Defendant
32 cases as defendant.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. (commonly known as Cisco) is a publicly traded technology company founded in 1984 and headquartered in San Jose, California. It trades under the ticker symbol CSCO on the Nasdaq stock exchange. As a major multinational corporation, Cisco reported revenue of approximately $59.1 billion for the trailing twelve months ending in January 2026 and employed about 86,200 people as of 2025.
Cisco is a leading global manufacturer and vendor of networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services and products. The company's portfolio is structured around key areas including networking (routers, switches, wireless access points), security (firewalls, cybersecurity software), collaboration (Webex), data center technology, and the Internet of Things (IoT). Its products and services are widely used by enterprises, service providers, and public institutions to build and manage IT infrastructure.
Based on the provided data, Cisco is an operating company that appears in patent litigation exclusively as a defendant. In all four tracked cases, the company is defending against infringement claims. This posture is typical for a large technology manufacturer facing assertions from patent-holding entities. The lawsuits are concentrated in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, with three of the four cases filed in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
The plaintiffs in the tracked cases are primarily non-practicing entities (NPEs). Optimnet LLC, Atlas Global Technologies LLC, and Fleet Connect Solutions LLC are identified as patent assertion entities in intellectual property industry reports. For instance, Atlas Global Technologies is an entity of Acacia Research that asserts patents related to Wi-Fi standards, while Fleet Connect Solutions is an entity of Empire IP. Optimnet LLC is noted as an NPE that has licensed patents from the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) for assertion. Athena Security, LLP is the plaintiff in the fourth case; public sources indicate Athena Security is an operating company developing security systems.
Enhanced Data Streaming LLC sued Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, asserting five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,336,605. Cisco's motion to dismiss the indirect and willful infringement claims was denied on June 2, 2026, and the case remains pending.
A patent infringement lawsuit filed by Optimnet LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case is currently pending.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to the complaint, indicating this case is active in discovery phases.
Quicker Connections LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US patent 7061859.
Centripetal Networks appealed the PTAB's initial decision in IPR2022-00182 (and related IPRs) concerning US9917856. The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, citing the PTAB's failure to adequately consider evidence of copying.
Atlas Global Technologies LLC filed this active infringement suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent 10,020,919.
Corrigent sued Cisco alleging infringement of the '369 patent and related Corrigent patents. The court granted Cisco judgment on the pleadings that the '369 and '485 claims were patent-ineligible under § 101, entered final judgment for Cisco, and Corrigent recovered $0; the judgment also addressed the '400, '602, and '431 patents.
Patent infringement suit filed by Fleet Connect Solutions LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent 7,742,388.
2021 wireless networking campaign case in W.D. Tex. against Cisco and Meraki; a claim-construction order was entered 2022-09-30. Listed by XR as involving the '376 patent in IPR2022-00613 mandatory notices.
Initially, a judgment was issued in favor of Centripetal Networks finding Cisco willfully infringed four patents, including US9917856. This verdict was later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to a conflict of interest, and the case was remanded. The district court administratively closed the case in July 2025, pending appeals.
Centripetal accused Cisco of infringement in E.D. Va. After a Zoom bench trial, the district court awarded about $1.9 billion, but the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded. The '213 claims had been dismissed without prejudice pending IPRs, and on remand Centripetal failed to prove infringement of the retried patents. The docket was administratively closed around July 2025.
The '722 patent was initially asserted but was not part of the bench trial. The district court entered a roughly $2.75 billion judgment for Centripetal, later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to the judge's failure to recuse; on remand, Judge Hanes found no infringement and the case was closed on May 27, 2025.
Centripetal Networks sued Cisco Systems in E.D. Va. The case resulted in an Oct. 5, 2020 judgment of validity/infringement and approximately $1.9B in enhanced damages, which the Federal Circuit vacated in 2022 due to the district judge's non-recusal and remanded to a new judge. The narrative does not identify the '241 patent as asserted.
Initially awarded over $1.9 billion to Centripetal for willful infringement of several patents, this judgment was later vacated and remanded due to judicial recusal. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed a subsequent district court judgment of non-infringement in favor of Cisco, specifically for the '806 patent (a parent of 10511572), finding Cisco's products did not meet a key claim limitation.
2017 Central District of California case asserting the '231 patent along with U.S. 7,062,296 and 7,729,728. Final judgment was entered for Cisco on April 15, 2022, on the pleadings of invalidity of the '231 patent based on collateral estoppel from the N.D. Cal. indefiniteness judgment.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of patent ineligibility for US9917856 was denied in September 2018, as disputed issues of fact existed. This case appears to be related to or preceding the 2:18-cv-00094 case.
VirnetX's case against multiple defendants; the '759 patent was part of the patent set. First Apple trial resulted in a ~$368M willful-infringement verdict. On appeal, VirnetX I, 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014), affirmed validity and VPN-on-Demand infringement, vacated FaceTime infringement and damages, and remanded. The Cisco portion ended with a Cisco non-infringement verdict.
First suit asserting the '706 patent; asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,561,706 and 6,819,670. It produced the original Markman construction of the '706 terms. Resolved piecemeal through dismissals and settlements, including Nortel's stipulated dismissal and dismissal of certain Lucent claims.
Public sources indicate that a suit was filed against Cisco Systems Inc. as part of Athena's broader campaign, but specific docket information was not immediately available in the search results. The case is presumed to be ongoing.
An appeal from a PTAB decision involving the '135 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision on October 20, 2023.
The Federal Circuit vacated the initial district court judgment and remanded the case due to the district judge's recusal issues related to US9560176.
Velocity Communication Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US patent 8675570.
Appeal of the post-remand decision in the Cisco case, including Judge Hanes' no-infringement finding. The Federal Circuit panel heard argument on April 7, 2026; no final disposition had been reported as of the argument date.
Lab Technology LLC sued Cisco Systems, Inc. in W.D. Tex. A notice of voluntary dismissal was filed; the prejudice term was not specified on the public docket. The case was among suits asserting 8,503,973, with no merits ruling.
StorageTek sued Cisco in the Western District of Wisconsin in 1999, asserting U.S. 5,842,040 against Cisco's NetFlow technology and U.S. 5,566,170 against its MPLS technology. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California (C 00-1176 SI). After the Federal Circuit reversed/vacated summary judgment on the '040 patent in 2003, a June 2005 jury trial on remand returned a verdict for Cisco, finding no infringement and the '040 patent invalid; StorageTek recovered nothing.
Ramot sued Cisco for infringement of family patents; complaint charts address U.S. 10,270,535 and U.S. 10,461,866, and Cisco's invalidity contentions included U.S. 9,031,417. Jury trial was set for Dec. 9, 2020, but the final disposition was not confirmed.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC filed suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The action is identified as involving U.S. Patent 8,929,442.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC asserted U.S. Patent 9,769,477 against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Cisco Systems. The case is listed on Google Patents litigation record for the '462 and was resolved.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC asserted the '907 patent against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The PTAB in IPR2018-01817 identified it as a proceeding involving the '907 patent.
Arista Networks filed this district-court case against Cisco. The docket is listed as involving the '597 patent; exact filing date and outcome were not confirmed. Stanford NPE and Docket Alarm list the case in N.D. Cal., while Google Patents labels the venue as the Eastern District of California.
VirnetX's appeal of the PTAB's invalidity findings in inter partes reexamination 95/001,746 involving the '759 patent. Oral argument was Jan. 8, 2020; the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the PTAB on Jan. 21, 2020.