Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
`ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
`BRIAN L. FERRALL - # 160847
`DAVID SILBERT - # 173128
`MICHAEL S. KWUN - #198945
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`(415) 391-5400
`Email: rvannest@kvn.com;
`bferrall@kvn.com; dsilbert@kvn.com;
`mkwun@kvn.com
`
`
`SUSAN CREIGHTON, SBN 135528
`SCOTT A. SHER, SBN 190053
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1700 K Street NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, D.C., 20006-3817
`Telephone: (202) 973-8800
`Email: screighton@wsgr.com;
`ssher@wsgr.com
`
`JONATHAN M. JACOBSON, NY SBN 1350495
`CHUL PAK (pro hac vice)
`DAVID H. REICHENBERG (pro hac vice)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1301 Avenue Of The Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`Telephone: (212) 999-5800
`Email: jjacobson@wsgr.com; cpak@wsgr.com;
`dreichenberg@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`ARISTA’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS
`A MATTER OF LAW AND
`CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW
`TRIAL (FED. R. CIV. P. 50(B) AND 59)
`
`Dept.:
`Judge:
`
`Courtroom 3 - 5th Floor
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`Date Filed: December 5, 2014
`
`Trial Date: November 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`1
`
`ARISTA 1025
`Arista v. Cisco
`IPR2016-00309
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION ....................................................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Cisco’s asserted CLI elements are a small portion of its command-line
`interface, a functional system used to manage networking devices. .......................2
`
`Cisco borrowed from pre-existing CLI systems and established industry
`terminology and standards, and failed to prove original authorship. .......................3
`
`Cisco’s CLI elements reflect functions, not original creative expression. ..............4
`
`Cisco knew and accepted for years that the industry (including Arista) was
`using its CLI as a model...........................................................................................6
`
`Cisco only claimed copyright in CLI elements after Arista’s transformative
`innovations left Cisco behind...................................................................................9
`
`Cisco failed to compete with Arista’s transformative products on their
`technical merits, not because of the CLI. ...............................................................10
`
`III.
`
`CISCO’S COPYRIGHT CLAIMS FAIL—AND ARISTA’S DEFENSES
`SUCCEED—AS A MATTER OF LAW ...........................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Cisco lacks sufficient evidence that it owns any protectable original
`expression in the asserted CLI. ..............................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Cisco lacks adequate proof of original authorship. ....................................12
`
`Cisco’s asserted CLI elements are unprotectable under Section
`102(b). ........................................................................................................13
`
`Cisco has failed to prove any of its asserted CLI elements or
`combinations thereof are protectable creative expression. ........................14
`
`Command “names” and help strings are unprotectable short
`phrases........................................................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Cisco has not proven any protectable compilation of CLI elements. ....................15
`
`No reasonable jury could find Cisco has proven infringement given the
`“thin” protection that applies to Cisco’s works. ....................................................16
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Cisco has failed to show “virtual identity” of the works as a whole
`(omitting unprotectable elements) as needed to prove illicit
`copying. ......................................................................................................17
`
`i
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1135277.03
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`Cisco lacks sufficient evidence to prove infringement even under
`the substantial identity test for works receiving broad protection. ............18
`
`The jury lacked sufficient evidence to consider and compare the disputed
`works as a whole—or even to define their scope. .................................................18
`
`No substantial evidence proves Cisco’s “user interfaces” are copyrighted
`works separate from Cisco’s complete registered operating systems. ...................19
`
`Arista’s conduct is fair use as a matter of law. ......................................................20
`
`Cisco abandoned its copyrights as a matter of law. ...............................................23
`
`Cisco has misused its copyrights as a matter of law. .............................................24
`
`No reasonable jury could fail to find merger on this record. .................................25
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`IV.
`
`FOR THE SAME REASONS, ANY NEW TRIAL MUST INCLUDE ALL
`ISSUES ..............................................................................................................................25
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1135277.03
`
`ii
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc.
`466 F.2d 705 (7th Cir. 1972) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Allen v. Academic Games League of America, Inc.
`89 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc.
