Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

This lawsuit is a notable engagement in a broader, multi-front patent assertion campaign targeting the widely adopted Wi-Fi 6 technology standard. The plaintiff, Atlas Global Technologies LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) and a subsidiary of the well-known patent monetization firm Acacia Research Corporation. The defendant, Cisco Systems, Inc., is a global leader in networking and IT infrastructure and a major manufacturer of enterprise-grade networking hardware. Atlas alleges that a wide range of Cisco's Wi-Fi 6-capable products, including its wireless access points, routers, and other networking equipment, infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,020,919. This patent, originally developed by NEWRACOM, a significant contributor to the Wi-Fi 6 standard, generally covers methods for "sounding operations for identifying channel conditions in a wireless network" to optimize performance.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, who, until his recently announced departure from the bench, transformed the Waco division into the nation's most active patent court. At its peak, Judge Albright's docket handled nearly 25% of all U.S. patent litigation, making the venue a strategic choice for plaintiffs due to his plaintiff-friendly procedures, including fast-paced schedules and a general reluctance to transfer cases or stay them pending patent validity reviews at the USPTO. Following criticism regarding "judge shopping," a 2022 order began randomizing patent case assignments across the district, but this case was filed prior to that change taking full effect. Judge Albright's impending exit in August 2026 creates uncertainty for the hundreds of cases on his docket, including this one.

This litigation is significant as part of a large-scale monetization effort by Atlas, which has sued numerous technology companies—including Dell, ASUS, and D-Link—over the same portfolio of former NEWRACOM patents. The potential for high damages is substantial; in a parallel case in the Eastern District of Texas involving eight patents from the same family, including the '919 patent, Atlas secured a $37.5 million jury verdict against TP-Link in September 2023. Underscoring the perceived threat, the validity of the '919 patent is under challenge. On March 27, 2026, the non-profit patent-quality organization Unified Patents filed a request for an ex parte reexamination of the patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, adding a layer of risk for Atlas's enforcement efforts.

Following the initial filing, the litigation between Atlas Global Technologies LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc. has progressed through several key phases, marked by Cisco's attempts to challenge the lawsuit's venue and the validity of the asserted patent, a common strategy for defendants in the Western District of Texas. The case remains active, with significant developments shaping its trajectory.

Key Legal Developments Chronology

• 2022-05-13: Complaint Filed. Atlas Global Technologies LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc., alleging that Cisco's Wi-Fi 6 products, including its Catalyst and Meraki access points, infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,020,919. The complaint was filed in the Waco division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. (Case No. 6:22-cv-00520, Dkt. 1).

• 2022-07-29: Cisco's Answer and Counterclaims. Cisco filed its answer, denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the '919 patent. Cisco also filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. (Dkt. 14).

• 2022-08-19: Cisco's Motion to Transfer Venue. Cisco moved to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Cisco argued that its headquarters, relevant documents, and the majority of potential witnesses were located in California, making it a more convenient forum. (Dkt. 20). This is a standard defensive maneuver for large tech companies sued in the W.D. Tex.

• 2023-01-24: Motion to Transfer Denied. Judge Albright denied Cisco's motion to transfer. In his order, the judge found that Cisco had not met the high burden to show that the Northern District of California was a "clearly more convenient" forum, giving weight to factors such as the court's own interest in the case and the presence of a Cisco office within the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. 49).

• 2023-06-23: Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing. The parties presented their arguments on the proper construction of disputed claim terms in the '919 patent during a Markman hearing before Judge Albright. The outcome of this hearing is crucial as the court's interpretation of the patent's claims defines the scope of infringement.

• 2023-08-04: Claim Construction Order Issued. Judge Albright issued his claim construction order, largely adopting the constructions proposed by the plaintiff, Atlas. (Dkt. 78). This ruling was a significant pre-trial victory for Atlas, as a favorable interpretation of the claims can make it easier to prove infringement.

• 2023-11-20: Cisco Files Petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR). In a direct challenge to the patent's validity, Cisco filed two petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review of the '919 patent. The petitions, IPR2024-00262 and IPR2024-00263, argue that the patent's claims are obvious in light of prior art and should be canceled.

• 2023-12-11: Cisco's Motion to Stay Pending IPR. Citing the pending IPR petitions, Cisco filed a motion to stay the district court litigation. Cisco argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as a PTAB finding of invalidity would moot the district court case. It also pointed to the advanced stage of a parallel case against another defendant as a reason to wait for the PTAB's decision.

