Federal Circuit Fractures Again on Patent Eligibility in $30M Hit for Cisco
The ruling means most of the $8 million in attorney fees also stay in place.
March 20, 2019 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit continues to have differences of opinion over patent eligibility.
On Wednesday another three-judge panel split over Section 101 of the Patent Act, handing a win worth at least $30 million to SRI International Inc. in hard-fought litigation with Cisco Systems Inc. over network security technology.
The asserted patent claims are eligible for patent protection because they solve a technical problem: “providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks,” Judge Kara Stoll wrote for the 2-1 majority in SRI International v. Cisco Systems.
Judge Alan Lourie dissented, saying SRI's patents “do not recite a specific way of enabling a computer to monitor network activity,” but instead are “result-focused, functional claims.”
The upshot is that SRI will hold onto at least about $30 million of $55 million awarded in a 2016 trial, plus ongoing royalties.
Jurors awarded $23.7 million, finding that Cisco had willfully infringed two patents that stem from SRI's EMERALD project. The patents describe the use of multiple monitors to detect network intrusion attempts that might otherwise go unnoticed. The Department of Defense funded the project in the 1990s, calling it a “gem in the world of cyber defense.”
U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson of the District of Delaware doubled the award, saying Cisco and its attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell had “pursued litigation about as aggressively as the court has seen in its judicial experience” and “crossed the line in several regards.” That included, in one example, maintaining 19 invalidity theories until the eve of trial but then presenting only two, both of which the jury rejected.
She also tacked on $8 million in attorney fees and expenses under Section 285 of the Patent Act, and awarded an ongoing 3.5 percent royalty.
Before the Federal Circuit, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner William Lee argued for Cisco that the asserted claims are broad, general and generic. Much like the claims in 2016's Electric Power Group v. Alstom, they're directed to “an abstract idea: collecting and reporting data” but without specifying what gets done with it.
Stoll disagreed. “Contrary to Cisco's assertion, the claims are not directed to just analyzing data from multiple sources to detect suspicious activity,” she wrote. Rather the claims recite “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors.”
That represents an improvement in the functionality of computers and computer networks themselves, she ruled. Judge Kathleen O'Malley concurred.
In dissent Lourie said the claims are clearly abstract. “In fact, they differ very little from the claims in Electric Power Group,” he wrote.
“The detecting of the suspicious activity is based on 'analysis' of traffic data, but the claims add nothing concerning specific means for doing so,” Lourie wrote. “The claims only recite the moving of information. The computer is used as a tool, and no improvement in computer technology is shown or claimed.”
The Federal Circuit has struggled at times to maintain unanimity while interpreting the Supreme Court's 2014 Alice decision on patent eligibility. Senior Judge Haldane Mayer recently described the environment as “guerrilla warfare” during a recent oral argument.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, recently called the state of Section 101 jurisprudence “a mess.” He and ranking member Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, have promised legislation that would overrule the Supreme Court's eligibility decision by this summer.
Wednesday's win goes to a Fish & Richardson team led by partner Frank Scherkenbach, who argued the appeal for SRI.
There were some silver linings for Cisco. The Federal Circuit ordered the case back to the district court for reconsideration of the willfulness enhancement, saying there was no substantial evidence that Cisco acted willfully before suit was filed in 2012, and not a whole lot after. While mostly affirming the fee award, the appellate court also ordered that a few obviously mistaken billing entries be excluded on remand.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMike Lynch's Brush With Prison Taught Him Life Is Precious. Then a Yacht Accident Proved Him Right
Facing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readAG Garland Calls Prosecuting Execs 'Greatest Deterrent' to Corporate Fraud
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250