Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page1 of 22
`
`
`
`Steven Cherny (admission pro hac vice pending)
`steven.cherny@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Adam R. Alper (SBN 196834)
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Michael W. De Vries (SBN 211001)
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`)
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page2 of 22
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), for its complaint against Defendant Arista Networks, Inc.
`
`(“Arista”), hereby demands a jury trial and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Cisco is an information technology (IT) company that was founded in 1984. Cisco is the
`
`1.
`
`worldwide leader in developing and implementing the networking technologies that enable global
`
`interconnectivity and the Internet of Everything. Cisco employs thousands of networking engineers at
`
`its headquarters in San Jose, California, and elsewhere, and invests billions of dollars annually in
`
`research and development focused on creating the future of networking technologies.
`2.
`
`Decades after Cisco’s founding, Arista was founded by former Cisco employees, many of
`
`whom are named inventors on Cisco’s networking patents. Among others, Arista’s 1) founders, 2)
`
`President and CEO, 3) Chief Development Officer, 4) Chief Technology Officer, 5) Senior Vice
`
`President for Customer Engineering, 6) Vice President of Business Alliances, 7) former Vice President
`
`for Global Operations and Marketing, 8) Vice President of Systems Engineering and Technology
`
`Marketing, 9) Vice President of Hardware Engineering, 10) Vice President of Software Engineering, and
`
`11) Vice President of Manufacturing and Platform Engineering all were employed by Cisco prior to
`
`joining Arista. Moreover, four out of the seven members of Arista’s Board of Directors were previously
`
`employed by Cisco. Arista’s goal is to sell networking products. Rather than building its products and
`
`services based on new technologies developed by Arista, however, and providing legitimate competition
`
`to Cisco, Arista took a shortcut by using innovative networking technologies designed, developed, and
`
`patented by Cisco.
`3.
`
`Notably, Arista was founded by former Cisco employees who were intimately and
`
`directly familiar with Cisco’s patented networking technologies, including those protected by patents
`
`asserted in this action. Two of Arista’s founders, Andreas Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton, developed
`
`patented technologies while at Cisco. While each has had a long career in the networking and
`
`computing fields, they are each named inventors on a number of the Cisco patents asserted in this case.
`
`Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton are aware of Cisco patents on which they were named inventors and
`
`that they developed while employed by Cisco. Arista, despite knowing that Cisco’s networking
`2
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page3 of 22
`
`
`
`technologies are protected by Cisco’s patents, blatantly incorporated those technologies into Arista’s
`
`products.
`4.
`
`Arista has acknowledged the substantial investment in time and employment that would
`
`have been required to legitimately compete with Cisco. Arista’s President and Chief Executive Officer,
`
`former Cisco employee Jayshree Ullal, has stated:
`
`“Since I helped build the enterprise [at Cisco], I would never compete with Cisco directly
`in the enterprise in a conventional way. It makes no sense. It would take me 15 years
`and 15,000 engineers, and that’s not a recipe for success.” (emphasis added)
`By simply incorporating numerous patented technologies developed by Cisco into Arista’s
`
`products, covering a variety of critical features, Arista avoided hiring the thousands of engineers
`
`and making the substantial investments that would otherwise have been needed to legitimately
`
`develop its own technologies. Arista took an unfair shortcut to compete with Cisco using
`
`Cisco’s own technologies, while avoiding the investments in employees, money, and time that
`
`would have been needed to develop products based on new technologies. Indeed, Cisco is not
`
`the only party to find itself aggrieved regarding Arista’s alleged misappropriation of intellectual
`
`property. Arista co-founder David Cheriton has himself alleged that Arista misappropriated his
`
`own intellectual property in a complaint filed against Arista by his company, Optumsoft.
`5.
`
`Arista’s actions have caused harm to Cisco, as alleged below, by incorporating Cisco’s
`
`patented technologies into Arista’s products. The patents asserted in this case were invented by Cisco
`
`personnel, are proprietary, and are implemented by Cisco in its innovative products in order to
`
`successfully compete in the marketplace. Arista’s actions also significantly harm innovation. If Arista’s
`
`use of Cisco technologies allows it to avoid what is needed to develop new technologies, other
`
`companies will be encouraged to simply use others’ proprietary technologies rather than to hire
`
`engineers, invest in innovation, and develop new technologies. Cisco therefore seeks injunctive relief to
`
`stop Arista’s widespread and improper infringement of Cisco’s lawful patent rights.
`6.
