Litigation

Untitled case

unconfirmed

20-2047

Patents at issue (1)

9203425

Summary

A Federal Circuit appeal docket listed on the '425 patent record as arising from the Ramot family litigation. The narrative could not confirm the precise nature, parties, or disposition of this docket number.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this docket and the patent at issue.

Let me search more specifically.

Now let me verify the '425 patent and the underlying docket details.

Case overview and background

20-2047 = [Cisco Systems Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cisco%20Systems%20Inc.) v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (consolidated with Nos. 20-2049 and 20-148, In re Cisco Systems Inc.). It is not a merits patent appeal at all — it is Cisco's failed attempt to get appellate review of the PTAB's Fintiv/NHK Spring discretionary refusal to institute Cisco's IPRs. The Federal Circuit's nonprecedential order of Oct. 30, 2020 (panel: Dyk, Wallach (author), Taranto) dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A)/35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and denied alternative mandamus relief, relying on Cuozzo, Thryv, St. Regis Mohawk and St. Jude. The Board had denied institution in IPR2020-00122 and IPR2020-00123, reasoning that the parallel E.D. Tex. trial (then set for Dec. 9, 2020) would precede any final written decision by roughly six months, that the parties had already invested heavily in Markman and expert discovery, and that the IPR grounds substantially overlapped the district court case — so "instituting would be an inefficient use of Board, party, and judicial resources." Cisco argued the NHK/Fintiv rule was an unlawfully promulgated substantive rule under the APA; the court held that challenge was "closely tied" to the institution decision and thus unreviewable.

The parties. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. is the technology-transfer arm (the "business engagement center") of Tel Aviv University; it owns roughly 1,000 granted patents worldwide and licenses university research, including the inventions of Prof. Ofer Amrani, Prof. Shlomo Ruschin and Dr. Yossef Ehrlichman. It is a university licensing entity rather than a classic PAE, though commercial litigation databases classify it as an NPE/patent-owner plaintiff. Cisco Systems, Inc. is the accused infringer; the products at issue sit in Cisco's optical networking business, including technology acquired with its subsidiary Acacia Communications (coherent DSP modules such as AC1200/AC400, pluggable optical modules, silicon-photonic integrated circuits, line cards and routers used for 100G/400G+ data-center and telecom interconnects). Ramot's accused-product theory is that these high-speed optical transmitters practice its "direct digital drive" linearization scheme for Mach-Zehnder modulators.

The patents. The patents actually asserted in the E.D. Tex. case that spawned 20-2047 were U.S. Patent Nos. 10,033,465 and 10,270,535 (with 10,461,866 later added) — all members of the same family, titled "Linearized Optical Digital-to-Analog Modulator," priority June 13, 2007, and claiming a system in which a digital-to-digital converter maps an N-bit input word to an M-bit actuation vector (M ≥ N) applied to M actuating electrodes of an electrically controllable optical modulator, thereby linearizing the modulator's inherently non-linear (cosine-shaped) response. The patent named in the case metadata, U.S. Patent No. 9,203,425 B2 ("Linearized Optical Digital-to-Analog Modulator," issued Dec. 1, 2015, app. 14/662,343, assignee Ramot at Tel-Aviv University Ltd.), is a family member — it is the parent/related patent in the chain that runs through the '465, '535, '866, '112 and later '872 patents — but I found no evidence that the '425 itself was the patent challenged in IPR2020-00122/-00123 or asserted in the Texas suit. The metadata's "patent at issue" is therefore best read as a family-level attribution, and I'd flag that as an unresolved discrepancy rather than a verified fact.

Posture, venue and why it matters. The underlying case was Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00225, filed June 12, 2019 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap — a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its speed and plaintiff-friendly practices, and precisely the fast-trial posture that drove the Board's Fintiv denial and, in turn, the jurisdictional wall Cisco hit on appeal. The case did not go smoothly to judgment: it was effectively stayed while a large parallel set of ex parte reexaminations (Cisco-filed) played out (90/014,528 and merged proceedings on the '465, 90/014,606–608, and later 90/019,333, 90/019,420, 90/015,280), and a May 2025 Law360 report indicates Judge Gilstrap recused himself from the Cisco patent cases, which were reassigned. A related D. Del. action involving Cisco/Acacia and a later Ramot patent (the '998 family member) was closed on Dec. 1, 2025, with a Federal Circuit appeal docketed as No. 26-1277.

Why it is notable. First, 20-2047 is one of the trio of Oct. 30, 2020 orders (alongside *Google v. Un

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the Federal Circuit docket number and the patent.

The first searches were off-target. Let me search the patent number directly and in the context of the Ramot litigation.

Now I have the key context: this is Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.), and the '425 patent is a family member. Let me pin down the specific docket and the '425 patent's role.

