Litigation

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Corrigent Corp.

dismissed

2025-1021

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Patents at issue (1)

9118602

Plaintiffs (1)

π Cisco Systems, Inc.

Defendants (1)

Δ Corrigent Corp.

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 9118602-2025-1021 · edit in Admin

Further reading

What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.

All resources →