Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., case number 2:25-cv-00898, is active in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Golden Eye Technologies LLC, is a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), identified as a subsidiary of the patent monetization firm Harfang IP Investment Corp. Golden Eye Technologies acquired its patent portfolio, which broadly concerns wireless communications, from South Korean telecommunications company KT Corporation in 2020. The defendant is Cisco Systems, Inc., a major operating company known for its networking hardware and software products. Cisco is accused of infringing with a wide array of networking products and related components, software, services, and processes that provide and control wireless local area network (LAN) services. Specifically accused products include 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.

The litigation asserts five patents: US Patent Nos. 9,271,243; 9,344,978; 9,717,037; 9,918,236; and 10,051,556. These patents generally cover various aspects of controlling wireless access points and access point wireless controllers. The case is being heard by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, which remains a highly popular venue for patent litigation, particularly for NPE filings. The Eastern District of Texas is known for its fast-paced dockets and has consistently been a top choice for patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, holding the top spot for overall patent litigation and NPE filings in 2024 and 2025.

This case is notable due to its clear NPE assertion pattern by Golden Eye Technologies, a Harfang IP entity, against a major technology operating company like Cisco. Further, the asserted US Patent 9,717,037 is already the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), specifically IPR2026-00187, indicating a significant parallel challenge to the patent's validity. This IPR linkage adds a layer of complexity to the litigation, as the outcome of the PTAB review could directly impact the district court case.

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

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00898, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Golden Eye Technologies LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037, among others. The case is currently active and in the pre-trial phase, with key dates scheduled through 2027.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-08-27): Golden Eye Technologies LLC filed its complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037, related to controlling wireless access points and wireless controllers. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Initial Disclosures (2025-12-16): Both Golden Eye Technologies LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc. filed Notices of Compliance regarding their Initial and Additional Disclosures.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion for Protective Order (2025-12-15): Golden Eye Technologies LLC filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Protective Order, which was subsequently signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on December 16, 2025.
• Motion for Discovery Order (2025-12-15): Golden Eye Technologies LLC also filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Discovery Order.
• Extension of Time (2025-12-05): A Joint Motion for Extension of Time to file a Discovery Order and serve Invalidity Contentions was filed by the parties and granted by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on December 10, 2025.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing Scheduled (2027-02-01): The court has scheduled a Markman/Claim Construction Hearing for February 1, 2027, at 9:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This indicates that the case is progressing towards claim construction, and no claim construction outcome has been reached yet.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Protective Order Entered (2025-12-16): A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This is a standard but important step in patent litigation to govern the exchange of confidential information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Pretrial Conference Scheduled (2027-07-12): A Pretrial Conference is set for July 12, 2027, at 9:00 AM.
• Jury Selection Scheduled (2027-08-16): Jury Selection for the trial is scheduled for August 16, 2027, at 9:00 AM. No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred as the case is still in the pre-trial phase.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is active, with future dates scheduled for Markman, Pretrial Conference, and Jury Selection. There has been no final disposition, settlement, or appeal to date.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2026-00187 (Filed 2026-01-09): A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00187, was filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037. The petition was filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. on January 9, 2026, challenging the patentability of claims 1-20. As of May 29, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not yet issued a decision on institution.
• The existence of IPR2026-00187 for the asserted patent 9,717,037 indicates that Cisco is challenging the validity of the patent at the USPTO, which could potentially impact the district court litigation depending on the outcome of the IPR.

The case is proceeding through its scheduled litigation timeline in the Eastern District of Texas, with a Markman hearing and trial dates set for 2027, while a parallel IPR proceeding is underway at the PTAB.

---

Note: Some search results referred to other cases with similar case numbers (e.g., 2:21-CV-00898, 4:22-cv-00898, 2:15-cv-00898) or non-patent cases (e.g., consumer protection, product liability). These were carefully filtered out to focus on the specific patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00898.

