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

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the docket, the IPRs, the reexaminations, and the judge reassignment.

I'll research this case systematically using web search.

Let me dig deeper into specific docket events and rulings.

Now let me pin down key details on the 2014/2019 patents, the stays, and the Cisco SEC disclosures.

I'll search for press coverage on this case across several angles.

I ran multiple searches (case caption, party names, patent numbers, verdict/settlement angles). Here is what the press and quasi-press record actually contains — the short version is that this case generated no mainstream coverage (no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, or EFF hits appeared), only specialist legal-trade items, law-firm commentary, one firm press release, and vendor litigation-analysis content.

Trade and legal-analyst coverage. The most substantive independent report I found is MLex, which reported on 2024-11-12 that Cisco had "prevailed, in part" on indefiniteness in the Delaware offshoot of this dispute: Judge Gregory B. Williams of the District of Delaware held that a POSITA could not perform the method of U.S. Patent No. 11,342,998 because the "wherein the N bits of the N bit digital input data word are mapped" limitation in claims 45–47 and 49–54 is ambiguous "both functionally and structurally," while claims 1, 4, 6–15, 58 and 61–63 were declared not indefinite. MLex also supplied the procedural backstory: Cisco sued Ramot for declaratory judgment the same day the '998 patent issued in 2022, Ramot then sued Cisco for infringement in Texas, and that case was later transferred to Delaware. On the patent-office side, National Law Review (Intellectual Property Practice Group, published 2020-11-11) analyzed Cisco Systems Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Nos. 20-2047, -2049 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2020), framing it as one of a series of non-precedential orders confirming the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review PTAB institution denials — the Board had denied Cisco's petitions under §314(a) "NHK/Fintiv" discretion because its final decision would land roughly six months after the scheduled district-court trial — and rejecting Cisco's APA notice-and-comment attack. Patently-O (Dennis Crouch) covered the companion mandamus ruling in In re Cisco Systems Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) with the same bottom line: "Mandamus has now been denied."

Firm PR and case-significance framing. Ramot's counsel Bunsow De Mory issued a press release on 2020-10-30 describing "multiple wins at the Federal Circuit," including denial of two Cisco appeals and a mandamus petition, and stated the PTAB had denied institution of the first two IPRs on 2020-05-18 and the third on 2020-08-18. The firm's earlier release positioned the case as significant because it "demonstrated that patent defendants were not entitled to litigate validity in the Patent Office in all cases" — a litigation-strategy take, not neutral reporting. Note that this is party counsel's own account of the outcome.

The stay and the spin-off litigation. RPX News reported (item dated 2021-03-10) that Judge Gilstrap's January 2021 stay "halted" the Eastern District of Texas case "at the relative eleventh hour ahead of a March 1 trial date" in light of ex parte reexaminations, and that Ramot responded by filing a Delaware suit against Acacia Communications (1:21-cv-00295) asserting two of the same three patents — with Acacia accused over "optical transceiver modules and DSP chips." RPX also noted that three patents in the family were in litigation against Cisco and Acacia, that both cases were stayed pending the reexams, and that the parties were racing to file declaratory-judgment actions (Cisco and Acacia filed a DJ complaint on the new '872/'998-family patent). This is the closest thing to "market/industry reaction" coverage: PatSnap — a vendor litigation-intelligence blog, not journalism — framed the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance of 2026-04-13 (Appeal Nos. 24-1726/1727/1728, affirming PTAB unpatentability of US1133872B2's family) as "FTO risk cleared for Cisco" and "one blocking patent removed" from the optical DAC modulator landscape, an analyst inference that goes beyond the court record. On the Delaware damages/invalidity track, VitalLaw IP Law Daily (2025-10-24) reported that the District of Delaware denied partial summary judgment of no on-sale bar, holding the bar applied because a product sold more than a year before the priority date embodied the claimed invention "even if it was kept secret."

