Cisco v. Arista, 945 ITC Complaint

KIRKLAND 8.
ELLIS LLP
AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005
D. Sean Trainor
To Call Writer Directly:
(202) 879-5229
(202) 879-5000
d sean.trainor@kirkland.com
www.kirkIand.com
Facsimile:
(202) 879-5200
Y ._.,.
N.,NEEi
December 19, 2014
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton

Secretary to the Commission
"""""
""""""""-
Swelary
U.S. International Trade Commission
inn [fadeC0,,,,mSsiOn
500 E Street, S.W., Room 112

Washington, DC 20436
Re:
In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

ComponentsThereof(II), ITC InvestigationNo: 337-TA-_
Dear Secretary Barton:
Enclosed for ling on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Complainant") are the following
documents in support of Complajnanfs request that the Commission commence an investigation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 337 of the Tariff Act or 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337. Please note that Condential Exhibits 17 and 48 to the Complaint contain Condential
Business Information and pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a
request for condential treatment of the information in those exhibits accompanies this ling.
Accordingly, Complainant submits the following:
1.
One original and nine (9) paper copies of Complainants non-condential
Veried Complaint (including an original and nine (9) copies of this cover letter,
Complainants public interest statement, and Complainants request for condential treatment of
condential exhibits), of which eight (8) copies are for the Cormnission and one (1) copy is for
service on the Proposed Respondent.
2.
Two (2) copies of the accompanying condential exhibits on separate CD5, of
which one (1) copy is for the Commission, and one (1) copy is for service on the Proposed
Respondent.
3.
Two (2) copies of the accompanying non-condential exhibits and appendices on
separate CD5, of which one (1) copy is for the Commission and one (1) copy is for service on the
Proposed Respondents. Certied copies of the asserted patents, le histories and assignment
records from the United States Patent & Trademark Ofce in the manner received from the PTO
are included in the Appendices.
Chicago
Hang Kong
London
Los Angeies
Munich
New York
Palo Alto
San Francisco
Shanghai
KIRKLAND &ELLlS LLP

AND AFFILIATEDPARTNEIEHIPS
I am available at your convenience to answer any questions. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
fully
D. Sean T ainor
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATEDPARTNERSHIPS
655 Fieenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005
D. Sean Trainor
To Call Writer Directly:
(202) 879-5229
d.sean.trainor@kirkland.com
(202) 879-5000
Facsimile:
(202) 879-5200
vwvw.kirkland.com
December 19, 2014
BY HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
Re:
In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Components Thereof (II), ITC Investigation No: 337-TA-___
Dear Secretary Barton:
Pursuant to U.S. Intemational Trade Commission Rules 210.5 and 210.6, 19 C.F.R.
210.5-210.6, Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Complainant") respectfully requests that the Commission
grant condential treatment to the condential business information contained in Condential
Exhibits 17 and 48 to Complainants Veried Complaint.
The information for which condential treatment is requested is proprietary commercial

infonnation not otherwise publically available. Specically, the condential information relates
to detailed condential business records, licenses, covenants, employee data, expenditures,
investments, revenue, sales and/or other nancial infonnation and data of commercial value to
Complainant that has been submitted to support Complainant's domestic industry allegations and
comply with other Commission requirements.
The infonnation described above qualies as condential business information pursuant

to Rule 20l.6(a) because:
1. It is not available to the general public;
2. Unauthorized disclosure of such infonnation could cause substantial harm to the

competitive position of Complainant; and
3. The disclosure of the information could impair the Commission's ability to obtain
information necessary to perfonn its statutory function.
Chicago
Hong Kong
London
Los Angeles
Munich
New York
Palo Alto
San Francisco
Shanghai
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS
I certify that substantially identical information is not reasonably available to the public
Re
ct
D. Sean Trainor
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED
SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (II)
Investigation No.
STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Pursuant to International Trade Commission (Commission) Rule 210.8(b),
Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) respectfully submits this separate Statement On The
Public Interest with respect to the remedial orders it seeks against Respondent Arista Networks,
Inc. (Respondent).
The relief sought by Cisco would serve the strong public interest in
protecting signicant intellectual property rights of Cisco, an innovative corporation

headquartered in the United States, and will have no adverse effect on public health and welfare,
competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. Cisco stands ready to
supply the needs of U.S. customers with networking products that practice each of the Cisco
patents. Moreover, there are many other companies supplying competing products in the U.S.
Accordingly, this is not a case where the Commission should delegate public interest fact-nding
to the ALJ, thereby requiring the Commission, the parties, and the public to undergo the time and
expense for a Recommended Determination by the ALJ.
Cisco seeks a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) specically directed to
Respondent excluding from entry into the U.S. certain networking equipment and components
and soware therein (Accused Products) that infringe six important Cisco patents: U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,023,853; 6,377,577; 7,460,492; 7,061,875; 7,224,668; and 8,051,211 (the Asserted
Patents).
Cisco also seeks a cease and desist order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(f) prohibiting
Respondent from marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, warehousing inventory for
distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing infringing products into the U.S.
The Commissions granting of these orders would serve the publics strong interest in
protecting IP rights.
Respondent has unlawfully used a number of important networking
technologies developed by Cisco, including without limitation technologies that Respondents

own founders developed while at Cisco. Indeed, Respondents founders previously worked at
Cisco and are named inventors on two of the Asserted Patents.
Cisco made signicant
investments in research and development, personnel, and engineering hours to support these
innovations.
Cisco also made substantial investments in labor and capital in the U.S. in
connection with products practicing the Asserted Patents.
Granting the orders sought by
Complainant is necessary to protect these substantial investments, as well as innovation, and the
domestic industry they support. Aristas infringement sties innovation and should be stopped.
Moreover, granting these orders would have no adverse effect on public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. Cisco, together with many
other competitors in the market for the Accused Products, supply large quantities of like or
directly competitive products in the U.S. and could readily replace the Accused Products in a
commercially reasonable amount of time if the ITC excludes these products. Cisco brings this
action against one respondent on technologies proprietary to Cisco. This, together with the
nature of the Accused Products, ensures that neither consumers of the Accused Products nor the
market will be unduly impacted by the relief sought.
The Requested Relief Is In Accord With The Public Interest

Cisco, an IT company and worldwide leader in developing and implementing innovative
networking technologies, employs thousands of networking engineers and invests billions of

dollars annually in R&D focused on creating new networking technologies.
Decades after
Ciscos founding, despite knowing that Ciscos technologies are protected by Ciscos patents,
including patents issued to Respondents founders as employees of Cisco, Respondent
incorporated Ciscos technologies into its products.
signicant harm to Cisco and innovation.
Respondenfs
actions have caused
If Respondents unauthorized use of Cisco
technologies allows it to avoid what is needed to develop new technologies, others will be
encouraged to infringe proprietary technologies rather than hire engineers, invest in innovation,
and develop new technologies in the U.S. The Commission has recognized a strong public
interest in enforcing IP rights and that interest is implicated here.
See Certain Baseband
Processor Chips and Chipsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, C0mmn Op., 2007 ITC LEXIS 621 at
*240 (June 19, 2007).
(1)
The Accused Products Are Used For Data, Voice, and Video Distribution
The Accused Products include hardware, such as switches and routers, and their physical
components and software, such as operating systems and other applications rtmning on these
platfonns. These products are used in the U.S. by individuals and businesses to transport data,
voice, and video over networks.
(2)
No Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare Concerns Are Implicated By The