• 2024-05-29: PTAB Institutes Inter Partes Review. The PTAB issued decisions instituting trial on both of Cisco's IPR petitions, finding that Cisco had established a "reasonable likelihood" that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims of the '919 patent is unpatentable. (IPR2024-00262, Paper 8; IPR2024-00263, Paper 8). This was a critical development, as the PTAB cancels patent claims in a majority of the cases it institutes.

• 2024-06-12: Motion to Stay Granted. Following the PTAB's institution decisions, Judge Albright granted Cisco's motion to stay the case. The litigation is now paused pending the final written decisions from the PTAB on the validity of the '919 patent, which are expected within one year of institution, around May 2025. (Dkt. 112).

Current Posture and Outlook

As of May 2026, the district court case remains stayed. The litigation's future hinges entirely on the outcome of the two IPR proceedings at the PTAB.

• If the PTAB invalidates the asserted claims, the district court case will likely be dismissed, handing a complete victory to Cisco.
• If the PTAB upholds some or all of the claims, the stay will be lifted, and the case will proceed toward summary judgment and a potential trial in the Western District of Texas.

The previously mentioned ex parte reexamination request filed by Unified Patents in March 2026 (a different type of USPTO proceeding) adds another layer of scrutiny on the '919 patent, but the IPRs initiated by Cisco represent the more immediate and significant threat to Atlas's case. The final PTAB decisions, expected soon, will be the next major milestone determining the fate of this litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Atlas Global Technologies LLC has retained a team of experienced patent litigators from several well-regarded firms to represent it in its suit against Cisco. The legal team is led by attorneys from McKool Smith, a national litigation boutique known for high-stakes patent trials.

Based on court filings and public records, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, Atlas Global Technologies LLC:

• Name: Stamatios "Stam" M. Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Notable Experience: Stamoulis is a veteran first-chair trial lawyer with extensive experience representing patent holders in federal district courts nationwide, including numerous cases in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas.

• Name: Richard "Rick" J. Rosati

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Notable Experience: Rosati has over two decades of experience in patent litigation and has represented clients in a wide range of technology sectors.

• Name: S. Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Capshaw is a seasoned East Texas trial lawyer who frequently serves as local counsel in patent cases due to his deep familiarity with the local patent rules and judges.

• Name: Elizabeth "Liz" L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX)
  • Notable Experience: DeRieux regularly represents clients in patent litigation in Texas and has experience in all phases of litigation from pre-suit investigation through appeal.

• Name: Nicholas "Nick" J. Tarter

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: McKool Smith (Austin, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Tarter has been involved in numerous patent infringement cases for McKool Smith, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex technology disputes.

• Name: Jonathan Yim

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: McKool Smith (Austin, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Yim's practice focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation, with a background in electrical engineering that is relevant to the technologies at issue.

This legal team composition, combining a lead trial firm with experienced local Texas counsel, is a common and effective strategy for plaintiffs litigating patent cases in the Western District of Texas. The team's collective experience, particularly in handling cases before Judge Albright and in other popular patent venues, is a significant asset to the plaintiff's campaign. Appearances for these attorneys can be found in the case docket.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Cisco Systems, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from the national law firm Sidley Austin LLP, known for its strong intellectual property litigation practice, along with experienced Texas-based local counsel. Filings on the court docket indicate the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the defendant.

• Name: Stephen C. Steinberg

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Notable Experience: Steinberg has litigated patent cases involving a wide range of networking technologies, including Wi-Fi and Power-over-Ethernet.

• Name: John W. McBride

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP (Chicago, IL)
  • Notable Experience: McBride represents technology sector clients in patent and trade secret cases in federal courts and before the International Trade Commission.

• Name: Michael C. Hsing

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Hsing's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patent disputes in the technology sector.

• Name: J. Mark Mann

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann Tindel & Thompson (Tyler, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Mann is a veteran Texas trial lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property cases in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Name: G. Blake Thompson

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann Tindel & Thompson (Tyler, TX)
  • Notable Experience: Thompson frequently serves as local counsel in complex civil litigation, including intellectual property matters, and is admitted to practice in all four federal districts of Texas.

This combination of a nationally recognized patent litigation firm and well-established Texas local counsel is a standard and formidable defensive arrangement for technology companies facing patent suits in Texas federal courts.