Untitled case

Golden Eye Technologies LLC, a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) operating under the umbrella of Texas-based monetization firm Harfang IP Investment Corp, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc.. Golden Eye Technologies was formed in August 2020 in Texas and acquired a portfolio of approximately 50 US patents from South Korean telecommunications company KT Corporation in late 2020, with 28 assigned in September and 13 more in November of that year. Harfang IP, founded by Chris Dubuc, focuses on acquiring and licensing wireless communication technology patents, including those related to 4G/5G cellular, Wi-Fi Passpoint, Wi-Fi HaLow (IEEE 802.11ah), and location-based services in Wi-Fi environments. The asserted patents in this case are 9,271,243, 9,344,978, 9,717,037, 9,918,236, and 10,051,556, all of which broadly cover various aspects of controlling wireless access points and access point wireless controllers. Cisco is accused of infringing these patents through the provision of a wide array of its networking products and related components, software, services, and processes, specifically citing products such as the Cisco Catalyst 9100 series Access Points, Cisco Meraki branded Access Points, Cisco Aironet 4800, 3800, and 2800 Series Access Points, Cisco Business 150AX Access Point, Cisco 3504, 5520, 8540, 9800 Wireless Controllers, and Cisco's Virtual Wireless Controllers, which generally provide and control wireless local area network (LAN) service.

The case is currently in litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court, Marshall Division, with case number 2:25-cv-00898, and has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is well-known in patent litigation as a "rocket docket" due to its expedited case adjudication, specific local rules for patent cases, and a historical reputation for being plaintiff-friendly, particularly for NPEs. Judge Gilstrap is notably active in patent cases, having a high volume of such filings and a track record of significant plaintiff awards. Although the 2017 TC Heartland Supreme Court ruling aimed to restrict patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation, judges in the Eastern District of Texas, including Judge Gilstrap, have since interpreted the "regular and established place of business" prong of the venue statute in ways that have allowed many patent infringement cases to continue being filed there.

This litigation is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of patent assertion by NPEs, particularly those acquiring portfolios from former operating companies. Harfang IP, through entities like Golden Eye Technologies, strategically targets established technology companies in the wireless communications sector. The assertion of these patents against a major networking hardware provider like Cisco highlights the broad impact of such patent monetization efforts on the industry. Furthermore, Cisco Systems, Inc. has already filed an inter partes review (IPR2026-00188) against one of the asserted patents, US9,271,243, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which was terminated on April 28, 2026.

Here is a one-line technical sketch for each of the asserted patents:

• US 9,271,243 B2: Describes a method and system for efficiently transmitting a wireless local area network (WLAN) service via various access points.
• US 9,344,978 B2: Pertains to an apparatus and method for providing seamless roaming and service continuity between wireless communication systems.
• US 9,717,037 B2: Focuses on an access network discovery and selection function (ANDSF) server and a method for network selection, particularly in heterogeneous wireless environments.
• US 9,918,236 B2: Relates to a system and method for managing wireless access points and their associated controllers within a wireless network.
• US 10,051,556 B2: Discloses a method and apparatus for managing traffic and controlling quality of service in a wireless communication system.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Case Caption: Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Case Number: 2:25-cv-00898
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,271,243; 9,344,978; 9,717,037; 9,918,236; and 10,051,556

This patent infringement litigation was initiated by Golden Eye Technologies LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves multiple patents related to controlling wireless access points and wireless controllers.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-08-27: Complaint Filed. Golden Eye Technologies LLC filed its complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,271,243; 9,344,978; 9,717,037; 9,918,236; and 10,051,556. The plaintiff also alleges willful infringement, citing a letter sent to Cisco regarding the asserted patents as early as March 2022. The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

• 2026-01-06: First Amended Docket Control Order Issued. A First Amended Docket Control Order was entered by the court, indicating the establishment of a schedule for the litigation.

• 2026-02-14: IPR Petition Filed (IPR2026-00187). Cisco Systems, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00187, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037. This patent is one of the five patents asserted in the district court litigation. The Patent Owner (Golden Eye Technologies LLC) filed a request for discretionary denial of the IPR petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) noted that the parallel litigation in the Eastern District of Texas had reached an "advanced stage" and that the parties had already exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions in the district court case. As of today's date (2026-05-29), the institution decision for IPR2026-00187 is pending.

Current Posture:

The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with active parallel IPR proceedings concerning one of the asserted patents. The issuance of a Docket Control Order and the exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions indicate that the litigation is progressing through discovery and towards claim construction and potentially summary judgment. No trial events, verdicts, or final dispositions have been reported.

Plaintiff Golden Eye Technologies LLC is represented by the following counsel:

Terry A. Saad

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
• Experience: Mr. Saad is identified as lead counsel for Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this case. His firm, Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, focuses on intellectual property litigation.

Jeffrey Ray Bragalone

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
• Experience: Mr. Bragalone's firm, Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, specializes in intellectual property litigation.

Marcus Benavides

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
• Experience: Mr. Benavides is associated with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm handling intellectual property litigation.

Brandon V. Zuniga

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
• Experience: Mr. Zuniga is associated with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm handling intellectual property litigation.

Mark Douglass

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
• Experience: Mr. Douglass is associated with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm handling intellectual property litigation.

Andrea Leigh Fair

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Experience: Ms. Fair is listed as counsel for the plaintiff.

The firm Parker Highlander PLLC is mentioned in general patent law searches but the provided search results do not explicitly link any specific attorney from that firm to representing Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this particular case. Similarly, "Skipper Law, LLC" appeared in general searches but the results focus on civil litigation and personal injury, not patent litigation for this specific case. Joe Cote is listed as an inventor on various patents but not as counsel for Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this case. Daniel M. Jordan is noted for patent litigation at Finnegan but is not shown to be representing Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this case. Daniel Carter Parker, Jr. is listed as an attorney with practice areas in government law, transportation, and agricultural law, not patent litigation. Daniel Wade Parker is shown with a California State Bar record, but no specific patent litigation experience or connection to this case. Michelle J. Zhu is listed as a patent attorney with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and is noted as "Challenger" in case 2:25-CV-00898, indicating she represents the defendant, Cisco Systems Inc., not Golden Eye Technologies LLC.Plaintiff Golden Eye Technologies LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Terry A. Saad

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Saad is identified as lead counsel for Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this patent infringement case. His firm specializes in intellectual property litigation.

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Bragalone is a named partner at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm focused on intellectual property litigation.

• Marcus Benavides

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Benavides is an attorney with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm that handles intellectual property litigation.

• Brandon V. Zuniga

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Zuniga is an attorney with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm engaged in intellectual property litigation.

• Mark Douglass

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Douglass is an attorney with Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, which practices intellectual property litigation.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Experience: Ms. Fair is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this matter.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. in Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00898 E.D. Tex.):

Bragalone Olejko Saad PC

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Bragalone is a founding partner of Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, a firm frequently involved in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Terry Afif Saad (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Saad is a founding partner of Bragalone Olejko Saad PC with extensive experience in patent litigation.
• Marcus Benavides (Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Benavides is an attorney at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.
• Brandon V. Zuniga (Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Zuniga is an attorney at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.
• Mark Douglass (Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Douglass is an attorney at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Andrea Leigh Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Ms. Fair is a partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC, a firm providing local counsel services in the Eastern District of Texas.

(Note: The roles of lead and local counsel are inferred from the common practice in Eastern District of Texas patent cases where out-of-district firms often partner with local counsel who are admitted to practice in the district and familiar with local rules and judges. Firms like Bragalone Olejko Saad PC are known for their patent litigation practice, while Miller Fair Henry PLLC is identified as a local firm in Tyler, TX, within the Eastern District of Texas.)