Requested Remedial Orders
The requested remedial orders would not have an adverse impact on the public health,
safety, or welfare in the United States; indeed, there is no indication that the Accused Products
implicate public health, safety or welfare. As such, excluding the Accused Products would not,
for example, leave medical needs unlled, impede scientic research, or interfere with important
national interests.
Moreover, as set forth below, there are ample networking technologies
currently available in the United States, including those supplied by Cisco and other competitors,
which would not be subject to the limited exclusion order. Cisco and many other equipment
vendors sell competing networking equipment in the United States and, as described below,
could readily meet the needs of any consumers of the Accused Products.
(3)
Like Or Directly Competitive Articles That Cisco And Other Equipment

Vendors Sell Are Readily Available To Replace The Accused Products
Ciscos portfolio of networking products includes products that are directly competitive
with the Accused Products, including products that Cisco relies upon for its domestic industry
and that practice the Asserted Patents. Ciscos products are readily available replacements for
the Accused Products, if they were excluded. Moreover, the networking industry is a highly
competitive market with intense competition. Many major established suppliers such as Cisco,
HP, Alcatel-Lucent, and Juniper Networks compete for market share, and new suppliers such as
Respondent have entered this market in recent years. It has been reported that Respondent has a
small market share, and consumer demand for excluded products could be readily addressed by a
number of existing suppliers, including Cisco. See Declaration of Collin Sacks Regarding
Ciscos Domestic Industry (Sacks Decl.) 1[4 (discussing the intense competition present in the
networking industry and noting it has been reported that Arista comprises no more than a small
percentage of the Ethernet switching market).
(4)
Cisco Has The Capacity T0 Replace The Volume Of Articles Subject T0 The
Requested Remedial Orders In A Commercially Reasonable Time
Cisco is the world leader in networking technologies with $27.8 billion in revenues from
sales of products and services in the Americas. See Cisco 2014 Annual Report at 44. Through
its existing operations, Cisco has the capital resources and supply-chain capabilities to quickly
4
scale production to meet U.S. consumer demand for directly competitive products in a
commercially reasonable time, if the ITC excludes the Accused Products. See Sacks Decl. fl 4.
Moreover, Respondent is the only party subject to the limited exclusion order, leaving not just
Cisco but other competitors free to meet U.S. consumer demand for excluded products. See
Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereo Inv. No. 337TA-744,
Commn Op. at 30 (June 5, 2012) (The record shows that there are numerous other sources for
[the articles] and thus, exclusion of the infringing articles will not have a signicant impact on
competitive conditions in the United States economy or on U.S. consumers).
(5)
The Requested Remedial Order Would Only Minimally Impact Consumers
Although the requested remedial orders may have some limited impact on consumers, the
networking industry is highly competitive, and has a demonstrated capacity to handle rapid
growth and technological change. Cisco supplies directly competitive networking products in
the U.S. that can readily replace Respondents infringing Accused Products, minimizing any
potential consumer impact. Furthermore, given the nature of the accused networking products,
the products of Cisco and other suppliers could readily replace the Accused Products if excluded,
eliminating inconvenience or costs to consumers. The Corrnnission does not require that there be
no public impact of remedial relief, only that such impact cannot outweigh the strong public
interest in enforcing intellectual property rights. See Certain Baseband Processor Chips, 2007
ITC LEXIS 621 at *240. While the requested remedial orders may reduce consumer choice, this
is not a basis for denying relief. See Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications
Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710, Commn Op., 2011 ITC LEXIS 2874 at
*111 (Dec. 29, 2011). Here, the only public impact of the remedial relief is benecial: without
the relief requested by Cisco, signicant domestic industry and innovation will be harmed.
December
19
2014
i7_ _,
_/
__
Steven Cherny
Brian Paul Gearing

601 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

555 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Facsimile: (415)439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15th Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 879-5000
Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
Counselfor Complainant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED
SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (II)
Investigation No
COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER

SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
COMPLAINANT
PROPOSED RESPONDENT
Cisco Systems, Inc.

170 W Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
Phone: (408) 526-4000
Arista Networks, Inc.

5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, Califomia 95054
Phone: (408) 547-5500
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

Steven Chemy
Brian Paul Gearing

Phone: (212)446-4800 | Fax: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

Phone: (415) 439-1400 1Fax: (415)439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

Phone: (213) 680-8400 | Fax: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15Street. N.W.
Phone: (202) 879-5000 I Fax: (202) 879-5200
TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit N0.
Description
1.
Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853.
2.
Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 6,377,577.
3.
4.
Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 7,061,875.
5.
6.
Certied copy ofU.S. Patent N0. 8,051,211.
7.
Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Conrmation of patent assignment.
14.
Receipt from USPTO of recordation of patent assignment.
15.
Cisco Systems, Inc. 2014 Annual Report.
16.
Chart Depicting How Ciscos Asserted Patents Are Practiced by Ciscos

Products
17.
List of licensees and parties in receipt of a covenant not to assert for

Ciscos Asserted Patents (CONFIDENTIAL).
18.
U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853 Infringement Claim Chart.
19.
20.
21.

Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2014.
Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014.
Arista Press Release stating Studio Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T
series switches, July 18, 2013.
Studio Test Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis Missouri company,
captured September 15, 2014.
Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series
switch, October 2, 2013.
Cloudera website showing it is a California company, captured September
15, 2014.
Arista Customer Case Study on America Internet Services use of Arista

7048T and 705OS switches, 2012.
Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista

7048, 7050, 7150 series switches, 2012.
Arista Press Release and Customer Testimonials that Headlands
Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19, 2012.
Headlands Technologies website showing it is a California and Illinois

company, captured September 15, 2014.
Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 728OE series switches, July 15,
2014.
Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and Transmission

Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300/7300X series
switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014.
CDW website advertisement for Arista switches, captured September 15,
2014.
Import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in

California.
Receipts of purchase of Arista Products.

Photos of purchased product of Arista Products.
2
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Code for Accused Products.

Complaint, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Ina, Case No. 14-cv
5344.
Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim

showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States
(available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRPA2PJsiI)
Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim

showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States
(available at https://www.youtube.com/Watch?v=hBYvzNdT22k)
Screenshots from video showing Arista 7500E series product at lnterop
2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KkMiIzrXvg)
Ingram Micro to Distribute Arista Products in United States
Arista Redenes Cloud Networking with 7000 X Series

Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company
Declaration of Collin Sacks (CONFIDENTIAL).

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853 Domestic Industry Chart.

U.S. Patent N0. 7,460,492 Domestic Industry Chart.

Fortune Magazines Best Companies 2014.
Tight battle for 2nd place after Cisco in Infonetics enterprise networking
infrastructure scorecard, INFONETICS RESEARCH, July 24, 2014.
Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switch Data Sheet.
Cisco Catalyst 6500-E Series Chassis Data Sheet.

Cisco Nexus 3548 and 3524 Switches Data Sheet.
3
Cisco Nexus 40011 Switch Module for IBM B1adeCenter Data Sheet
Cisco Nexus 5600 Platform Switches Data Sheet.

Cisco Nexus 6001 Switch Data Sheet.
Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches Data Sheet.
Cisco Nexus 9500 Platform Switches Data Sheet.

Cisco XR 12000 Series and Cisco 12000 Series Routers.
APPENDICES
Appendix Item
Description
Certied copy of le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853.

Technical references cited in le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853


Exhibits for charted Arista Products.

