Plaintiff
18 cases as plaintiff.
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.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Cisco Systems, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging US patent 7061859, owned by Quicker Connections LLC. The PTAB procedurally declined to institute the review.
Cisco alleges that Intelligent Protection Management Corp.'s (IPM) "ManyCam" software infringes on the '708 patent, among others. The complaint claims both direct and indirect infringement. The case is currently active in the discovery phase.
Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc. in the District of Delaware. The case is currently active with an extended deadline for Intelligent Protection Management Corp. to respond to the complaint.
An Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. against US Patent 8441721, currently assigned to WSOU Investments LLC, which resulted in a settlement.
Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of the '369 patent. The PTAB denied institution on the merits on August 30, 2023, with refunds issued in December 2023.
Cisco Systems, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,118,602. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision; termination date Aug. 6, 2024. The narrative did not retrieve the substantive holding.
Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and Cisco Systems, Inc. filed an inter partes review petition against Corrigent Corporation regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,593,400. The PTAB denied institution on August 11, 2023 under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Inter partes review petition by Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. (Dell also filed a power of attorney) challenging claims 25-27 of U.S. Patent 7,330,431. Instituted Jul. 6, 2023; Final Written Decision Jul. 3, 2024; substantive holding not confirmed.
PTAB IPRs filed by Cisco challenging U.S. 11,133,872; instituted 2022-10-05 and appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB (Rule 36) on April 13, 2026.
Cisco Systems filed this IPR, which was joined with IPR2022-00182. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand for this joined case.
Declaratory-judgment action of non-infringement as to U.S. 11,133,872, managed alongside 21-295 and 22-674. Claim construction occurred in 2024, and a partial summary-judgment motion on the pre-AIA on-sale bar was denied in Oct. 2025.
Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-25 of the '722 patent. The Board instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over the Sourcefire 3D System User Guide; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Inter partes review of U.S. 7,729,728; independent claims 1, 7, and 16 were held unpatentable.
Cisco asserted the '597 patent, among approximately 12 Cisco patents, against Arista in the Northern District of California over Arista switches. The case had docket activity through 2018 and was resolved by the Cisco-Arista global settlement announced in August 2018; no final judgment on the '597 patent was located. The Stanford NPE database renders the case number as 4:14-cv-05343.
Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of the '213 patent. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding challenged claims unpatentable; the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and remanded, and the PTAB again found the patent invalid on remand.
Cisco filed an inter partes review against Ramot. Institution was denied under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv, Paper 15 (May 15, 2020). The IPRs challenged Ramot's continuation patents, the '465/'535/'866 family, not the '425 patent itself.
Cisco Systems, Inc. appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal was reported as voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs; no merits adjudication.
Cisco appealed the ITC's finding that Arista's accused products do not infringe the '597 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's non-infringement determination, as reported at 873 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017).