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

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00898, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Golden Eye Technologies LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037, among others. The case is currently active and in the pre-trial phase, with key dates scheduled through 2027.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-08-27): Golden Eye Technologies LLC filed its complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037, related to controlling wireless access points and wireless controllers. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Initial Disclosures (2025-12-16): Both Golden Eye Technologies LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc. filed Notices of Compliance regarding their Initial and Additional Disclosures.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion for Protective Order (2025-12-15): Golden Eye Technologies LLC filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Protective Order, which was subsequently signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on December 16, 2025.
• Motion for Discovery Order (2025-12-15): Golden Eye Technologies LLC also filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Discovery Order.
• Extension of Time (2025-12-05): A Joint Motion for Extension of Time to file a Discovery Order and serve Invalidity Contentions was filed by the parties and granted by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on December 10, 2025.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing Scheduled (2027-02-01): The court has scheduled a Markman/Claim Construction Hearing for February 1, 2027, at 9:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This indicates that the case is progressing towards claim construction, and no claim construction outcome has been reached yet.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Protective Order Entered (2025-12-16): A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This is a standard but important step in patent litigation to govern the exchange of confidential information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Pretrial Conference Scheduled (2027-07-12): A Pretrial Conference is set for July 12, 2027, at 9:00 AM.
• Jury Selection Scheduled (2027-08-16): Jury Selection for the trial is scheduled for August 16, 2027, at 9:00 AM. No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred as the case is still in the pre-trial phase.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is active, with future dates scheduled for Markman, Pretrial Conference, and Jury Selection. There has been no final disposition, settlement, or appeal to date.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2026-00187 Filed (2026-01-07): Cisco Systems, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00187, challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037.
• IPR Institution Denied (Undated, but confirmed prior to 2026-05-29): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision of "Not Instituted - Procedural" for IPR2026-00187. This means the PTAB denied Cisco's petition to institute an IPR against the patent on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits.
• Related IPR Denied (2026-04-28): Cisco also filed IPR2026-00188 against another patent (US9271243B2) asserted by Golden Eye Technologies LLC, which was also filed on January 7, 2026, and denied institution on April 28, 2026. This outcome in the IPR proceeding means the validity challenge at the PTAB for U.S. Patent No. 9,717,037 will not proceed, removing a potential avenue for invalidating the patent outside of the district court litigation.

The plaintiff in this case, Golden Eye Technologies LLC, is represented by attorneys from Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, Texas)

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Bragalone has extensive experience representing patent owners in complex patent litigation across various technologies, often in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Terry Afif Saad

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Terry Saad is a name partner at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and has significant experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Marcus Benavides

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Marcus Benavides focuses on patent litigation and has appeared in numerous cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Brandon V. Zuniga

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Brandon Zuniga represents clients in patent litigation and intellectual property disputes.

• Mark Douglass

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mark Douglass is involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Andrea Leigh Fair
  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC. (Office location not specified in immediate search results, but the firm is noted alongside a Dallas firm for E.D. Tex. cases, suggesting Texas presence, possibly local counsel or a co-counsel with a Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Andrea Leigh Fair filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance for Golden Eye Technologies LLC, indicating her active role in the litigation. Her firm is also noted as representing Golden Eye Technologies LLC in this matter.

The defendant in Golden Eye Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc. (2:25-cv-00898) is Cisco Systems, Inc.. The counsel of record representing Cisco Systems, Inc. primarily includes attorneys from Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Dallas, TX)

Bragalone Olejko Saad PC is a litigation and trial boutique that focuses on high-stakes intellectual property matters, including patent litigation. The firm's attorneys have technical degrees and experience across various technological areas, such as telecommunications, semiconductors, and software.

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone

  • Role: Shareholder, likely Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Focuses on complex commercial litigation with an emphasis on patent and intellectual property matters, including over one hundred Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. He was part of the trial team for Ericsson in Ericsson v. Qualcomm and obtained a worldwide injunction for Cisco Systems in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

• Terry Afif Saad

  • Role: Shareholder, likely Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, post-grant patent proceedings, and general intellectual property matters, with experience in computer software, semiconductors, telecommunications, and medical devices. He is a registered patent attorney and has an electrical engineering background.

• Marcus Benavides

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and consultation, with an emphasis on America Invents Act post-grant proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has a background in aerospace engineering and experience in telecommunications, data communications, and computer memory systems.

• Brandon V. Zuniga

  • Role: Associate.
  • Firm & Office Location: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights, and has worked on over 400 patent-related matters. He holds a chemical engineering degree and has experience in diverse technical areas including software, electrical, and mechanical engineering.

• Mark Douglass

  • Role: Attorney (role not explicitly stated as shareholder/of counsel/associate in available snippets but listed among other attorneys).
  • Firm & Office Location: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Listed with an Intellectual Property practice area.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)

Miller Fair Henry PLLC is an East Texas firm with expertise in intellectual property and patent law litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. They often collaborate with lead counsel to provide local knowledge and trial skills.

• Andrea Leigh Fair
  • Role: Partner, likely Local Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and has secured significant jury verdicts in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including a $121.95 million verdict for AlmondNet Inc. against Amazon and a $62.7 million verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd. She is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.