US 7995580

I'll search for the specific patent number and any associated litigation.

Let me dig into the claim set and any litigation records specifically.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text for this specific patent.

Bottom line

US 7,995,580 B2 is a real, now‑expired Foundry Networks patent in the big "high‑performance network switch" family (the same family as US 7,236,490, US 7,596,139, US 8,514,716, US 8,619,781, US 8,964,754, US 9,030,937). I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, appeal, or 2026 litigation involving 7,995,580 in any of the searches I ran. I also could not retrieve verified verbatim claim text through the tools available, so I flag the claim discussion below accordingly.

1. Bibliographic data

Uncertainty notes: the claim count, the exact claim text, whether the '580 carries a terminal disclaimer (siblings in the family do), and the identity of the prosecuting firm for the 2009 application are all things I could not verify with the sources reached. Treat them as unconfirmed.

2. Classifications

H04L47/6225 (fixed service order, e.g., round robin), H04L45/74, H04L49/153 and H04L49/1538 (ATM switching fabrics having parallel switch planes; cell slicing), H04L49/25 (routing in a switch fabric), H04L49/3063 (pipelined peripheral units), H04L49/901 (buffering using storage descriptors/pointers), H04L49/352 (Gigabit Ethernet switching).

3. Abstract (as reported for the '580)

"A backplane interface adapter with error control and redundant fabric for a high-performance network switch. The error control may be provided by an administrative module that includes a level monitor, a stripe synchronization error detector, a flow controller, and a control character presence tracker. The redundant fabric transceiver of the backplane interface adapter improves the adapter's ability to properly and consistently receive narrow input cells carrying packets of data and output wide striped cells to a switching fabric."

(Note: this is the abstract text carried by the '580 family. The earlier 2002 publication of the parent, US 2002/0105966 A1, had only the final sentence — the error‑control sentence was added in the later continuation filings.)

4. What the disclosure covers

The specification (which I do have in full) describes a switch in which blades are coupled to a switching fabric by serial pipes; data is carried in wide striped cells spread across five stripes (5 × 10 Gbps = 50 Gbps per slot), with in‑band control information in each stripe (K0 = start of cell, K1 = end of packet, K2 = used in the re‑synchronization sequence). A backplane interface adapter (BIA) has three traffic paths: local→fabric, fabric→local, and a local cut‑through path. The error‑control content centers on:

• an administrative module with a level monitor, stripe synchronization error detector, flow controller, and control character presence tracker (FIG. 28A);
• monitoring FIFO levels in stripe receive synchronization queues to detect overflow/underflow on a given stripe from a given source (FIG. 31), initiating a re‑synchronization routine;
• a K2 synchronization sequence sent across all lanes for a predetermined number of cycles (FIG. 34B, routine 29/30);
• redundant fabric transceivers (RFTs) on ingress/egress blades, coupling to two switching blades, with a multiplexer, downlink/uplink transceivers, and a register module — plus synchronous (time‑domain‑multiplexed) and asynchronous flow‑control implementations (FIGS. 33A–37).

5. Independent claims — plain language

Important caveat: the authoritative patent text supplied to me is truncated before the claims section, and my searches did not return the '580 claim set. I therefore cannot give you the verbatim independent claims, and I will not reconstruct them, because doing so would risk fabricating claim language.

What I can say with confidence at the disclosure level is that the '580 (as the error‑control/redundant‑fabric continuation) is directed to subject matter that the specification expressly frames as inventive, namely:

1. Stripe synchronization error detection — sorting data received at a receiving slot by stripe and source into data structures, monitoring the levels of those structures, and detecting overflow/underflow on a respective stripe from a particular source (where "source" may be a slot or a source packet processor), then triggering a re‑synchronization routine.
2. Re‑synchronization of striped traffic — sending a common character (K2) across all lanes for a predetermined number of cycles, evaluating the control characters arriving at the stripe receive synchronization queues, and detecting an in‑synch condition indicating the queues have been cleared.
3. Out‑of‑synchronization flow management — monitoring stripe‑receive‑synchronization queue levels, determining whether an out‑of‑syn condition exists, and initiating the re‑synchronization routine.
4. A redundant switching system / redundant fabric transceiver — two switching blades each with cross points for respective stripes, ingress/egress blades coupled to both via the backplane, and RFTs (with multiplexer, downlink and uplink transceivers, and an optional register module holding configuration/parameter information) that can switch traffic between the cross points of the two switching blades to provide redundancy.

If you need the literal claim language (which is what matters for infringement/validity), pull it from the granted patent PDF at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7995580/en ("Claims" section) or USPTO Patent Center for application 12/400,594 — I was not able to reach that section with the tooling available here.

6. CAFC 2026 dockets

• I found no Federal Circuit case in 2026 (or any year) captioned to US 7,995,580, and no 2026 docket entry listing it. Searches for the number against CAFC 2026 materials returned unrelated decisions (e.g., Enviro Tech v. Safe Foods, No. 2024‑2160; ironSource v. Digital Turbine, No. 2025‑1218) and nothing touching the '580.
• This is consistent with the record: the '580 is marked Expired – Fee Related with an anticipated expiration of May 15, 2021, so an active 2026 appeal is unlikely (a suit filed in 2026 could at most reach back‑damages conduct, and no such suit appeared).
• Caveat: I searched public sources (Google Patents, Justia, USPTO.report, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents, and general web results containing CAFC 2026 summaries). I did not have direct, live access to a USPTO PAIR/Patent Center docket or a CAFC docket system, so I cannot certify that no filing exists — only that none appeared.

7. Closing uncertainty statement

Verified from the authoritative full text and consistent public records: title, application number, filing/grant dates, priority chain, inventor list, assignee history, and the technical content. Not verified: the '580's claim count and exact claim wording, the terminal‑disclaimer status of this particular patent, and the absence of any docket activity in fee‑based docket systems.