`424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Antonick v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
`841 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................... 17, 18, 19
`
`Apple Inc. v. Pystar Corp
`658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross
`916 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Baker v. Selden
`101 U.S. 99 (1879) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Bikram’s Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga
`803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Blanch v. Koons
`467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 21, 22
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) ..................................................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`
`Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc.
`372 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................... 23
`
`CMM Cable Rep, Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc.
`97 F.3d 1504 (1st Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Data East USA v. Epyx Inc.
`862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`DC Comics v. Towle
`802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Dream Games of Arizona, Inc. v. PC Onsite
`561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Eng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc.
`26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 14
`iii
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.
`225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................... 18, 25
`
`Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.
`323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ............................................................................................... 12, 13, 14, 17
`
`Greene v. Ablon
`914 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Mass. 2012), aff’d, 794 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2015) ............................. 15
`
`Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
`279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) ..................................................................................................... 17, 21, 22
`
`Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian
`446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Moral Majority Inc.
`796 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp.
`492 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................ 15
`
`Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist.
`251 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
`336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.
`676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty.
`556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game Players, Inc.
`736 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc.
`641 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.
`616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`Matthew Bender & Co. v. W. Pub. Co.
`158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998)............................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1135277.03
`
`iv
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`MCA, Inc. v. Wilson
`677 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1981)..................................................................................................... 22
`
`MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc.
`89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc.
`124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.
`688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Narell v. Freeman
`872 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst.
`364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
`750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Oracle I) .................................................................. 21, 22, 25
`
`Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
`No. 10-cv-03561-WHA, 2016 WL 3181206 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2016) (Oracle II) .......... 21, 22
`
`Pelt v. CBS, Inc.
`No. CV-92-6532, 1993 WL 659605 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 1993) ............................................... 15
`
`Peralta v. Dillard
`744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc.
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Satava v. Lowry
`323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................... 14, 16, 18
`
`Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... 14, 22
`
`Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs
`251 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v Bleem, LLC
`214 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Stuff v. E. C. Publications, Inc.
`342 F.2d 143 (2d Cir. 1965)..................................................................................................... 24
`
`VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone
`824 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 13, 18
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1135277.03
`
`v
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept.
`447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 21, 23
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................................. 12, 15, 20
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................................... 13, 14, 16, 18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107(3) ......................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Federal Rules
`
`Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 50(a) ............................................................................................... 1, 12, 19
`
`Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 50(b) ..................................................................................................... 1, 21
`
`Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 59................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)....................................................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1135277.03
`
`vi
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`Arista moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 for judgment as a
`
`matter of law or new trial to the extent that the existing Judgment incorporates adverse jury
`
`findings. This motion is presented to protect against any potential waiver of Arista’s rights to
`
`present related arguments on appeal and defend the jury’s no liability verdict and resulting final
`
`judgment, including Arista’s conditional right to a new trial. Accordingly, Arista seeks the
`
`following relief: an order entering judgment in Arista’s favor as a matter of law as to (1) Cisco’s
`
`copyright infringement claims (including specifically judgment that Cisco’s asserted CLI
`
`elements are not protected by copyright and were not infringed) and (2) Arista’s defenses of fair
`
`use, abandonment, copyright misuse, and merger. This motion is based on this notice and the
`
`following memorandum of points and authorities, the trial record in its entirety, and any other
`
`evidence and argument that has been and may be presented before the Court decides this motion.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Arista has no quarrel with the December 19, 2016 Judgment to the extent that it dismisses
`
`all claims against Arista and decrees that Cisco take nothing. To avoid any potential waiver on
`
`appeal, however, Arista files this motion re-asserting the grounds for judgment as a matter of law
`
`previously stated in Arista’s Rule 50(a) motion (and asserting a conditional right to a new trial
`
`under Rule 59) to the extent that the Judgment reflects and incorporates adverse jury findings on
`copyright issues other than Arista’s affirmative defense of scenes a faire.1
`First, the trial record cannot support a verdict that Cisco proved its infringement claim.