Divergences and gaps. Reporting conflicts on a few points: RPX describes a "March 1 trial date" stayed in January 2021, while the PTAB papers quote the operative docket control order setting jury trial for December 9, 2020 (and the court's own Dkt. 235 opinion describes the stay as coming with "jury selection impending"); the trial-setting dates in the record shifted over time, so treat RPX's date loosely. I found no press report of any verdict, damages award, royalty figure, or settlement in the Cisco/Ramot litigation — consistent with the absence of any verdict (the Texas case was stayed on 2021-01-13 and, per the parties' Joint Status Report filed 2025-12-11, remained stayed while reexaminations and PTAB appeals played out). No outlet reported a dollar amount sought or awarded. Also worth flagging: the case metadata lists 9,031,417 as a patent at issue, whereas the operative filings I located state that Ramot asserted the '465, '535 and '866 patents against Cisco (with reexams covering all three), and the parallel '872/'998 family patents arose later — I could not find press coverage tying 9,031,417 to a reported ruling. Where the outlets above go beyond the docket, it is in the form of litigation-strategy spin (Bunsow De Mory), freedom-to-operate inference (PatSnap), or procedural-blog framing (Patently-O, National Law Review); none of it appears to rest on executive statements or disclosed settlement terms.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• PATENT—D. Del.: Partial summary judgment of no on-sale bar denied in modem dispute
• Cisco v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University — Optical DAC Modulator Patent | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• 24-1726-2026-04-13.pdf
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Cisco Systems v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University | Patent Lawsuit 24-1728 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Ltd.
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• 2024-1726: Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• 25005pwpadmin, Author at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Page 32 of 3561
• Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2:19-cv-00225 - CourtListener.com
• Ramot On June 12, 2019 and on February 26, 2021, Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd

I'll research the counsel of record for Ramot at Tel Aviv University in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the specific counsel for Ramot.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and recent filings to confirm current counsel of record.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.

Case: Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00225-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap). Ramot is the sole plaintiff. The case was stayed on Jan. 13, 2021 pending ex parte reexaminations of all three asserted patents (Dkt. 235, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Cisco's renewed motion to stay), so the appearance record below spans 2019–2026 with periodic status filings.

Lead / trial counsel — Bunsow De Mory LLP (Redwood City, CA)

Local counsel — Capshaw DeRieux, LLP (Gladewater, TX)

Later-added counsel

In-house

No in-house Ramot attorney (e.g., a Ramot/Tel Aviv University technology-transfer counsel) appears in the public E.D. Tex. docket for this case; Ramot has litigated exclusively through outside counsel.

---

Sourcing notes and caveats

• The plaintiff's roster is drawn from the docket sheets and filed signature blocks: CourtListener docket for the case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15765854/ramot-at-tel-aviv-university-ltd-v-cisco-systems-inc/), Dkt. 188 (Oct. 30, 2020), Dkt. 192 (Nov. 2, 2020), Dkt. 195 (Nov. 9, 2020), Dkt. 252 (July 1, 2024 status report), and Dkt. 255 (Dec. 11, 2025).
• Caption anomaly: Dkt. 255 (Dec. 11, 2025) carries the case number "2:19-cv-00225-RWS" and its printed caption header ("Counsel for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.") sits directly above the Bunsow De Mory / Singer / Capshaw DeRieux blocks, which are consistently plaintiff's counsel throughout the file. This appears to be a clerical/formatting error in the filing, but I flag it because it could cause confusion. Whether the case was reassigned from Judge Gilstrap (JRG) to Judge Schroeder (RWS) is not confirmed by the sources I reviewed; treat that designation as uncertain.
• Do not confuse with Cisco's side: the Duane Morris LLP attorneys (L. Norwood Jameson, Matthew C. Gaudet, Matthew S. Yungwirth, John R. Gibson, Sajid Saleem, Jennifer H. Forte, Joseph A. Powers, Gilbert A. Greene, Evan J. Muller) and local counsel Gillam & Smith LLP (Melissa R. Smith, Marshall, TX) and Durie Tangri LLP (Andrew L. Perito) represent Cisco, not Ramot — some search results interleave these blocks with Ramot's in the same PDF (e.g., Dkt. 188).
• Parallel proceedings (different counsel of record, not district court): Bunsow De Mory also represented Ramot before the PTAB in Cisco's IPR petitions (Cisco v. Ramot, IPR2020-00122, -00123, -00484 — institution denied 2020) and on Cisco's Federal Circuit appeals/mandamus (In re Cisco Systems, No. 20-148). In the ex parte reexaminations filed by Cisco that produced the 2021 stay, Ramot was separately represented by Jennifer Hayes (partner, post-grant team co-lead, Nixon Peabody LLP), per her firm bio — a distinct engagement from the district-court team.
• I could not retrieve a complete PACER attorney-appearance list (the CourtListener page did not render the full party/attorney table in the results), so the per-attorney appearance dates for the more junior Bunsow De Mory trial-team members are inferred from signature blocks rather than from individual notices of appearance. If a formal, PACER-verified per-attorney appearance list is required, pull the docket's "Attorneys" tab for 2:19-cv-00225 directly.