Exhibits for charted Cisco Products.
Accused Product Data Sheets.
Compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training

advertisements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ....l
II.
COMPLAINANT ............................................................................................................ ....3
III.
THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT ................................................................................. ....5
IV.
THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ................................................... ....5
V.
THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

INVENTIONS ................................................................................................................. ..
VI.
A.
NontechnicalDescriptionof the 853Patent
B.
Nontechnical Description of the S77 Patent ....................................................... ..

Nontechnical Description of the 492 Patent ....................................................... ..
Nontechnical Description of the S75 Patent........
Nontechnical Description of the 668 Patent .........................................................
Nontechnical Description of the 2ll Patent .........................................................
Foreign Counterparts ...............................
Licensees .............................................................................................................. ..
UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENTPATENT

INFRINGEMENT ............................................................................................................ ..
A.
Infringement of the 853 Patent ........................................................................... ..
B.
Infringementof the 492Patent

Infringement of the 668 Patent .......................................................................... ..
Infringement of the 2ll Patent ...........................................................................
VII
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE .......................... ..26
VIII
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS ........................................... ..30
IX.
RELATED LITIGATION ............................................................................................... ..30
X.
THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ....................................................................................... ..31

32
A.
Ciscos Practice of Ciscos Asserted Patents ..........
B.
United States Investments in the Domestic Industry ........................................... ..33
1.
Domestic Industry Under I9 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A) .............................. ..33
34
2.
Domestic Industry Under I9 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)........
3.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(C) ............................... ..35
XI.
RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................................... ..37
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Complaint is led by Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco or Complainant) under
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the unlawful
importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, the sale within
the United States after importation, and/or the use within the United States after importation by
the proposed Respondent of certain networking equipment and components and software thereof
that infringe certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,023,853 (the 853 patent), 6,377,577
(the 577 patent), 7,460,492 (the 492 patent), 7,061,875 (the 875 patent), 7,224,668 (the
668 patent), and 8,051,211 (the 2l1 patent) (collectively, Ciscos Asserted Patents) either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

2.
Cisco is an infonnation technology (IT) company and is the worldwide leader in
developing and implementing the networking technologies that enable our interconnected world
and the Internet of Everything. Cisco employs thousands of the worlds brightest networking
engineers at its headquarters in San Jose, Califomia, and elsewhere, and invests billions of
dollars annually in research and development focused on creating the future of networking
technologies. These investments make possible a broad range of products that enable seamless,
secure communication among businesses of all sizes, institutions, telecornmunications
companies and other service providers, and individuals. As part of its IT business, Cisco sells
innovative networking products that transport data, voice, and video within buildings, across
campuses, and around the world.
3.
The proposed Respondent Arista Networks, Inc. (Arista or Respondent)
develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the United States, sells aer
importation into the United States, and uses after importation into the United States networking
equipment and components and software therein, such as switches and their components,
operating systems, and/or other software (collectively, the Accused Products). As set forth in
Section VII below, the Accused Products are manufactured abroad in locations such as China
and Malaysia, and are imported for sale into the United States.
The Accused Products
incorporate, without any license from Cisco, many technologies developed by Cisco and
protected by patents owned by Cisco. The patents-in-suit and their asserted claims (independent
claims in bold) are listed below:
Batenr-Numb, it Assrted,Clai1iis
:1:
*
(Independentelaimseinibidiifi,,5?
853 Patent
46-52, 54, 56, 59, 60-63
577 Patent
1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, 28-31
492 Patent
| 1-4, 9-14, 17-18
875 Patent
| 1-4,10-13, 15
668 Patent
1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 19, 20-28, 30-31,
33-36, 37, 38-43, 45-49, 51-54, 55,
56-64, 66-67, 69-72
211 Patent
| 1-2,6-9, 12-13, 17-20
4.
Certied copies of Ciscos Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits Error!
Reference source not found.-6. Cisco owns all rights, title, and interest in each of Ciscos
Asserted Patents, including the right to sue for infringement. Certied copies of the assignment
records for each of Ciscos Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in Exhibits
13 and 14, additional assignments and recordation of the assignments were completed recently,
and certied copies of the updated assignment records are not yet available from the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. The updated certied copies of the assigmnent records will
be supplied when available from the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce. See Exhibits 13
and 14.
5.
A domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
United States relating to articles protected by Ciscos Asserted Patents, including signicant
investment in plant and equipment, signicant employment of labor and capital, and substantial
investment in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in Ciscos Asserted Patents, including
through engineering, research, and development.
6.
Cisco seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under l9 U.S.C.
l337(d) barring om entry into the United States directly-infringing and/or indirectly
infringing networking equipment and components and software manufactured, sold, or used by
or on behalf of Respondent. Cisco further seeks as relief a permanent cease and desist order
under 19 U.S.C. l337(f) prohibiting Respondent from marketing, distributing, selling, offering
for sale, warehousing inventory for distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing into the
United States infringing networking equipment and/or their components and software.
II.
COMPLAINANT
7.
Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, having
its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California, 95134. Cisco is
the assignee of Ciscos Asserted Patents, with the right to sue for all infringement thereof.
8.
Founded in 1984, Cisco is an IT company that has become the worldwide leading
supplier of, among other things, networking products. Cisco has signicant operations in the
United States, including with respect to Ciscos Asserted Patents.
Cisco has research,
development, testing, engineering, manufacturing, assembly, packaging, installation, customer

service, repair, product support, sales and marketing, and business ofces in more than 100
United States locations, and has its headquarters in San Jose, California. Cisco employs about
35,000 employees in the United States nearly as many as in the rest of the world combined.
Cisco also works with tens-of-thousands of contractors, vendors, and interns in the United States.
Additional information concerning Cisco can be obtained from its 2014 Annual Report at Exhibit
15.
9.
Ciscos networking products, specically Ciscos routing and switching products,
use the inventions claimed in Ciscos Asserted Patents. As explained in more detail in the chart
included as Exhibit 16, one or more of Ciscos Asserted Patents is implemented in the Cisco
Nexus switches (including at least the Nexus 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, and 9000 series), the
Cisco Catalyst switches (including at least the Catalyst 4500 and 6500 series), and Cisco 12000
Series Router.
10.
Cisco researched and developed the technologies that are protected by Ciscos
Asserted Patents. Cisco is the full owner of all rights and title to all of Ciscos Asserted Patents.
Certied copies of the relevant assignment records are attached at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in
Exhibits 13 and 14, additional assignments and recordation of the assignments were completed
recently, and certied copies of the updated assignment records are not yet available from the
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce. The updated certied copies of the assignment
records will be supplied when available from the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce.
See Exhibits 13 and 14.
11.
Cisco has made and continues to make signicant investments in the design and
development of products protected by Ciscos Asserted Patents. In the United States, Cisco
exploits the technologies covered by Ciscos Asserted Patents through various activities,
including substantial research and development, engineering, manufacturing, assembly,
installation, and product and warranty support among others, as discussed more fully in Section
X below. In connection with the exploitation of these technologies, Cisco has made signicant
investments in the United States in facilities, equipment, labor, and capital, also as described in
Section X below.
III.
THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT

12.
On information and belief, Arista Networks, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 5453
Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054.
13.
On information and belief, Arista develops, manufactures, imports, sells for
importation into the United States, sells after importation into the United States, and/or uses after
importation into the United States networking equipment and components and software therein,
including switches, operating systems, and other software, as further described in Section VI
below.
IV.
THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE

14.
The technologies at issue relate to networking equipment and certain components
and software therein.
15.
Specically, the Accused Products include network devices, such as switches, and
their components, and software, such as operating systems and other software. These switches,
components, operating systems, and other software are imported into the United States and in
tum used by businesses, institutions, service providers, and other entities in the United States to
supply networks and transport data, voice, and video. By way of example, the Accused Products
may be deployed in data centers or dedicated computing center environments in cormection with
an organizations servers, associated data, and/or IT applications and between such items and
other networks such as the Internet.
The Accused Products are sold for importation into,
imported into, sold after importation into, and used within the United States by or on behalf of
Respondent.
V.
THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

INVENTIONS
16.
As set forth below, Cisco owns by assigmnent the entire right, title, and interest in
and to each of Ciscos Asserted Patents. See Exhibits 7-12.
17.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.l2(c),
copies of the certied prosecution
histories of each of Ciscos Asserted Patents have been submitted with this Complaint as
Appendices A-F. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.12(c), the cited references for each of
Ciscos Asserted Patents also have been submitted with this Complaint as Appendices G-L.
A.
18.
Nontechnical Description of the 853 Patentl

United States Patent No. 7,023,853, entitled Access Control List Processing in
Hardware, issued on April 4, 2006 and lists Andreas V. Beehtolsheim and David R. Cheriton as
its inventors. The 853 patent expires on June 30, 2018. The 853 patent issued om U.S.
Patent App. Ser. No. 10/087,342, led on March 1, 2002. The 853 patent claims priority to U.S.
Patent App. Ser. No. 09/108,071, led on June 30, 1998.

19.
The 853 patent contains 63 claims, including 5 independent claims and 58
dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondents networking equipment and components and
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56,
59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the 853 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents.
1 These descriptions and any other descriptions within this Complaint are for illustrative
purposes only. Nothing contained within this Complaint is intended to, either implicitly or
explicitly, express any position regarding the proper construction of any claim of Ciscos
Asserted Patents.
6
20.
The "853 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved processing
of access control lists (ACLs) in network devices. The 853 patent can, among other things,
improve the speed of processing access control lists by a network device to provide for higher
throughput and/or other benets. In an aspect of the invention, the 853 patent provides novel
methods and apparatuses for maintaining access control patterns in an associative memory,
matching information to the access control patterns stored in the associative memory in parallel
to generate matches having priority information, selecting one of the results, and making a
routing decision. In another aspect of the invention, the 853 patent provides a novel method for
processing a packet, including by selecting an output interface to which to forward the packet in
parallel with determining the forwarding permission for the packet. Among other things, the
invention may address a problem that prior art soware processing of packets to enforce access
control in a network device can be relatively slow.
B.
Nontechnical Description of the 577Patent
21.
United States Patent No. 6,377,577, entitled Access Control List Processing in
Hardware, issued on April 23, 2002 and lists Andreas V. Bechtolsheim and David R. Cheriton
as its inventors. The 577 patent expires on June 30, 2018. The 577 patent issued from U.S.
Patent App. Ser. No. 09/108,071, led on Jtme 30, 1998.

22.
The 577 patent contains 31 claims, including 1 independent claim and 30
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12
16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the
doctrine of equivalents.
23.
The 577 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved processing
of access control lists (ACLs) in network devices. The 577 patent can, among other things,
7
improve the speed of processing access control lists by a network device to provide for higher
throughput and/or other benets. In an aspect of the invention, the 577 patent provides novel
methods for maintaining access control patterns in an associative memory, matching information
to the access control patterns stored in the associative memory in parallel to generate matches
having priority information, selecting one of the results, and making a routing decision. Among
other things, the invention may address a problem that prior art software processing of packets to
enforce access control in a network device can be relatively slow.
C.
Nontechnical Description of the 492 Patent
24.
United States Patent No. 7,460,492, entitled Spanning Tree Loop Guard, issued
on December 2, 2008 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shyamasundar S. Kaluve, and Marco E.
Foschiano as its inventors. The 492 patent expires on February 2, 2022. The 492 patent issued
from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. ll/451,888,
led on June 12, 2006, and was previously
published as U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0233168, on October 19, 2006. The 492 patent claims
priority to U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/020,667, led on December 7, 2001.
25.
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18,
and method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the
doctrine of equivalents.
26.
The 492 patent generally relates to network devices that implement a system and
method for preventing the fonnation of loops that are not detected by spanning tree protocols
(STP). The 492 patent can, among other things, improve the perfonnance of a network that
implements a STP. In an aspect of the invention, the 492 patent provides novel methods and
apparatuses for transitioning ports among a plurality of port states and a loop guard engine to
8
cooperate with a spanning tree protocol engine. The loop guard engine can prevent a port from
transitioning to a forwarding state thereby preventing the fonnation of loops. Among other
things, this can improve the performance of a network that implements STPs by preventing loops
that may be undetectable by STP caused by, for example, malfunctioning or faulty network
interface cards or transceivers, a busy CPU, software bugs, or congestion algorithms.
D.
27.
United States Patent No. 7,061,875, entitled Spanning Tree Loop Guard, issued
on June 13, 2006 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shyamastmdar S. Kaluve, and Marco E.
Foschiano as its inventors. The 875 patent expires on September 17, 2024. The 875 patent
issued from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/020,667, led on December 7, 2001.
28.
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus
claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents.
29.
The 875 patent generally relates to network devices that implement a system and
method for preventing the formation of loops that are not detected by spanning tree protocols
(STP). The 875 patent can, among other things, improve the performance of a network that
implements a STP. In an aspect of the invention, the 875 patent provides novel methods and
apparatuses for transitioning ports among a plurality of port states and a loop guard engine to
cooperate with a spanning tree protocol engine. The loop guard engine can prevent a port from
transitioning to a forwarding state thereby preventing the formation of loops. Among other
things, this can improve the performance of a network that implements STP by preventing loops
that may be undetectable by STP caused by, for example, malfunctioning or faulty network
interface cards or transceivers, a busy CPU, software bugs, or congestion algorithms.
E.
30.
United States Patent No. 7,224,668, entitled Control Plane Security and Trafc
Flow Management, issued on May 29, 2007 and lists Adrian C. Smethurst, Michael F. Keohane,
and R. Wayne Ogozaly as its inventors. The 668 patent expires on August 23, 2025. The 668
patent issued from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/307,154, led on November 27, 2002.
31.
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13,
15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30
31, and 33-36, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
32.
The 668 patent generally relates to a system and method for improved immunity
to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks and/or to improved Quality of Service (QoS) for networking
devices. The 668 patent can, among other things, improve the security of a networking device
while potentially minimizing any impact on transit traffic and system performance. In an aspect
of the invention, the 668 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for using a control
plane port entity and providing control plane port services for packets destined for the control
plane. Among other benets, the invention can provide enhanced security of a control plane
through improved management of control plane trafc.
F.
33.
United States Patent No. 8,051,211, entitled Multi-Bridge LAN Aggregation,
issued on November 1, 2011 and lists Norman W. Finn as its inventor. The 211 patent expires
10
on December 20, 2028. The 211 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/282,438, led
on October 29, 2002.
34.
The 2ll patent contains 32 claims, including 3 independent claims and 29
dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondenfs networking equipment and components and
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 12-13 and 17
20 and method claims 1-2 and 6-9 of the 2ll patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents.