`
`Cisco lacks substantial evidence that any CLI elements in which it claims copyright (or any
`
`compilation(s) thereof) contain original protectable expression. As a matter of law, Cisco also
`
`cannot prevail that the asserted user interfaces are copyrighted works separate from Cisco’s
`
`operating systems. Also, no reasonable jury could find actionable copying given the factual,
`
`highly constrained nature of Cisco’s works, and the stringent infringement test for such works.
`
`1 Arista’s motion addresses only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict on
`questions presented to the jury. Arista maintains all of its prior objections to other rulings by the
`Court and does not intend to waive any rights to present any related arguments on appeal.
`1
`
`
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`Cisco also lacked adequate evidence of the complete works, as Ninth Circuit law requires.
`
`Second, the trial record here—including Cisco’s own admissions and uncontroverted third
`
`party evidence—compels a finding for Arista on its defenses of fair use, abandonment, copyright
`
`misuse, and merger, in addition to the scenes a faire defense the jury sustained. All of the fair use
`
`factors heavily favor Arista, and Cisco’s conduct itself proves that a reasonable copyright owner
`
`would have accepted Arista’s use given common and accepted industry practice (and did so for
`
`many years). The same record evidence compels a finding that Cisco abandoned any copyright
`
`interest in its CLI by encouraging the widespread industry use of Cisco’s CLI over many years,
`
`and that Cisco’s attempts to exploit its limited copyrights for broad anticompetitive advantage are
`
`copyright misuse. Finally, no reasonable jury could fail to find that Cisco’s expression of
`
`functions and ideas in Cisco’s CLI merged with the ideas themselves.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Cisco’s asserted CLI elements are a small portion of its command-line
`interface, a functional system used to manage networking devices.
`Undisputed evidence shows Cisco’s asserted “user interface” for each operating system is
`
`a functional system or mode of operation by which a user (human or machine) can manage
`
`networking equipment. The interface appears to a user as a simple command prompt screen
`
`(consisting of a short name and the symbol “>” or “#”) at which the user types commands to
`
`invoke the desired functions. See Tr. (Lougheed) at 501:24-502:5 (explaining operation of CLI
`by typing in words).2 Many commands simply change technical configuration parameters of the
`device being controlled; some trigger a command “output” shown on the screen, which is
`
`essentially a blank form for displaying technical status information about the network or a device
`
`feature, using formatting that makes the outputs easy for the operating system to understand. See
`
`Tr. (Remaker) at 678-79. Entering “?” invokes a help system that displays short descriptions of
`
`what commands do (“help strings” or “help descriptions”). See Tr. (Lougheed) at 525:16-526:4.
`
`This type of “command-line interface”—as opposed to a modern graphical user interface
`
`(“GUI”)—long predates Cisco. The basic look of Cisco’s command-line interface was not
`
`
`2 Citations to “Tr.” refer to the trial transcript; “TX __” citations are to exhibits admitted at trial.
`2
`
`
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`original to Cisco, and there were no realistic alternatives when Cisco created it. Rather, “[a]ll
`
`those machines in that era had CLIs” (Tr. (Lougheed) 589:11-12) because a CLI was “how we did
`
`things in those days,” while a modern GUI would have required “hardware support that we didn’t
`
`have and weren’t willing to add,” and menus were “extremely slow and clunky.” Tr. (Lougheed)
`
`at 505:3-15; see also Tr. (Remaker) 688:1-2 (Cisco’s CLI “looks like DOS from the 1980s”).
`
`Cisco’s own witnesses described its CLI in functional terms. Ms. Bakan testified that the
`
`CLI is “a mechanism by which the administrators . . . have direct access to” manage devices. Tr.
`
`(Bakan) 468:13-18; Tr. (Bakan) 486:24-25 (CLI is “the most trustworthy mechanism [to] get
`
`information about what’s happening on the device”). Commands “communicate what you are
`
`wanting” in a “telegraphic style.” Tr. (Lougheed) 503:21-504:10 (CLI can expand to add new
`
`functions; CLI is “a means of communication”). The CLI has no separate existence or value by
`
`itself: Cisco does not sell it separately from the operating systems, and “[i]t’s part of the operating
`
`system. That is the brain of the hardware.” Tr. (Bakan) 475:21-24. Cisco has not evaluated the
`
`“value of the CLI separate from the product itself” because it merely “represents all the
`
`functionality that’s available in the products.” Tr. (Bakan) 468:10-14, 475:13-20.
