Unspecified Plaintiff v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

Case Overview and Background: Cisco Systems Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Cisco Systems Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-06441, is an active declaratory judgment action currently proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Cisco Systems Inc., is a well-known multinational technology conglomerate that develops, manufactures, and sells networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services and products. The defendant, Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc., appears to be a company focused on wireless mesh networking, with expertise in mission-critical, time-sensitive wireless mesh networking software and solutions, including applications for highly mobile nodes like drone swarms and industrial IoT. While the existing summary notes the case as a declaratory judgment seeking non-infringement, the specific products, services, or technology of Cisco that are allegedly infringing patents held by Dynamic Mesh Networks are not detailed in the available public information, nor is it explicitly stated if Dynamic Mesh Networks is a non-practicing entity (NPE) or an operating company asserting its own products.

The core of this dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 7,894,385 (US7894385), among other unspecified patents. A technical sketch of US7894385, based on its classification and related technologies, suggests it pertains to advancements in wireless mesh networking, which involves interconnected nodes that dynamically self-organize and self-configure to efficiently route data, enhancing resilience and fault-tolerance. The procedural posture indicates the case was filed on July 31, 2025, and a notice of impending reassignment to a U.S. District Court Judge was issued on August 11, 2025, suggesting the case was initially before a Magistrate Judge or had not yet been fully assigned to a District Judge. The Northern District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, particularly for technology companies, known for its expertise in intellectual property matters and its proximity to Silicon Valley.

The notability of this case stems from the involvement of Cisco, a major operating company in the networking technology sector, which frequently finds itself as a defendant in patent disputes. The nature of the action as a declaratory judgment of non-infringement suggests that Dynamic Mesh Networks may have asserted or threatened to assert infringement claims against Cisco. Such cases often have broader industry implications, as the outcome can influence licensing strategies and competitive dynamics within the wireless mesh networking market, a critical area for smart cities, industrial automation, and defense applications. However, without further details on Dynamic Mesh Networks' assertion patterns or any parallel PTAB IPR challenges, the specific reasons for its "critical" status beyond general patent litigation importance are not immediately apparent from the available information.

The declaratory judgment action, originally listed as "Unspecified Plaintiff v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc." (3:25-cv-06441), has been identified as Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc., with the correct case number being 5:25-cv-06441 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This case involved a declaration of non-infringement concerning several patents, including US7894385, US11368537B2, US8520691B2, US7885243B2, and US742095B2.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for this litigation:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint (Declaratory Judgment): Cisco Systems, Inc. filed its declaratory judgment action against Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:25-cv-06441) on July 31, 2025. In this action, Cisco sought a declaration of non-infringement for patents including US7894385.
• Related Infringement Suits: Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. also filed patent infringement suits against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. One such suit, Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00781), was filed on August 12, 2025, and another (Case No. 2:25-cv-00472) also asserted five mesh networking patents against Cisco.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss (for lack of jurisdiction): Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. successfully moved to dismiss Cisco's declaratory judgment action. The Northern District of California dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Outcome - Dismissal:

• Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction: On January 29, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. (Case No. 5:25-cv-06441) for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Cisco retains the right to refile the action in the future if jurisdictional issues are resolved. Due to this early dismissal, the case did not proceed to claim construction, significant discovery milestones, or trial events.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. concerning patents also involved in the broader litigation:

• IPR2025-01303 (U.S. Patent No. 11,368,537 B2): Cisco Systems, Inc. challenged this patent. On March 3, 2026, the USPTO Director denied institution of the IPR after Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc., the patent owner, filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims and the entire term of the challenged patent before the institution decision.
• IPR2025-01304 (U.S. Patent No. 7,885,243): This IPR was filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. on August 27, 2025. [cite: 2 (from previous search), 6] Information suggests a Markman hearing has been set in related proceedings concerning this patent.
• IPR2025-01523 (U.S. Patent No. 7,420,952): This IPR, also brought by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc., is listed as a related matter to the district court cases in both the Northern District of California and Eastern District of Texas.
• U.S. Patent No. 7,894,385: While US7894385 was asserted in the dismissed district court case, no specific IPR targeting this particular patent could be identified in the available search results.

In the patent infringement case Cisco Systems Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. et al, case number 3:25-cv-06441 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiff is Cisco Systems, Inc..

Counsel of record representing Cisco Systems, Inc. in this matter are identified from docket filings:

• Firm: (Information on specific attorneys and their firms is anticipated to be in Case 3:25-cv-06441-LJC Document 5 Filed 07/31/25 Page 21 of 21, but direct attorney names and firms are not provided in the current search results beyond the general statement "Counsel for Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc.". A direct PACER search or access to the document itself would be necessary to extract the individual attorney names, roles, and their specific firms and office locations.)

To provide the detailed information requested for each attorney (Name, role, firm, office location, and a one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience), access to the specific docket entry (Document 5, filed 07/31/25) from PACER would be required. Without that direct access, the individual attorneys cannot be definitively identified and detailed information about them cannot be provided at this time.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["3:25-cv-06441 Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. counsel", "3:25-cv-06441 docket Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc.", "Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. legal counsel", "Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc. patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant, Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc., in the case 3:25-cv-06441. I need to find their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience.

I will use the provided search queries to look for docket information, firm websites, and legal news articles that might mention the attorneys involved.

Given the case was filed on July 31, 2025, it's relatively new, so the information might be readily available on the docket.Here is the identified counsel of record representing Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in Cisco Systems Inc. v. Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-06441:

Counsel for Defendant Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

The defendant Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Daignault Iyer LLP. Several attorneys from this firm have been identified through court filings and related dockets, including a pro hac vice motion filed in this specific case.

• Scott R. Samay
  • Role: Counsel (filed pro hac vice motion)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Office Location: Specific office location for Daignault Iyer LLP for these attorneys is not explicitly stated in the search results, but generally, pro hac vice motions are filed by out-of-district counsel.
  • Relevant Experience: Scott R. Samay filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in the Northern District of California on August 20, 2025. He is also listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related case in the Eastern District of Texas.

Other attorneys from Daignault Iyer LLP who are listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related Eastern District of Texas case (2:25-cv-00781) and are likely involved in the broader litigation strategy include:

• Elizabeth Bernard
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case. Elizabeth Bernard also filed declarations and exhibits in support of motions to dismiss in the N.D. Cal. case.
• Lisa N. Phillips
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.
• Jason S. Charkow
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.
• Taylor G. Lepore
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.
• Louay Meroueh
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.
• Erin Hadi
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.
• Donald Lee Jackson
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Role: Counsel
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel for Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in a related patent infringement case.

It is also noted that Francis daCosta is listed alongside Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. in filings, including a joint case management statement and a motion for attorney fees, suggesting he may be a co-defendant or a principal of Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc..