Litigation

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.

affirmed

IPR2022-00575; IPR2022-00576; IPR2022-01283; Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1726, 2024-1727, 2024-1728

Filed
2022-02-16
Terminated
2026-04-13

Patents at issue (2)

9031417
11133872PTAB: final decision

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the IPRs, the '417 patent, and the district court track.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case across the PTAB, Federal Circuit, and any parallel district court litigation.

Rich family of cases here. Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings, the parallel district court actions, and the newer appeals.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research this case. Note upfront: the caption given is an IPR (PTAB) proceeding, not a district court infringement action, so the "plaintiff" role maps to Petitioner Cisco Systems. Let me verify the record and identify counsel.

Good — this is an IPR proceeding (Petitioner/Appellant Cisco = the "plaintiff" side). Let me pin down the PTAB-level counsel of record and Federal Circuit appearances.

Now let me nail down the PTAB-level power of attorney / lead counsel and the Federal Circuit appearance entries, plus counsel bios.

Framing: who is the "plaintiff" here

The caption you gave is not a district‑court infringement suit — it's a consolidated inter partes review proceeding at the PTAB, later appealed to the Federal Circuit. In that posture the party‑alignment maps as follows:

District‑court role Actual role in this case Party
Plaintiff Petitioner / Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc.
Defendant Patent Owner / Appellee Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.

So "counsel for the plaintiff" = counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco was represented throughout by one firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP. I did not find any other firm appearing for Cisco in these three IPRs or on appeal. (The parallel district‑court actions used different counsel — see the note at the end.)

Cisco Systems, Inc. — counsel of record

A. Federal Circuit (Nos. 2024‑1726, 2024‑1727, 2024‑1728)

Source: the panel's Rule 36 judgment / argument line, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., Nos. 2024‑1726/27/28 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2026) — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1726.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-13-2026_2674975.pdf

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Angela M. Oliver Principal appellate advocate (argued for appellant) Haynes and Boone, LLP — Washington, DC Argued the consolidated appeal for Cisco. Also appears as Cisco appellate counsel in other Haynes & Boone Federal Circuit matters (e.g., No. 2022‑2290).
Adam Lloyd Erickson Of counsel on appeal Haynes and Boone, LLP — office not stated in the judgment Listed on the Federal Circuit argument line for Cisco.
Theodore M. Foster Of counsel on appeal Haynes and Boone, LLP — Denver, CO Long‑time Cisco IPR/POPA back‑up counsel (USPTO Reg. No. 57,456); appears in numerous Cisco PTAB matters (e.g., Uniloc, IPR2017‑00058; IPR2018‑01725).
Debra Janece McComas Of counsel on appeal Haynes and Boone, LLP — Dallas, TX Haynes & Boone appellate/IPR lawyer; also listed for Cisco in Fed. Cir. No. 2022‑2290.
David L. McCombs Of counsel on appeal (Cisco's senior IPR counsel) Haynes and Boone, LLP — Dallas, TX USPTO Reg. No. 32,271; the designated lead counsel in Cisco's standard Haynes & Boone PTAB powers of attorney.
Laura Vu Of counsel on appeal Haynes and Boone, LLP — San Francisco, CA Listed on the Federal Circuit argument line for Cisco.

B. PTAB trial level (IPR2022‑00575, IPR2022‑00576, IPR2022‑01283)

Source: Board order granting Patent Owner's pro hac vice motions, IPR2022‑00575/‑00576, Paper 9 (Aug. 30, 2022) — which carries the Petitioner's service list — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00575/...Paper 9

Attorney Role Firm / office
David McCombs Petitioner's counsel of record (Cisco's lead PTAB practitioner) Haynes & Boone, LLP — Dallas, TX
Theodore Foster Petitioner's counsel of record Haynes & Boone, LLP — Dallas/Denver
Calmann Clements Petitioner's counsel of record (back‑up) Haynes & Boone, LLP

In‑house: Cisco's petition papers were executed by a Cisco Senior Corporate Counsel (in‑house), per the standard Cisco power‑of‑attorney form used across its Haynes & Boone IPRs. I was not able to capture the individual's name for these specific dockets in this session, so I won't guess it.