`
`Cisco also admitted that the CLI elements it accused Arista of copying are a small fraction
`
`of the features in Cisco’s CLI. See Tr. (Bakan) 476:12-15 (not all features); TX 4789 (asserted
`
`commands); TX 4799 (help descriptions); TX 4800 (command outputs); Tr. (Black) at 2126:19-
`2127:18 (no claim that other parts of user interface copied).3
`
`B.
`
`Cisco borrowed from pre-existing CLI systems and established industry
`terminology and standards, and failed to prove original authorship.
`Cisco’s CLI borrowed from the interfaces of pre-existing operating systems, using
`
`conventional commands and other features. Kirk Lougheed, who created the Cisco CLI using
`
`3 In fact, most of the asserted commands are only partial and will not work without additional
`parameters; no substantial evidence supports counting them as actual commands. Tr. (Black) at
`2131–33; TX 9037. Even taking Cisco’s counts at face value, though, Cisco claims unlawful
`copying of (1) 506 commands from across all four operating systems, out of more than 15,000
`commands in IOS alone (Tr. (Kathail) at 1086); (2) four command modes out of more than 100
`(Tr. (Almeroth) at 1381:3-18 (over 100 IOS modes); Tr. (Lougheed) at 597 (dozens of modes));
`(3) 37 command outputs out of tens of thousands in IOS alone (Tr. (Almeroth) at 1395-96 (not
`disagreeing re tens of thousands of outputs in IOS); Tr. (Remaker) at 693 (16 responses asserted);
`and (4) 216 help strings of the thousands included in IOS-XR (Tr. (Almeroth) at 1393:12-19; Tr.
`(Lougheed) at 600 (IOS “very well could” have tens of thousands of help strings)).
`3
`
`
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`code he took from Stanford without a license, used mode names he knew from prior work with
`
`the pre-existing TOPS-20 CLI (Tr. (Lougheed) at 598-99, 604-05), as well as CLI commands (Tr.
`
`583 – “show”; Tr. 589-93 – “terminal length”). Even early on at Cisco, functional customer
`
`needs drove the CLI. See Tr. (Lougheed) at 513:23-514:9 (Cisco needed to add protocols others
`
`used to its own systems and “had to have some way of distinguishing between” them). Lougheed
`routinely used conventional terms and commands already in use in the industry.4 Tr. (Lougheed)
`at 574-81. Many CLI terms came directly from industry protocols or standards commonly used
`
`in the networking industry and even taught to college students. Tr. (Almeroth) at 1290:17-1292:4.
`
`These protocols are part of the foundation for communication over a network, which requires that
`
`“the different layers for communication all have to be consistent.” Tr. (Almeroth) at 1289:15-24.
`
`C.
`Cisco’s CLI elements reflect functions, not original creative expression.
`Cisco’s own evidence proves that its choices for commands and other CLI elements
`
`merely reflected functional needs. CLI commands are names for what they do. TX 760 at 5
`
`(Cisco chart of commands and descriptions including “show interface”); Tr. (Lougheed) at 624
`
`(“command names”); Tr. (Remaker) at 689:19-24 (“nerd knob[s]”). Typing full command words
`
`is not required, just enough letters to identify a unique command. Tr. (Remaker) at 664.
`
`Commands should be logical, with a clear “rhyme and reason” (Tr. (Lougheed) at 573), and
`
`indicate their functions in terms the industry will understand. E.g., TX 851; Tr. (Kathail) at 1089.