35.
The 21l patent relates generally to computer networks and, more specically, to
a multi-bridge LAN aggregated system and method for use by a device in a computer network.
The 2ll patent can, among other things, improve the reliability and availability of data
transmitted to and from a switching device.
In an aspect of the invention, the 211 patent
provides a method of aggregating a plurality of LANs coupling a host to a rst and a second
network device. Among other things, the method of the 2ll patent enables link aggregation to
be used on redundant physical connections between a host and multiple network devices.
G.
Foreign Counterparts
36.
Cisco is aware of the following foreign counterparts or foreign counterpart
applications corresponding to Ciscos Asserted Patents: WO 2004/040844, EPl5570l5,

CN1708963, AU2003287253, AT527785T, and CA2503963.
H.
Licensees
37.
Condential Exhibit 17 includes a list of entities that are either licensed under
Ciscos Asserted Patents or have received a covenant not to assert from Cisco with respect to
Ciscos Asserted Patents.
11
VI.
UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENTPATENT

INFRINGEMENT
38.
Respondents have engaged in unlawful and unfair acts including the sale for
importation into the United States, importation into the United States, sale within the United
States after importation, and/or use within the United States after importation of the Accused
Products that infringe one or more of the following claims (independent claims in bold):
PatentfNumber
J jAs,seited
"
~ 1%
4ggniiivendsgit3Iaini1%intBb1d);;;;
853 Patent
577 Patent
492 Patent
875 Patent
=668 Patent
46-52, 54, 56, 59, 60-63

-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, 28-31
-4, 9-14, 17-18
1-4, 10-13, 15
1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 19, 20-28, 30-31,
33-36, 37, 38-43, 45-49, 51-54, 55,
56-64, 66-67, 69-72
| 1-2,6-9,12-13, 17-20
211 Patent
> 7
A.
Infringement of the 853 Patent
39.
On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after
importation into the United States, and/or uses after importation into the United States Accused
Products that infringe the 853 patent.
40.
The Accused Products ininge, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims
46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 6O-62, and method claim 63 of the 853 patent. Respondent directly and
indirectly infringes at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and method claim 63
of the 853 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using
after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit l8 (infringement
claim charts for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations
of apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62 at the time of importation, and Respondent
directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling aer
12
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The
Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and
automatically perform all steps of method claim 63, and Respondent directly infringes this claim
by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation
into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent
indirectly infringes this method claim by importing, selling for importation, selling after
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.
Exemplary Accused Products include the 7048, 7050X, 725OX, 7300, 7300X, and 75OOEseries
switches. See Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets).
41.
Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56,
59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the 853 patent. On information and belief, purchasers
who deploy the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused
Products, also directly infringe at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56, 59, and 60-62, and
method claim 63 of the 853 patent. Respondent is aware of the 853 patent at least because the
named inventors on the 853 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of
Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the 853 patent at least as
of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 853 patent against Respondent
in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, in light of the
above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 853 patent with specic intent to do
so by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform acts
intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56,
13
59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the 853 patent.
See Appendix P (compilation of
Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements).

42.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims 46-52, 54, 56,
59, and 60-62, and method claim 63 of the 853 patent of others, including purchasers who
deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products, which are
specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent is aware of the 853 patent at
least because the named inventors on the 853 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are
founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the 853
patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 853 patent
against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below.
Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former
Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 853 patent.
In light of these allegations,
Respondent had knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in
an infringement of the 853 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial
noninfringing use.
43.
Claim charts comparing the 853 patents asserted independent apparatus claim 46
and method claim 63 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 18.
Representative Product 7508E, charted at Exhibit 18, was purchased in the United States. Photos
showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional
evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
14
B.
44.
45.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least method claims 1-2,
5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577 patent.
Respondent directly and indirectly
infringes at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577 patent by
importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into
the United States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 19 (infringement claim charts for U.S.
Patent No. 6,377,577). The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to
dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12
16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling
for importation, selling aer importation, and/or using after importation into the United States
the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes
each of these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation,
and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused
Products include the 7048, 705OX, 725OX, 7300, 7300X, and 750OE series switches.
See
Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets).
46.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12
16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy
the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also
directly infringe at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577
patent. Respondent is aware of the 577 patent at least because the named inventors on the 577
15
patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent
also has had actual knowledge of the 577 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco
led a Complaint asserting the 577 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of
California, as discussed in Section IX, below.
Further, in light of the above, Respondent
knowingly induces infringement of the 577 patent with specic intent to do so by providing at
least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform acts intended by
Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25,
and 28-31 of the 577 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white
papers, and training advertisements).

47.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least method claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 12
16, 18-22, 25, and 28-31 of the 577 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products, which are specially
made or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent is aware of the 577 patent at
least because the named inventors on the 577 patent, Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, are
founders of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the 577
patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 577 patent
against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below.
Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former
Cisco persomel, Respondent is aware of the 577 patent.
In light of these allegations,
noninfringing use.
16
48.
Claim charts comparing the 577 patents asserted independent method claim 1 to
Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 19. Representative Product 7508E,
charted at Exhibit 19, was purchased in the United States.
Photos showing manufacturing
location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation
is set forth in Section Vll, below.
C.
49.
50.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims
1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly
infringes at least apparatus claims 1-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent by
Patent No. 7,460,492). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 1
4 and 17-18 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims
by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using aer importation
into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation,
are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method
claims 9-14, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for
importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the
Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of
these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using
after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products
17
include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280E, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series

51.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least apparatus claims l-4 and l7-18,
and method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy
the Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also
directly infringe at least apparatus claims l-4 and 17-18, and method claims 9-14 of the 492
patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 492 patent at least as of December 5, 2014,
when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 492 patent against Respondent in the Northem
District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by
former Cisco personnel and having extensively red fonner Cisco personnel, Respondent is
aware of the 492 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent
knowingly induces infringement of the 492 patent with specic intent to do so including by
providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform acts intended
by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least apparatus claims l-4 and l7-18, and
method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products
manuals, white papers, and training advertisements).
52.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims l-4 and l7
l8, and method claims 9-14 of the 492 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the
492 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 492
18
patent against Respondent in the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX,
below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired
former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 492 patent. In light of these allegations,
noninfringing use.
53.
Claim charts comparing the 492 patents asserted independent apparatus claims 1
and 17 and method claim 9 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 20.
Representative Product 7l50S-52, charted at Exhibit 20, was purchased in the United States.
Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the
United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in
Section VII, below.
D.
54.
55.
The Accused Products infringe. directly and indirectly, at least method claims 1-4
and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent.
Respondent directly and indirectly
infringes at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent by
Patent No. 7,061,875). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims
10-13 and 15 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus
claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after
19
importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of
importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of
method claims 1-4, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for
Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of
these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using
after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products
include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280E, 7300, 7300X, and 75O0E series
56.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus
claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent. On infomiation and belief, purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly
infringe at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent.
Respondent has actual knowledge of the 875 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco
led a Complaint asserting the 875 patent against Respondent in the Northem District of
Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco
persomel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 875
patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces
infringement of the S75 patent with specic intent to do so including by providing at least
manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to
cause direct infringement of at least method claims 1-4 and apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the
20
875 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and
training advertisements).
57.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least method claims 1-4 and
apparatus claims 10-13 and 15 of the 875 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the
875 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 875
patent against Respondent in the Northem District of California, as discussed in Section IX,
below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired
former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 875 patent. In light of these allegations,
noninfringing use.
58.
Claim charts comparing the 875 patents asserted independent method claim l
and apparatus claim 10 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 21.
Representative Product 7l50S-52, charted at Exhibit 21, was purchased in the United States.
Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the
United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in
Section VII, below.
E.
Infringement of the 668Patent
59.
21
60.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims
1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668 patent, and method claims
19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the 668 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least
apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668 patent,
and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the 668 patent by importing, selling for
Accused Products. See Exhibit 22 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668).
The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43,
45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes
these apparatus claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or
using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at
the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform
all steps of method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36, and Respondent directly infringes these
claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after
importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below,
Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for
importation, selling aer importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the
Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150,
7250X, 7280E, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See Appendix O (Accused Products
data sheets).
61.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15
18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31,
22
and 33-36 of the 668 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused
Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe
at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668
patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the 668 patent. Respondent has actual
knowledge of the 668 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint
asserting the 668 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed
in Section IX, below.
Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having
extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 668 patent. Further, on
information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the
668 patent with specic intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers,
training, and/or other support, to perfonn acts intended by Respondent to cause direct
infringement of at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69
72 of the 668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30-31, and 33-36 of the "668 patent. See
Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training

advertisements).
62.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least apparatus claims 1-10, 12-13,
15-18, 37-43, 45-49, 51-64, 66-67, and 69-72 of the 668 patent, and method claims 19-28, 30
31, and 33-36 of the 668 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused
Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made
or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 668 patent
at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 668 patent against
Respondent in the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further,
23
having been founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco
personnel, Respondent is aware of the 668 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had
knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement
of the 668 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
63.
Claim charts comparing the 668 patents asserted independent apparatus claims
1, 37, and 55, and method claim 19, to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit
22. Representative Product 7508E, charted at Exhibit 22, was purchased in the United States.
Photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39.
Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
F.
Infringement of the 21l Patent
64.
Products that infringe the 2l1 patent.
65.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus
claims 12-13 and 17-20 and method claims 1, 2, 6-9 of the 2ll patent. Respondent directly and
indirectly infringes at least claims l, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, and l7-20 of the 2ll patent by importing,
selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United
States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 23 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent No.
8,051,211). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 12 and I3 at
the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing,
selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United
States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed
to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims l, 2, 6-9, and
Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after
24
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.
In
addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims
by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation
into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010,
7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280E, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches.
See
Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets).
66.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-13, and 17
20 of the 211 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products
in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least
claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-20 of the 2l1 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the
21l patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 2l1
patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX,
below. Further, having been founded by fonner Cisco personnel and having extensively hired
fonner Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 211 patent. Further, on information and
belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 211 patent with
specic intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or
other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least
claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-20 of the 211 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused
Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements).

67.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 6-9, 12-13, and 17
20 of the 211 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their
networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for
25
use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 2l1 patent at least as of
December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 2ll patent against Respondent in
the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been
founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel,
Respondent is aware of the 211 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge
that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the 211
patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
68.
Claim charts comparing the 2l1 patents asserted independent claims 1 and 12 to
Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 23. Representative Product 7150S-52,
charted at Exhibit 23, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at
Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at
Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
VII.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE

69.
On information and belief, Respondent, either itself or through subsidiaries or
third parties acting on behalf of Respondent, is engaged in the importation, sale for importation,
sale after importation into the United States, and/or use after importation into the United States
of infringing networking equipment or components or software therein. The Accused Products

are manufactured abroad and imported for sale into the United States.
70.
According to Aristas public statements, the Accused Products are manufactured
by contract manufacturers, working closely with Arista on-site personnel, and then imported into
the United States.
In Aristas June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company stated that Our
products are manufactured, assembled and tested by third-party contract manufacturers in Asia
26
who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts. Exhibit
24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 17.
Specically, [a]s of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, two suppliers provided all of our
electronic manufacturing services and the two suppliers are Jabil Circuit and Foxconn.
Exhibit 24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 10,
48. These contract manufacturers work closely with Arista on-site personnel and review on an
ongoing basis forecasts, inventory levels, processes, capacity, yields and overall quality, and
Arista retain[s] complete control over the bill of material, test procedures and quality assurance
programs. Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment N0. 3, May 27, 2014) at
108.] Additionally, in Aristas June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company also stated that [O]ur
contract manufacturers [] manufacture and assemble our products and deliver them to us for
labeling, quality assurance testing, nal conguration and shipment to our customers. Exhibit
24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 27.
71.
On infonnation and belief, Arista and its distribution partners sell and have sold
the imported products in the United States. See, e.g., Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1
Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 60 (We market and sell our products through our direct
sales force and in partnership with channel partners . . . 83.0% of our revenue was generated
from the Americas, substantially all from the United States); Exhibit 45 (Arista Press Release)
(Arista Networks today announced it has signed an agreement with Ingram Micro Inc. (NYSE:
IM), the wor1ds largest technology distributor, to distribute Aristas 10 Gigabit Ethernet data
center solutions. The contract covers distribution in the United States and its territories); Exhibit
25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 2 (Our customers
include six of the largest cloud services providers based on annual revenue, including eBay,
27
facebook, Microsoft and Yahool, nancial services organizations such as Barclays, Citigroup,
and Morgan Stanley, and a number of media and service providers, including AOL, Comcast,
Equinix, ESPN, Netix, and Rackspace); Exhibit 26 (Arista Press Release stating Studio
Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T series switches, July 18, 2013); Exhibit 27 (Studio
Network Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis, Missouri, United States company, captured
September 15, 2014); Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista
7050X series switch, October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a California,
United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study
on America Internet Services use of Arista 70481" and 70508 switches, 2012); Exhibit 31
(Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series
switches in the United States, 2012); Exhibit 32 (Arista Press Release and Customer
Testimonials that Headlands Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19,
2012); Exhibit 33 (Headlands Technologies website showing it is a California and Illinois,
United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that
eBay uses Arista 728OE series switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista
7300/7300X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014);
Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the sale of the 7250X and 7300/7300X series);
Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company);
Exhibit 42
(Screenshots from videos of Arista Chainnan and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista
7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product
is currently being shipped); Exhibit 43 (Screenshots from videos of Arista Chairman and CDO
Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
28
and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from
videos showing Arista 75O0E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining
the displayed product is currently being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for
Arista switches including the 7010 series switch, captured September 15, 2014).
72.
U.S. Customs records also evidence that Arista is importing networking
equipment, including the Accused Products, to the United States from overseas.
See, e.g.,
Exhibit 37 (import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in California).
73.
The following accused products have been purchased in the United States, further
showing that Aristas products are imported. For example, an Arista 7150 series accused switch
has been purchased in the United States, which has a casing marked Manufactured in
Malaysia. An Arista 7048 series accused switch has been purchased in the United States, which
has a casing marked Manufactured in China. Photographs of an Arista 7500E series accused
switch in the United States indicate that it was Manufactured in China.
See Exhibit 38
(receipts of purchase); Exhibit 39 (photos of purchased product). Additionally, Arista press

releases discuss the implementation of the accused products by United States companies. See
Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series switch,
October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a Califomia, United States
company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study on America
Internet Services use of Arista 7048T and 705OS switches, 2012); Exhibit 31 (Arista Customer
Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series switches in the
United States, 2012); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 7280E series
switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300X series switches and
29
Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014); Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website
showing it is a United States utilities company); Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the
sale of the 7250X and 7300/7300X series); Exhibit 42 (Screenshots from videos of Arista
Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit
43 (Screenshots from videos of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista
7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product
is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from videos showing Arista 7500E series
product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently
being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for Arista switches including the 7010
series switch, captured September 15, 2014).
VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS

74.
On information and belief, the Accused Products fall within at least the
8517.62.00 classication of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States. See
Exhibit 40.
The identied HTS number is intended to be for illustration only and is not
exhaustive of the products accused of infringement in this Complaint. The HTS number is not
intended to limit the scope of the Investigation.
IX.
RELATED LITIGATION
75.
On December 5, 2014, Cisco led a Complaint in the Northern District of
California, accusing Arista of infringing Ciseos Asserted Patents.
See Exhibit 41 (Cisco
Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, 1nc., Case No. 14-ev-5343. Arista was served on December 9,
2014, and has not yet responded to the Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced in this
action.
30
X.
THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

76.
There is a domestic industry, as dened under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A), (B),
and/or (C), comprising signicant investments in physical operations and employment of labor
and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of Ciscos Asserted Patents.
77.
Cisco makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in Ciscos Asserted Patents
in numerous products and has made and continues to make signicant domestic investments in
these products, as set forth more fully in the accompanying Condential Declaration of Collin
Sacks, attached at Exhibit 48. For example, Cisco has sold and sells in the United States
switches that practice Ciscos Asserted Patents, including the Catalyst 4500 Series Switches that
practice the 492 and 875 patents; the Catalyst 6500 Series Switches that practice the 853, 577,
492, 875, 668, and 21l patents; the Nexus 3000 Series Switches that practice the 853, 577,
492, 875, and 211 patents; the Nexus 4000 Series Switches that practice the 492 and 875
patents; the Nexus 5000 Series Switches that practice the 853, 577, 492, 875,and 2ll
patents; the Nexus 6000 Series Switches that practice the 853, 577, 492, and 875 patents; the
Nexus 7000 Series Switches that practice the 853, 577, 492, 875, 668, and 2ll patents; and
the Nexus 9000 Series Switches that practice the S53, 577, and 2ll patents. Similarly, Cisco
has sold and sells in the United States network devices that practice Ciscos Asserted Patents,
including the 12000 Series Routers that practice the 668 patent. Exhibit 48 at Table 1; Exhibits
57-65 (Cisco product data sheets).
As set forth in greater detail below, these products
collectively practice each of Cisc0s Asserted Patents (the Domestic Industry Products).
Cisc0s investments and expenditures in its domestic industries for Ciscos Asserted Patents are
signicant, continuing and on-going.
31
A.
Cisc0s Practice of Ciscos Asserted Patents
78.
As noted above, Cisco makes extensive use of Ciscos Asserted Patents in many
different products. The allocations of R&D expenses and related items for these patent protected
products are captured in the accompanying Condential Declaration of Collin Sacks

(Condential Exhibit 48). Specic examples of use are described in the above section and
charted in associated exhibits identied below.
79.
Ciscos Catalyst 6500 Series Switch practices at least claim 46 of the 853 patent.
An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 6500 to claim 46 of the 853 patent is attached
as Exhibit 49.
80.
Ciscos Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the 577 patent.
An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the 577 patent is attached as
Exhibit 50.
81.
Ciscos Catalyst 4500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the 492 patent.
as Exhibit 51.
82.
Cisc0s Catalyst 4500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the 875 patent.
as Exhibit 52.
83.
Ciscos Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim l of the 668 patent.
Exhibit 53.
84.
Ciscos Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the Z11 patent.
Exhibit 54.
32
B.
United States Investments in the Domestic Industry
85.
Cisco is the leading provider of switching and routing products in the United
States. Cisco has made long-standing and continuing signicant investments in the United States
in the engineering, research, development, testing, manufacturing, and/or product support of the
Domestic Industry Products. Moreover, in 2013 and 2014, Cisco sold a signicant number of its
Domestic Industry Products in the United States for a large total net sales amount. Cisco expects
that its continuing activities and investments in the United States will increase, particularly if
Arista is prohibited from unlawfully using Ciscos patented inventions. Exhibit 48 (Condential
Declaration of Collin Sacks) at 111]
4, 9, and Table 2.
86.
Specically, and as discussed in greater detail below, there is a domestic industry
as dened under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A) at least because Cisco has made signicant
investments in plant and equipment in the United States used in connection with the engineering,
research, and development in the United States, and/or warranty and product support in the
United States of the Domestic Industry Products. There is a domestic industry as dened under
19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(B) at least because Cisco has also made signicant investments in the
employment of United States labor and capital in connection with engineering, research and
development in the United States, and/or warranty and product support in the United States of
the Domestic Industry Products.
There is a domestic industry as dened under 19 U.S.C.
l337(a)(3)(C) at least because Cisco has further made substantial investments in the
exploitation of Ciscos Asseited Patents through engineering, research, and/or development

directed to each of these products in the United States.
1.
87.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A)
There is 21domestic industry as dened under Subsection (A) at least because
Cisco has made signicant investment in plant and equipment in the United States with respect
33
to the Domestic Industry Products. Cisco has numerous facilities and locations throughout the
United States, including its headquarter campus in San Jose, California, which spans
approximately 1,000 acres and has 53 buildings, and its campus in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, which spans more than 300 acres and has 12 buildings.
For example,
collectively, six different Cisco Business Units (BUs) based in San Jose, California, with
support from personnel, resources, and facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at
W 7, 13-20, and Table 5. In scal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco invested a signicant amount of
money in connection with plant and equipment comprising operating expenses, such as rent,
facilities maintenance costs, and equipment maintenance costs for the facilities used by Ciscos
engineers in the United States in connection with engineering, research, and development related
to the Domestic Industry Products. See also Exhibit 48 at Table 5.
88.
Ciscos U.S.-based contract manufacturers (CMs) manufacture and assemble a
large number of the Domestic Industry Products in the United States, including at Foxconn, Inc.
in Houston, Texas and Solectron Texas, Inc. in Austin, Texas. See Exhibit 48 at W 10, 16, and
Table 3.
Ciscos U.S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics, planning and other
interfacing activities with Ciscos CMs. See Exhibit 48 at 1]10.
2.
89.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)
There is a domestic industry as dened under Subsection (B) at least because
Cisco has made signicant employment of labor and capital in the United States with respect to
the Domestic Industry Products. Research and engineering teams based in the United States
contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at
111]13-18, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. Ciscos design and development of the Domestic Industry
34
Products included signicant U.S.-based investment by Cisco in the employment of labor and
capital, and other investments, related thereto. See Exhibit 48 at 1]1]21-22, and Tables 6-7.
90.
Specically, Cisco employs more than 35,000 individuals throughout the United
States. See Exhibit 48 at 1]3. For example, at Ciscos headquarter campus in California, Cisco
employs over 31,000 people, including 15,694 Cisco employees and 15,542 contractors, vendors,
and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 1] 7. Many of these individuals are involved in engineering,
research, and development of the Domestic Industry Products. For example, as explained above,
six Cisco BUs based in San Jose, California, with support from personnel, resources, and
facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, were involved in the development of the
Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at 1]1]7, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. In scal years 2013
and 2014, Cisco spent a signicant amount of money on salaries for its thousands of U.S.-based
engineers in connection with the engineering, research, and development contributing to the
Domestic Industry Products, and spent a signicant amount of money on capital expenses related
to the purchase of computer and networking equipment and computer software in the United
States to support the work of these engineers in comiection with the Domestic Industry Products.
See Exhibit 48 at 1]21-22 and Tables 6-7. As another example, one of Ciscos main customer
support centers for the Domestic Industry Products is located at Ciscos Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina campus where over 9,000 individuals are employed, including 4,787 Cisco
employees and 4,410 contractors, vendors, and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 1]7. Additionally,
Ciscos U.S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics and other activities associated with the
CM manufacturing process in the United States. See Exhibit 48 at 1]10.
3.
91.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)
There is also a domestic industry as dened under Subsection (C) at least because
Cisco has also made substantial U.S. investments in exploitation of Ciscos Asserted Patents
35
through the Cisco Domestic Industry Products, including by way of example, investments in
engineering, research, and development.