`
`Cisco welcomes legitimate competition in the marketplace. Its executives have written
`
`and spoken in support of employee mobility, and Cisco believes strongly and has stated that allowing
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page4 of 22
`
`
`people to move freely between companies fosters innovation.1 But Arista has unlawfully and
`intentionally used technologies developed by Cisco’s personnel, including without limitation
`
`technologies that Arista’s own founders had developed while at Cisco, where Cisco invested the
`
`necessary research and development, funding, personnel, and engineering hours to support these
`
`innovations. Arista’s intellectual property infringement stifles innovation and cannot be condoned.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is a civil action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States,
`
`7.
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff Cisco is a company duly organized and existing under the laws of California,
`
`8.
`
`having its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134.
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Arista is a corporation duly organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 5453 Great America Parkway,
`
`Santa Clara, CA 95054.
`
`JURISDICTION
`This civil action asserts claims arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35
`
`10.
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Arista. Arista has maintained its principal place
`
`of business in the Northern District of California since 2004. Arista also has engaged in substantial and
`
`not isolated business activities in the Northern District of California. Specifically, Arista, directly and/or
`
`through third parties, has made, used, sold, and/or offered for sale within the Northern District of
`
`California and/or imported into the Northern District of California infringing networking products.
`
`VENUE
`Venue properly lies in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because
`
`12.
`
`Arista’s principal place of business is in this District, acts of infringement have been committed in this
`
`district, and Arista is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. In addition, venue is proper because
`
`1 Cisco, Cisco Blog - The Platform, “Employee Mobility,” available at
`http://blogs.cisco.com/tag/employee-mobility/.
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page5 of 22
`
`
`
`Cisco has suffered harm in this district.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`This Complaint includes an Intellectual Property Action, which is an excepted category
`
`13.
`
`under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c). Consequently, this action is assigned on a district-wide basis.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`CISCO IS THE WORLDWIDE LEADER IN NETWORKING INNOVATIONS
`14.
`
`Founded in 1984, Cisco is the worldwide leader in developing, implementing, and
`
`providing the technologies behind networking products and services. Cisco develops and provides a
`
`broad range of networking products and services that enable seamless communication among
`
`individuals, businesses, public institutions, government agencies, and service providers. Specifically,
`
`the thousands of engineers who work at Cisco develop and provide networking hardware, software, and
`
`services that utilize cutting-edge technologies to transport data, voice, and video within buildings, across
`
`cities and campuses, and around the world.
`15.
`
`Since its founding, Cisco has pioneered many of the important technologies that created
`
`and enabled global interconnectivity. During the past three decades, Cisco has invested billions of
`
`dollars, and the time and dedication of thousands of its engineers, in the research and development of
`
`networking products and services, culminating in the development of a highly-successful interface and
`
`related technologies that have driven the proliferation of Cisco’s computer networking technologies and
`
`the Internet.
`16.
`
`Cisco’s networking devices and operating systems (including its Internetwork Operating
`
`System (“IOS”, “IOS XR”, and “IOS XE”) and its Nexus Operating System (“NX-OS”)) are recognized
`
`by customers and the industry generally as very important and unique, contributing tremendously to the
`
`success and widespread acceptance of Cisco’s products. Included in Cisco’s products are features
`
`important to the successful deployment of large and small networks and crucial to meeting the demands
`
`of today’s networking environments, including networking device System Database (“SysDB”), Zero-
`
`Touch Provisioning (“ZTP”), On Board Failure Logging (“OBFL”), Control Plane Policing (“CoPP”),
`
`Spanning Tree Loop Guard, In-Service System Upgrades (“ISSU”), Virtual Port Channels (“vPC”),
`
`Access Control Lists (“ACL”), and Private Virtual Local Area Networks (“Private VLANs”).
`5
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page6 of 22
`
`
`
`17.
`
`As computing technologies evolve and new networking challenges arise, Cisco has
`
`continued to innovate and develop new solutions for its customers. No matter what type of network
`
`environment – whether large scale Internet backbone networks, enterprise-level local area networks, or
`
`networks supporting data centers and today’s “cloud computing” services – Cisco’s technologies have
`
`transformed how people connect, communicate, and collaborate. Cisco remains at the forefront of
`
`developing cutting-edge networking technologies: in its last fiscal year alone (FY 2014), Cisco invested
`
`more than $6 billion in ongoing research and development and employed more than ten thousand
`
`engineers in California and elsewhere.
`18.
`
`Cisco’s intellectual property rights, including its patent rights, protect the valuable
`
`technologies developed by Cisco. As a result of its innovations, Cisco has developed a substantial
`
`portfolio of U.S. patents, including the 12 patents asserted in this action.
`
`CISCO’S PATENTED TECHNOLOGIES
`
`19.
