Main Menu

On remand from the Supreme Court (which held that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement), the court addressed Cisco’s remaining non-infringement arguments which the court declined to address in its previous opinion.  The court held that neither Cisco nor its customers directly infringed the claim at issue.  The district court’s construction required that the “running” step as requiring that separate copies of the protocol are run.  In the accused Cisco system, however, a single copy is run to support all of the connected devices.  The court found that Cisco’s position was supported by the testimony of its engineer, but the testimony of Commil’s expert could not provide substantial evidence sufficient to show that the claim limitation was being practiced by Cisco.  Accordingly, the court reversed the infringement verdict.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2012-1042 (December 28, 2015); Opinion by: Prost, joined by Newman and O’Malley; Appealed From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Everingham, Mag. J.  Read the full opinion here.  

Back to Page