`
`Third parties also confirmed these functional needs. TX 9081 (Dell witness Cato Tr.) at 36:1-8
`
`(discussing VLAN); Tr. (Juniper witness Shafer) at 2069:6-2072:8 (overlap between Juniper and
`
`Cisco). Functional limitations meant commands were usually created quickly—in seconds—using
`
`terms directly from standards documents. TX 9073 (Satz Tr.) at 76:4-8. The need for consistency
`
`throughout the CLI further reduces creativity. See, e.g., Tr. (Remaker) at 658-59, 662, 664-65,
`
`714; Tr. (Lougheed) at 506, 618. Help strings are also basic short phrases that are “very easy” and
`
`
`4 For example, Lougheed used pre-existing standard phrases like “ip address” (Tr. (Lougheed) at
`577:11-14), “mac address” (Tr. (Lougheed) at 579:14-23), and “boot system” (Tr. (Lougheed) at
`580:6-15). Cisco also used pre-existing modes and help strings. Tr. (Lougheed) at 598-599
`(EXEC and privileged modes copied from TOPS-20); Tr. (Lougheed) at 600 (“Delete a file” used
`in TOPS-20); Tr. (Lougheed) at 601-603 & TX 5724 (help string “Transmission Control
`Protocol” not original); Tr. (Li) at 1852:4-9, 1855:22-1857:14 (Cisco modeled CLI on TOPS-20).
`4
`
`
`ARISTA’S JMOL AND CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC)
`
`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
`
`1135277.03
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 760 Filed 01/17/17 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`“quick” to write, and simply describe what the command does. Tr. (Lougheed) at 604, 600-01,
`
`603; Tr. (Slattery) at 749-50. Help strings must be “brief” and “short” to fit limited screen space.
`
`Tr. (Remaker) at 681-82; Tr. (Slattery) at 746-47. The point is to be helpful, not creative: the
`
`Gettysburg address would not fit the bill. Tr. (Lougheed) at 567.
`
`Customers’ needs for a clear and consistent CLI system further limited creativity.
`
`According to Cisco, Cisco customers needed consistent CLI functionality to avoid the risk of a
`
`“catastrophic problem” if they used a command that a switch did not recognize. Tr. (Remaker) at
`
`694-696. Cisco admitted “our [Cisco] customers prefer a common command line language.” Tr.
`
`(Remaker) at 701:21-25. Customers would be “disoriented” and “upset” if command syntax
`
`changed from what they have “committed to muscle memory” so that commands “no longer work
`
`the way they are expecting.” Tr. (Remaker) at 670. This is true both within and across Cisco’s
`
`own systems, and with competitors: no customer wants to learn 20 different command languages.
`
`Tr. (Remaker) at 701. Therefore, CLI engineers try to “think[] about what the customer might
`
`have” and ensure backwards “compatibility with what exists” and what customers already use.
`
`Tr. (Remaker) at 653; Tr. (Remaker) at 714:17-19 (“we have to be consistent with stuff we’ve
`
`done before”); Tr. (Slattery) at 727:17-728:4 (need for “100 percent backwards compatibility”).
`
`To avoid these problems, Cisco established “Parser Police” guidelines to be followed wherever
`
`possible. Tr. (Remaker) at at 694-696; TX 851.
`
`Cisco’s only specific example of “creativity” confirms its absence. Cisco points to the
`
`command “show inventory” as its only concrete example of Cisco’s purported creativity in CLI
`design—but Cisco’s own account instead confirms the functional constraints above.5 See Tr.
`(Remaker) at 670:23-671:4. First, Cisco did not consider any alternatives to the word “show,”
`
`because the pre-existing “show” hierarchy was the “natural” and “sensible” place to put the
`
`command, and Cisco (like others) used “show” already. Tr. (Remaker) at 673:2-21, 690:9-22.
`
`Second, the few options Remaker considered for the term “inventory” were considered because
`
`
`5 Even Cisco’s purported aesthetic goals for its CLI are actually functional dictates: the CLI
`should “work[] well” by being “consistent,” meaning “that it behaves the way you expect”; it
`should be “useable,” meaning “you can understand what the commands mean”; and it should be
`“friendly” meaning “easy to use and not crazy.” Tr