By Eric Schweibenz and Tom Yebernetsky
On September 8, 2015, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 25 in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I) (Inv. No. 337-TA-944).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint and January 8, 2015 supplement to the complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain networking equipment and components and software thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,162,537; 8,356,296; 7,290,164; 7,340,597; 6,741,592; and 7,200,145.  See our December 29, 2014 and February 5, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, Cisco filed a Motion for Summary Determination on Respondent Arista Networks, Inc.'s ("Arista") Fourth Additional Defense of Unenforceability.  Specifically, Cisco argued that "Arista has come forward with no legally cognizable theory that could support any of its equitable defenses," which include "(i) laches, (ii) equitable estoppel, (iii) implied license, (iv) waiver, (v)"patent misuse, and (vi) inequitable conduct."  In opposition, Arista and the Commission Investigative Staff ("OUII") asserted that disputed issues of fact remaining such that summary determination should not be granted.  However, OUII argued that laches is not a valid defense at the ITC and, therefore, summary determination should be granted with respect to this defense.

After considering the arguments of the parties and evidence submitted with the parties' motions, ALJ Shaw held that Cisco failed to show it is entitled to summary determination as a matter of law.  Furthermore, ALJ Shaw determined that summary determination is not warranted based on Arista's evidence regarding Cisco's conduct with respect to standard-setting and other activities.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Cisco's motion for summary determination.