`
`Cisco’s products incorporate numerous patented technologies developed and owned by
`
`Cisco. Twelve examples of Cisco’s patented technologies that are included in Cisco’s products are
`
`described below (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). See Exhibit 1. These patented technologies drive
`
`customer demand for Cisco’s products, and Cisco relies on these technologies to lawfully compete in the
`
`marketplace.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,577
`
`20.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,577 (“the ’577 patent”) entitled “Access Control List Processing in
`
`Hardware” issued on April 23, 2002 and lists Andreas V. Bechtolsheim and David R. Cheriton as
`
`inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’577 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`21.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’577 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’577 patent.
`22.
`
`The ’577 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853
`
`23.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853 (“the ’853 patent”) entitled “Access Control List Processing in
`
`Hardware” issued on April 4, 2006 and lists Andreas V. Bechtolsheim and David R. Cheriton as
`
`inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’853 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`6
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page7 of 22
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’853 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’853 patent.
`25.
`
`The ’853 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597
`
`26.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 (“the ’597 patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Securing a Communications Device Using a Logging Module” issued on March 4, 2008 and lists David
`
`R. Cheriton as inventor. A true and correct copy of the ’597 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`27.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’597 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’597 patent.
`28.
`
`The ’597 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537
`
`29.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (“the ’537 patent”) entitled “Method and System for
`
`Externally Managing Router Configuration Data in Conjunction With a Centralized Database” issued on
`
`January 9, 2007 and lists Pradeep Kathail as inventor. A true and correct copy of the ’537 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
`30.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’537 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’537 patent.
`31.
`
`The ’537 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,051,211
`
`32.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,051,211 (“the ’211 patent”) entitled “Multi-Bridge LAN Aggregation”
`
`issued on November 1, 2011 and lists Norman W. Finn as the inventor. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’211 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
`33.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’211 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’211 patent.
`34.
`
`The ’211 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296
`
`35.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296 (“the ’296 patent”) entitled “Method and System for Minimal
`
`Disruption During Software Upgrade or Reload of a Network Device” issued on January 15, 2013 and
`7
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page8 of 22
`
`
`
`lists John Thomas Welder, Ratheesh Krishna Vadhyar, Sudhir Rao, and Thomas W. Uban as inventors.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’296 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
`36.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’296 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’296 patent.
`37.
`
`The ’296 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164
`
`38.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164 (“the ’164 patent”) entitled “Method of Reverting to a
`
`Recovery Configuration in Response to Device Faults” issued on October 30, 2007 and lists Andrew G.
`
`Harvey, John Ng, and Gilbert R. Woodman III as inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’164 patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
`39.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’164 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’164 patent.
`40.
`
`The ’164 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,592
`
`41.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,592 (“the ’592 patent”) entitled “Private VLANs” issued on May
`
`25, 2004 and lists Thomas J. Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as inventors.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’592 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
`42.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’592 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’592 patent.
`43.
`
`The ’592 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,145
`
`44.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,145 (“the ’145 patent”) entitled “Private VLANs” issued on April
`
`3, 2007 and lists Thomas J. Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as inventors.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’145 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
`45.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’145 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’145 patent.
`46.
`
`The ’145 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page9 of 22
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,460,492
`
`47.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,460,492 (“the ’492 patent”) entitled “Spanning Tree Loop Guard”
`
`issued on December 2, 2008 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shayamasundar S. Kaluve, and Marco E.
`
`Foschiano as inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’492 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
`48.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’492 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’492 patent.
`49.
`
`The ’492 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,875
`
`50.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,061,875 (“the ’875 patent”) entitled “Spanning Tree Loop Guard”
`
`issued on June 13, 2006 and lists Maurizio Portolani, Shayamasundar S. Kaluve, and Marco E.
`
`Foschiano as inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’875 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
`51.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’875 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’875 patent.
`52.
`
`The ’875 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`53.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (“the ’668 patent”) entitled “Control Plane Security and
`
`Traffic Flow Management” issued on May 29, 2007 and lists Adrian C. Smethurst, Michael F. Keohane,
`
`and R. Wayne Ogozaly as inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’668 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 13.
`54.
`
`Cisco is the owner by assignment of the ’668 patent and has the full right to enforce
`
`and/or license the ’668 patent.
`55.
`
`The ’668 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ARISTA IS WILLFULLY INFRINGING CISCO’S PATENTS
`
`56.