I'll research the counsel of record for Cisco Systems in this case.

Good initial hits. Let me dig deeper into the docket and confirm current counsel of record.

I have strong data. Let me verify the docket appearances and check for any additional/current Cisco counsel.

Based on the docket records I could retrieve, here is the counsel picture for Cisco Systems, Inc. in Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.).

Bottom line: Cisco has been represented by a Duane Morris LLP team (led out of Atlanta, with Philadelphia and Austin support) as national/lead counsel, plus Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX) as local counsel. This has been stable since the 2019–2020 merits phase and is confirmed by the most recent substantive filing (Dec. 11, 2025), though the roster has narrowed over time. A separate Haynes and Boone LLP team appears only in the related Federal Circuit appeals (which arise from PTAB proceedings, not the district court case).

---

Lead / national counsel — Duane Morris LLP

Confirmed across Dkt. 188 (jury instructions/verdict form), Dkt. 195 (Nov. 9, 2020 joint juror questionnaire), Dkt. 231 (Jan. 2021), and Dkt. 255 (Dec. 11, 2025 Joint Status Report — the most recent signature block).

Local counsel — Gillam & Smith LLP

Counsel appearing earlier (2020) — status uncertain

Related but distinct: Federal Circuit appellate counsel (PTAB appeals)

Cisco's appeals at the Federal Circuit — Nos. 2024-1726, -1727, -1728 (from PTAB IPR2022-00575, -00576, -01283; Rule 36 judgment entered Apr. 13, 2026) — were handled by a Haynes and Boone, LLP team, not the Duane Morris district-court team:

• Angela M. Oliver (argued) — Haynes and Boone, Washington, DC
• Adam Lloyd Erickson — Haynes and Boone
• Theodore M. Foster — Denver, CO
• Debra Janece McComas — Dallas, TX
• David L. McCombs — Dallas, TX
• Laura Vu — San Francisco, CA

These are appeals from the IPR/reexam proceedings, so they are a separate representation from the district-court defense.

---

Caveats and flags

• No in-house counsel identified. I found no Cisco in-house attorney appearing of record in the district court docket; if one exists it would show on a full PACER docket sheet, which I could not pull directly.
• Perito / Durie Tangri appears only in the 2020 filings — flag as possibly superseded by the MoFo merger rather than an active withdrawal.
• Possible case/judge change: The most recent documents (e.g., the Dec. 2025 Joint Status Report) carry the caption "2:19-cv-00225-RWS," and recent docket orders are signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, whereas the case metadata (and older filings) show Judge Rodney Gilstrap (JRG). This may indicate a reassignment or simply a caption typo — I could not confirm which, and it's worth verifying against PACER. The metadata in this prompt (Gilstrap / JRG) should be treated as authoritative unless confirmed otherwise.
• Procedural posture: The case has been stayed since January 2021 (Dkt. 235, Mem. Op. & Order granting Cisco's renewed motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination), which is why Duane Morris and Gillam & Smith continue to file periodic joint status reports (Dkt. 255) as of Dec. 2025 rather than litigating a trial. The Dec. 9, 2020 trial setting referenced in the prior summary never went forward.

Sources: CourtListener docket for No. 2:19-cv-00225 (docs. 188, 195, 231, 255); Dkt. 255 Joint Status Report (Dec. 11, 2025); Dkt. 235 stay order; Cisco's Nov. 2020 Motion for Continuance; Fed. Cir. No. 24-1726 Rule 36 Judgment (Apr. 13, 2026) and oral-argument listing; Duane Morris attorney profiles (Jameson, Gaudet) and firm press releases.