92.
Since its founding thirty years ago, Cisco has pioneered many of the important
technologies that created and enabled the era of connectivity in which we live. During the past
three decades, Cisco has invested billions of dollars and the time and dedication of tens of
thousands of its engineers in the research and development of networking products and services.
In 2014 alone, Cisco invested more than $6 billion in research and development, and in 2013
Cisco invested approximately $5.9 billion. These substantial investments have culminated in the
development of Ciscos substantial patent portfolio, including Ciscos Asserted Patents, and the
highly-successil Domestic Industry Products at issue here. See Exhibit 15 (Cisco 2014 Annual
Report); Exhibit 48 (Condential Sacks Decl.) at 1111
3, 13-18, 23-33, and Table 8.
93.
Cisco invests substantially in engineering, research, and development in the
United States for the technology claimed by Ciscos Asserted Patents.
See Exhibit 48
(Condential Sacks Decl.) at 111]

6-8, 13-18, 23-33, and Table 8. In particular, and as discussed
above, Cisco has made substantial investments in its headquarters in San Jose, California and its
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina campus, as well as in the employment of substantial
engineering staff and the necessary equipment to support them. Cisco invests in U.>S.-based
engineers who design, research and develop, and engineer products. See Exhibit 48 at W 13-18,
23-33, and Table 8. Cisco has made substantial investments contributing to the engineering,
research, and development of its Domestic Industry Products by investing in the following
engineering, research, and development expenses in the United States: investments in equipment
and designs used in cormection with engineering, research, and development activities; training
of engineering personnel, including by attending trade shows and travel costs related thereto,
36
recruiting and relocation of engineering talent to work on Ciscos Domestic Industry Products;
and investments in the compensation packages for Ciscos engineers, including in salaries and
overtime pay. See Exhibit 48 at W 23-33 and Table 8. In scal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco
invested substantially in engineering, research, and development contributing to Ciscos

Domestic Industry Products in the United States. See Exhibit 48 111]
23-33 and Table 8.
94.
Cisco further invests in U.S.-based personnel who provide technical and warranty
support to Cisco customers in the U.S. who have purchased Ciscos networking products in the
U.S.
Cisco has made substantial investments in the U.S.-based facilities that house the
employees that provide this support, including those at its main customer support center in
Research Triangle Park, as well as investments in the U.S. equipment, salaries, and operating
costs associated with Ciscos customer support teams. See Exhibit 48 at W 7, 18.
XI.
RELIEF REQUESTED
95.
WHEREFORE, by reason of the foregoing, Cisco respectfully request that the
United States International Trade Commission:
a)
Institute an immediate investigation, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(l)(B)(i) and (ii), with respect to violations of
Section 337 based upon the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, and use after
importation into the United States of Respondenfs
certain networking equipment and
components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Complainants
853, 577, "492, 875, 668, and 211 patents;
b)
Schedule and conduct a hearing pursuant to l9 U.S.C. 1337 for the
purposes of (i) receiving evidence and hearing argument concerning whether there has been a
37
violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337, and (ii) following the hearing, determining that there has been a
violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337;
c)
Issue a permanent limited exclusion order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(1), barring from entry into the United States all certain networking equipment and
components and software therein made by or on behalf of Respondent, that infringe one or more
asserted claims of Ciscos 853, 577, 492, 875, 668, and 211 patents;
d)
Issue a permanent cease and desist order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(,
prohibiting Respondent, or others acting on its behalf, from importing, marketing, advertising,
demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, offering for sale, selling,
licensing, using, or transferring outside the United States for sale in the United States any
networking equipment or components or software therein that infringe one or more asserted
claims ofCiscos 853, 577, 492, 875, 668, and 21l patents;
e)
Impose a bond, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j), upon importation of any
networking equipment and components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted
claims of Ciscos 853, 577, 492, 875, 668, and 21l patents during any Presidential Review;
and
f)
Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and
proper based on the facts determined by the investigation and the authority of the Commission.
38
Dated ,1 ..>rL72014
Re . rm
it
Steven Cherny
Brian Paul Gearing

Telephone: (212) 446-4800
Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15*Street. N.W.
Telephone: (202) 879-5000
Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
Counselfor Complainant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
39
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
I, Collin Sacks, declare, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 2l0.4(c) and 2l0.12(a), under
penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true:
1.
I am currently an Operations Manager in Cisco Systems, Inc.s Legal Department.
I am duly authorized by Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. to verify the foregoing Complaint.
2.
The Complaint is not being led for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to
cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
3.
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, fonned after a reasonable
inquiry, the claims and other legal contentions set forth in the Complaint are warranted by
existing law or by a good faith, non-frivolous argument for extension, modication, or reversal
of existing law, or by the establishment of new law.

4.
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable
inquiry, the allegations of the Complaint are well grounded in fact and have evidentiary support,
or, where specically identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
Executed on December 18, 2014
,/
By:
COLLIN SACKS

Cisco v. Arista, 945 ITC Complaint

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cisco v. Arista, 945 ITC Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

KIRKLAND 8.

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

December 19, 2014

The Honorable Lisa R. Barton

U.S. International Trade Commission

500 E Street, S.W., Room 112

In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Dear Secretary Barton:

KIRKLAND &ELLlS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

655 Fieenth Street, N.W.

December 19, 2014

In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Dear Secretary Barton:

The information for which condential treatment is requested is proprietary commercial

The infonnation described above qualies as condential business information pursuant

2. Unauthorized disclosure of such infonnation could cause substantial harm to the

KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST

protecting signicant intellectual property rights of Cisco, an innovative corporation

Respondent has unlawfully used a number of important networking

technologies developed by Cisco, including without limitation technologies that Respondents

Cisco made signicant

connection with products practicing the Asserted Patents.

Granting the orders sought by

The Requested Relief Is In Accord With The Public Interest

networking technologies, employs thousands of networking engineers and invests billions of

including patents issued to Respondents founders as employees of Cisco, Respondent

incorporated Ciscos technologies into its products.

signicant harm to Cisco and innovation.

actions have caused

If Respondents unauthorized use of Cisco

interest in enforcing IP rights and that interest is implicated here.

See Certain Baseband

No Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare Concerns Are Implicated By The

Moreover, as set forth below, there are ample networking technologies

Like Or Directly Competitive Articles That Cisco And Other Equipment

percentage of the Ethernet switching market).

competitive conditions in the United States economy or on U.S. consumers).

The Requested Remedial Order Would Only Minimally Impact Consumers

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Arista Networks, Inc.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853.

Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 6,377,577.

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,460,492.

Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 7,061,875.

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668.

Certied copy ofU.S. Patent N0. 8,051,211.

Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853.

Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent No. 6,377,577.

Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent No. 7,460,492.