`
`Decades after Cisco’s founding, Arista was founded by former Cisco employees who
`
`were intimately and directly familiar with Cisco’s pioneering networking technologies, including those
`
`protected by patents asserted in this action. Since its founding, numerous additional Cisco employees
`
`have also joined Arista. For example, Arista founder and Chief Development Officer Andreas
`
`Bechtolsheim served as Vice President and General Manager of Cisco’s Gigabit Systems Business Unit;
`9
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page10 of 22
`
`
`
`Arista founder and Chief Scientist David Cheriton served as a Chief Architect on Cisco’s Catalyst
`
`products; Arista founder, Chief Technology Officer, and Senior Vice President Kenneth Duda worked at
`
`Cisco for several years as a software engineer in Cisco’s Gigabit Systems Business Unit; and Arista’s
`
`current President and Chief Executive Officer, Jayshree Ullal, worked at Cisco for more than a decade,
`
`including as Senior Vice President of Cisco’s Data Center, Switching, and Services Group (which is
`
`responsible for some of Cisco’s flagship networking product lines). Cisco strongly believes, and has
`repeatedly stated, that mobility of employees between companies fosters innovation.2 But widespread
`intellectual property infringement like that engaged in by Arista stifles innovation and cannot be
`
`condoned.
`57.
`
`Arista knew that Cisco’s pioneering networking technologies drive customer demand for
`
`and are important to the market success of Cisco’s products. Rather than invest in the expensive and
`
`time-consuming effort that would have been necessary to develop its own features for Arista’s products,
`
`and specifically instead of investing the time and expense of developing its own technologies, Arista
`
`instead decided to use Cisco’s pioneering proprietary technologies, and even to explicitly tout these
`
`technologies to the market in attempts to sell Arista products that compete directly with Cisco products.
`58.
`
`Cisco inventions are important to and drive customer demand for Arista’s products. For
`
`example, Cisco’s patented technology can be found in Arista’s System Database (“SysDB”), Zero-
`
`Touch Provisioning (“ZTP”), Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (“MLAG”), Control Plane Protection
`
`(“CoPP”), In-Service System Upgrades (“ISSU”), Extensible API (“eAPI”), Access Control Lists
`
`(“ACL”), Spanning Tree Loop Guard, and Private Virtual Local Area Networks (“Private VLANs”).
`59.
`
`Arista’s misappropriation of Cisco technology has been crucial to Arista’s attempts to
`
`compete with Cisco. Arista claims that the Cisco technologies it has unlawfully used are the “secret
`
`sauce” of its product line, and touts that these features, inter alia, “simplif[y] deployment and
`
`minimize[] errors,” function as the “core” of its operating system, “eliminate bottlenecks and provide
`
`resiliency” to “protect the control plane from potential denial of service attacks,” and “provide[] the
`
`foundation for . . . updates and self-healing resiliency.” By extensively using Cisco’s patented
`
`2 Cisco, Cisco Blog - The Platform, “Employee Mobility,” available at
`http://blogs.cisco.com/tag/employee-mobility/.
`10
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page11 of 22
`
`
`
`technologies, Arista took improper shortcuts, thereby avoiding the investments that would have been
`
`necessary had Arista not used Cisco’s technology.
`60.
`
`There is no question that Arista personnel – many of whom worked at Cisco at or after
`
`the time the technologies were developed by Cisco – were aware that the pioneering Cisco networking
`
`technologies that Arista appropriated are protected by U.S. patents. For example, two of Arista’s own
`
`founders are named inventors on a number of Cisco patents asserted in this action. By this action, Cisco
`
`seeks to stop Arista’s willful, unauthorized, and improper use of Cisco’s patented technologies, and to
`
`obtain damages for the significant harm caused to Cisco by Arista’s willful infringement of certain
`
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’577 PATENT
`
`61.
`
`Cisco incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`62.
`63.
`
`The USPTO duly and legally issued the ’577 patent on April 23, 2002.
`
`Arista has infringed, and continues to infringe, one or more claims of the ’577 patent,
`
`including at least claim 1, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering for sale within the United States and/or importing into the United States networking
`
`products that are covered by one or more claims of the ’577 patent, including but not limited to the
`
`Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series of switches, including, without limitation,
`
`those devices’ implementations of access control list functionality.
`64.
