patent term and the scope of the ITC’s exclusion order to the Federal Circuit. Cisco cross-appealed the ITC’s conclusion regarding infringement of the ’597 patent.
Questions Presented: First, whether the ITC properly constructed the ’537 patent claim by requiring router configuration data to be stored in said database. Second, whether the ITC erred in granting the limited exclusion order prohibiting importation of “network devices, related software and components thereof” that infringe the ’537, ’592, and ’145 patents which was properly supported by specific findings that the components of the accused products contribute to or induce infringement of the ’537 patent. Third, whether the ITC’s determination that Arista’s accused products do not infringe the ’597 patent was supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings: First, the ITC properly constructed the ’537 patent claim as requiring router configuration data to be stored in said database. Second, the ITC correctly crafted the limited exclusion order after sufficiently articulating its findings that the components of Arista’s accused products induce infringement of the ’537 patent. Third, the ITC’s ’597 patent noninfringement determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s final determination and exclusion order.
Reasoning: First, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s claim construction of the ’537 patent. The relevant claim term here is “said router configuration data managed by said database system and derived from configuration commands supplied by a user and executed by a router configuration subsystem before being stored in said database.” Id. at 1361. The Federal Circuit agreed with the ITC, who required that router configuration data be stored in said database. Id. Arista first challenged the grammatical construction of the claim, but based on the ordinary meaning of the specification and claims of the ’537 patent, the Federal Circuit found it clear that the patent addresses the management of router configuration data, not user-supplied commands as Arista contends. Arista additionally challenged the claim construction on the grounds of prosecution history, by asserting that the applicant made statements that indicated they understood the ’537 patent invention stored user commands and that understanding should govern. Id. at 1362. However, the Federal Circuit found this challenge unconvincing because the applicant clarified that configuration data was the resulting information stored in a database, not user-supplied commands. The Federal Circuit therefore held such vague language from the prosecution history could not support altering the scope of the claim. Id.
Second, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s articulation of its findings that the accused Arista products induced infringement of the ’537 patent. The Federal Circuit acknowledged the ITC’s broad discretion in determining a remedy and noted that Arista’s hardware was devised to run EOS and SysDB and does so upon each boot of the switch. Id. at 1363. As a result, because Arista’s switch hardware includes every individual component, the exclusion order properly barred the importation of components of the infringing Arista products. Id.
Third, the ITC’s determination of noninfringement of the ’597 patent was supported by substantial evidence because the claim required the accused system to detect a configuration change, but the ITC found that the accused products instead inferred whether that system was functioning. Although Cisco contends that inferring is a form of detection, the ITC had evidence that ProcMgr could not definitively identify whether a configuration changed because it did not have access to a subsystem’s configuration. Id. Because evidence demonstrated that ProcMgr could only infer that a change might have occurred, not what the specific change was, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s noninfringement determination. Id. at 1363–64.