Important caveats / unsourced items

  • No "plaintiff's counsel" in the strict sense. Because this is an IPR appeal, the attorneys above are technically petitioner's/appellant's counsel. The question's "plaintiff" label comes from the case‑caption metadata; the substantive alignment is Cisco = challenger.
  • Exact PTAB power‑of‑attorney for these three IPR numbers not directly retrieved. I confirmed the personnel via the Board's own service list in IPR2022‑00575/‑00576 (Paper 9) and via the Federal Circuit line. The lead/back‑up designation I cite (McCombs lead, Foster back‑up) is drawn from Cisco's standard Haynes & Boone POA used in its other IPRs (e.g., IPR2018‑01725, IPR2017‑01845) and is consistent with, but not verbatim‑confirmed against, the POA filed in these specific proceedings.
  • Firm bios not independently verified. My searches for individual Haynes & Boone attorney profiles (Oliver, Foster, McCombs) returned the case records but not the firm‑site bios before I hit my research limit. The experience notes above are grounded in docket records (Reg. numbers, appearances in other Cisco matters), not in firm marketing pages.
  • Nothing appears sealed on the counsel question — the identities are on the public Federal Circuit judgment and the public PTAB order.

For contrast — opposing side (Appellee/Patent Owner Ramot)

Not asked, but useful for the file: Ramot's counsel of record were Brenda Entzminger (lead, registered practitioner) and Corey Johanningmeier (pro hac vice, back‑up) of Bunsow De Mory LLP at the PTAB, with Denise Marie De Mory (Bunsow De Mory, Redwood City, CA) arguing and Wayne Michael Helge (Alexandria, VA) also on the Federal Circuit brief.

Context — the related district‑court litigation used different counsel

Because the caption can be confusing, note that the infringement/DJ side of this dispute had separate teams:

  • Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2:22‑cv‑00275, transferred to D. Del. 1:23‑cv‑00012): Ramot (plaintiff) was represented by Melissa R. Smith (Gillam & Smith, Marshall, TX), L. Norwood Jameson / Matthew Gaudet / Jennifer Forte et al. (Duane Morris), and Andrew L. Perito (Durie Tangri) appeared for Cisco (defendant).
  • A parallel Cisco/Acacia declaratory‑judgment action (Cisco as plaintiff) in Delaware involved Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP. I'd treat the specific attorney names on that DJ docket as unverified — my sources conflicted on which Morris Nichols attorneys represented Cisco versus Ramot, so I won't state them as fact.

If you want, I can pull the actual PDF of the paper‑2 power of attorney from the PTAB docket (via PTAB‑IS or Docket Alarm) to lock down the exact lead/back‑up designation for IPR2022‑00575/‑00576/‑01283, and grab the Haynes & Boone bios for Oliver, Foster, McCombs, McComas, Erickson, and Vu.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the counsel of record for Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. across the IPRs, the Federal Circuit appeals, and any parallel district court litigation.

I have the core names. Let me verify firm affiliations, current status, and PTAB-specific roles.

Counsel of Record — Defendant/Appellee Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.

Terminology note: This proceeding (IPR2022‑00575/‑00576/‑01283 → Fed. Cir. 2024‑1726/‑1727/‑1728) is a PTAB-to-Federal-Circuit matter. Cisco is the petitioner/appellant and Ramot is the patent owner/appellee — i.e., the "defendant" side in this docket. Ramot has been represented throughout by outside counsel from the IP boutique Bunsow De Mory LLP; no in‑house Ramot attorney appears of record on the PTAB or Federal Circuit dockets. All names below are drawn from the Rule 36 judgment, the PTAB pro hac vice orders, and the Federal Circuit docket — nothing is inferred.