Identification: what Federal Circuit No. 20-2047 actually is

The docket number 20-2047 is Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., a Federal Circuit appeal consolidated with No. 20-2049 and with Cisco's parallel mandamus petition, In re Cisco Systems Inc., No. 20-148. All three were resolved by a single nonprecedential order issued 2020-10-30 (Dyk, Wallach, and Taranto, JJ.).

Important qualification on the patent: the appeals at 20-2047/-2049 arose from the Board's institution decisions in IPR2020-00122 (U.S. Patent No. 10,033,465) and IPR2020-00123 (U.S. Patent No. 10,270,535). U.S. Patent No. 9,203,425 (the patent in the case metadata, "Linearized optical digital-to-analog modulator," Ehrlichman et al., issued 2015-12-01, assigned to Ramot at Tel Aviv University) is a family member of those patents, not the patent directly on appeal. The '425 patent appears in the record of this litigation family — e.g., footnote 9 of the district court's claim construction order notes that the asserted patents "are related to the '425 Patent through a series of continuation applications." So the metadata is best read as tying docket 20-2047 to the Ramot optical-modulator patent family that includes the '425 patent. I could not confirm that the '425 patent itself was separately asserted against Cisco in this docket.

Chronology of the litigation family

1. Filing and initial pleadings

  • 2019-06-12 — Ramot filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00225 (originally assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, "JRG"; later carried as 2:19-cv-00225-RWS before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III). The complaint asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,033,465 ('465) and 10,270,535 ('535) against Cisco's optical-modulator/transceiver products; U.S. Patent No. 10,461,866 ('866) was later added to the case. Complaint text via https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13616040
  • Cisco answered and counterclaimed (including invalidity). I could not retrieve the specific answer/counterclaim docket entries, so I flag them as unverified here.
  • 2019-12-12 — First Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 49), setting jury trial for 2020-12-09 (cited as Ex. 2004 in IPR2020-00122).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

  • Motion to stay pending IPR — DENIED 2020-02-02 (Dkt. 54). The court denied Cisco's stay request without prejudice to refiling if the Board instituted review, consistent with the court's pre-institution practice (cited as Ex. 2005 in the IPR record).
  • Cisco filed IPR petitions in November 2019: IPR2020-00122 ('465) and IPR2020-00123 ('535). Ramot filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Responses on 2020-02-18 (IPR2020-00122, Paper 9), arguing discretionary denial under § 314(a) and § 325(d).
  • May 2020 — The Board denied institution in both IPRs, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applying NHK Spring v. Intri-Plex and Apple v. Fintiv. The Board reasoned that (i) any final written decision would issue ~six months after the scheduled 2020-12-09 trial, (ii) the parties had invested heavily in claim construction and expert discovery was about to close, and (iii) the petitions raised the same parties, claims, grounds, and evidence as the district court case. One APJ (Crumbley) dissented. Full text: https://patentlyo.com/media/2020/11/CiscoBriefingShowCause.pdf

3. Claim construction (Markman)

  • 2020-05-11 — Markman hearing held.
  • 2020-05-15 — Claim construction order (Dkt. 83, Case 2:19-cv-00225-JRG, 32 pages). Key holdings:
    • "pulse modulated" — plain and ordinary meaning, not limited to return-to-zero (RZ) format. The court rejected Cisco's attempt to import RZ from the specification and held Cisco to its contrary "plain and ordinary meaning" position taken in its IPR petition (an inconsistency the court called a "nose-of-wax" approach).
    • "driving at least M electrodes of the optical modulator … responsively to the M voltage values" — the court adopted Cisco's construction requiring directly applying the M voltage values to the M electrodes, holding Ramot to its IPR representation that "directly driving" the electrodes is essential to the invention.
    • "mapping"/"converting" and the digital-to-digital converter function were also disputed (joint claim construction chart language).
  • Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[190224](/patent/190224)/gov.uscourts.txed.190224.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this case. Let me start with the docket number and patent.

Let me search directly for the patent and its litigation history.

Key finding: US 9,203,425 is the "Linearized optical digital-to-analog modulator" patent assigned to Ramot at Tel-Aviv University. Let me trace the litigation and the specific appeal.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this docket thoroughly. Let me start with the case number and patent.

Now let me dig into the specific docket and the underlying district court case.

Let me pull the actual Federal Circuit docket for 20-2047 and the district court docket counsel entries.

Framing check before the counsel list

Two corrections that matter for whom you're asking about:

  1. Case 20-2047 is not itself an infringement trial — it is the Federal Circuit appeal (consolidated with 20-2049 and the mandamus petition In re Cisco Systems, 20-148) from two PTAB denials of institution in IPR2020-00122 and IPR2020-00123. The court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and denied mandamus. In re Cisco Sys. Inc., Nos. 2020-148, -2047, -2049 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2020) (Wallach, J.) (CourtListener; Nat'l L. Review summary).
  2. The "defendant(s)" at issue are Cisco Systems, Inc. — the defendant in the underlying infringement suit, Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex., filed June 12,