`
`The ’577 patent was issued to Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton on April 23, 2002,
`
`while they were Cisco employees. The ’577 patent is assigned to Cisco. Messrs. Bechtolsheim and
`
`Cheriton are co-founders of Arista. Accordingly, Arista has had knowledge of the ’577 patent since its
`
`founding in October 2004. In addition to directly infringing the ’577 patent, Arista has indirectly
`
`infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’577 patent, including at least
`
`claim 1, by actively inducing others to directly infringe the ’577 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(b). Specifically, and in light of the knowledge of its founders, Arista knowingly induced
`
`infringement of the ’577 patent with specific intent to do so by its activities relating to the marketing,
`
`distribution, and/or sale of its networking products to their purchasers, including but not limited to the
`11
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page12 of 22
`
`
`
`Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series of switches, and by instructing and
`
`encouraging purchasers (including through product documentation) to operate and use those products in
`
`an infringing manner with knowledge that these actions would infringe the ’577 patent.
`65.
`
`Arista has contributed to infringement of the ’577 patent by others by selling and/or
`
`offering for sale to Arista’s purchasers within the United States and/or importing into the United States
`
`networking products, including but not limited to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and
`
`7500E series of switches, that are especially made and/or adapted for infringing the ’577 patent and are
`
`not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use and that have been sold to
`
`purchasers who infringe the ’577 patent. As alleged in the prior paragraphs, the ’577 patent was issued
`
`to Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton on April 23, 2002, while they were Cisco employees.
`
`Specifically, and in light of the knowledge of its founders, Arista had knowledge that its networking
`
`products, including but not limited to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series of
`
`switches, were specifically made and/or adapted for infringement of the ’577 patent and are not staple
`
`articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`66.
`
`Arista’s infringement has caused and is continuing to cause damage and irreparable
`
`injury to Cisco, and Cisco will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury unless and until that
`
`infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`67.
`
`Cisco is entitled to injunctive relief and damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271,
`
`281, 283, and 284.
`68.
`
`Arista has infringed the ’577 patent as alleged above despite having prior knowledge of
`
`the patent and has acted with willful, intentional, and conscious disregard of the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its acts constitute infringement of the ’577 patent. Arista’s infringement of the ’577
`
`patent has been and continues to be willful, entitling Cisco to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’853 PATENT
`
`69.
`
`Cisco incorporates and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`70.
`71.
`
`The USPTO duly and legally issued the ’853 patent on April 4, 2006.
`
`Arista has infringed, and continues to infringe, one or more claims of the ’853 patent,
`12
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page13 of 22
`
`
`
`including at least claim 63, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using,
`
`selling, and/or offering for sale within the United States and/or importing into the United States
`
`networking products that are covered by one or more claims of the ’853 patent, including but not limited
`
`to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series of switches, including, without
`
`limitation, those devices’ implementations of access control list functionality.
`72.
`
`The ’853 patent is a continuation of the ’577 patent and was issued on April 4, 2006 to
`
`Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, and is assigned to Cisco. In addition to directly infringing the ’853
`
`patent, Arista has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’853
`
`patent, including at least claim 63, including by actively inducing others to directly infringe the ’853
`
`patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Specifically, and in light of the knowledge of Arista’s
`
`founders of their Cisco patent, Arista knowingly induced infringement of the ’853 patent with specific
`
`intent to do so by its activities relating to the marketing, distribution, and/or sale of its networking
`
`products, including but not limited to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series of
`
`switches, and by instructing and encouraging purchasers (including through product documentation) to
`
`operate and use those products in an infringing manner with knowledge that these actions would infringe
`
`the ’853 patent.
`73.
`
`Arista has contributed to infringement of the ’853 patent by others by selling and/or
`
`offering for sale to Arista’s purchasers within the United States and/or importing into the United States
`
`networking products, including but not limited to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X, and
`
`7500E series of switches, that are especially made and/or adapted for infringing the ’853 patent and are
`
`not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. As alleged in the prior
`
`paragraphs, the ’853 patent was issued to Messrs. Bechtolsheim and Cheriton on April 6, 2006 and is
`
`assigned to Cisco. Specifically, and in light of the knowledge of its co-founders, Arista had knowledge
`
`that its networking products, including but not limited to the Arista 7048, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, 7300X,
`
`and 7500E series of switches, were specifically made and/or adapted for infringement of the ’853 patent
`
`and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`74.
`
`Arista’s infringement has caused and is continuing to cause damage and irreparable
`
`injury to Cisco, and Cisco will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury unless and until that
`13
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-5343
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:14-cv-05343-PSG Document1 Filed12/05/14 Page14 of 22
`
`
`
`infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`75.
`
`Cisco is entitled to injunctive relief and damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271,
`
`281, 283, and 284.
`76.
`
`Arista has infringed the ’853 patent as alleged above despite having prior knowledge of
`
`the patent and has acted with willful, intentional, and conscious disregard of the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its acts constitute infringement of the ’853 patent. Arista’s infringement of the ’853
`
`patent has been and continues to be wil