Federal Circuit (Ramot as Appellee, argued 2026)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Denise Marie De Mory Lead counsel; argued the appeal for Appellee Bunsow De Mory LLP — Redwood City, CA Managing partner/co‑founder of the firm; 30+ years of patent litigation, 150+ patent cases, 11 trials to verdict. She has led Ramot's litigation against Cisco across the parties' multi‑forum dispute.
Wayne Michael Helge Counsel of record on the appeal (appellate) Bunsow De Mory LLP — Alexandria, VA Listed on the Rule 36 judgment as counsel for Ramot; the firm's Alexandria office handles its Federal Circuit/PTAB practice. (I could not pull a standalone bio before tool limits were reached — treat his precise title as unverified.)

Source: Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., Nos. 2024‑1726/‑1727/‑1728, Rule 36 Judgment (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2026), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1726.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-13-2026_2674975.pdf ("DENISE MARIE DE MORY, Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by WAYNE MICHAEL HELGE, Alexandria, VA.").

PTAB — Patent Owner's counsel in the IPRs

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Brenda Entzminger Lead counsel for Patent Owner in the IPR proceedings (registered practitioner, USPTO Reg. No. 76,896) Bunsow De Mory LLP — Redwood City, CA Board order confirms "Lead counsel for Patent Owner, Brenda Entzminger, a registered practitioner, filed the Motions." Certified to practice before the USPTO; firm bio touts 17+ years of high‑stakes litigation (incl. PTAB work for Agilent).
Corey A. Johanningmeier Back‑up counsel in the IPRs, admitted pro hac vice (granted Aug. 30, 2022); listed on the Federal Circuit docket as counsel for Appellee During the IPR: Bunsow De Mory LLP — Redwood City, CA. Now appears as a solo practitioner (Johanningmeier Law, Oakland, CA) — he withdrew from Ramot's E.D. Tex. district court case in spring 2026. Described in the record as "one of the primary attorneys representing Patent Owner … in pending District Court litigations" against Cisco; Super Lawyers (2021–2026) and Managing IP "IP Star." His pro hac vice declaration notes prior admission in IPR2022‑00575/‑00576/‑01283, among others.

Sources:

  • PTAB Order Granting Patent Owner's Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Corey Johanningmeier, IPR2022‑00575/‑00576 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2022) (Brenda Entzminger, Bunsow De Mory LLP, listed as lead counsel; Johanningmeier authorized "only as back‑up counsel").
  • Fed. Cir. docket for 2024‑1726 (Justia) listing appellee Ramot as "Represented By: Corey A. Johanningmeier, Esq."
  • Cal. State Bar profile #251297 (Johanningmeier), showing current solo address; Cal. State Bar profile #168076 (De Mory) at Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City.

Caveats / things I could not verify

  • Federal Circuit entry of appearance list: I confirmed De Mory, Helge, and (per Justia's docket) Johanningmeier. The Rule 36 judgment is a short per curiam order and does not enumerate every attorney who entered an appearance; there may have been additional back‑up counsel of record not reflected there.
  • No seals indicated for counsel listings; the PTAB docket entries and Federal Circuit judgment are public.
  • Delaware/E.D. Tex. local counsel: Ramot is the plaintiff in the parallel district court actions (Ramot v. Cisco, D. Del. No. 1:23‑cv‑00012 and E.D. Tex. No. 2:19‑cv‑00225), where it has also used Delaware/Texas local counsel. Those are separate proceedings from this PTAB/Federal Circuit matter, and I did not independently confirm a specific local‑counsel appearance for the appellate/IPR track — so I am not naming one. (One aggregator lists "Andrew Colin Mayo" as plaintiff's attorney in the Delaware action, but I could not verify that against PACER and it is not this case's defendant-side counsel.)
  • Wayne Helge's title (partner vs. counsel vs. of counsel) is unverified.

Bottom line: Ramot's defense was handled by Bunsow De Mory LLP, with Denise M. De Mory (lead/argued the appeal) and Wayne M. Helge on the Federal Circuit, and Brenda Entzminger (lead) plus Corey A. Johanningmeier (back‑up, pro hac vice) in the PTAB.

Record id: 9031417-ipr2022-00575-ipr2022-00576-ipr2022-01283-fed-cir-nos-2024-1726-2024-172 · edit in Admin