Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`Steven Cherny (admitted pro hac vice)
`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
`
`Kathleen Sullivan (SBN 242261)
`kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`Sean S. Pak (SBN 219032)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`Amy H. Candido (SBN 237829)
`amycandido@quinnemanuel.com
`John M. Neukom (SBN 275887)
`johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com.
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Mark Tung (SBN 245782)
`marktung@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 5:14-cv-5344-BLF (PSG)
`
`CISCO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Date: August 4, 2016
`Time:
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`1        
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2033
`IPR2016-00309
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`  
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Cisco and its Copyrighted Works .............................................................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Arista and its Infringing Works ................................................................................. 2
`
`Arista’s Public Admissions of Copying .................................................................... 2
`
`Cisco’s Copyright Claim ........................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Copyrightability ................................ 4
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To A Presumption of Validity and Ownership .................. 5
`
`1.
`1.
`
`2.
`
`There Can Be No Material Dispute On Ownership ...................................... 6
`
`3.
`
`There Can Be No Material Dispute On Originality ...................................... 6
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Copying ............................................. 9
`
`Direct Evidence Indisputably Shows Arista’s Copying ................................ 9
`
`Circumstantial Evidence Indisputably Shows Arista’s Copying ................ 12
`
`2.
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To Summary Judgment Of No Fair Use ...................................... 14
`
`Arista’s Purpose Is Commercial And Non-Transformative ........................ 14
`
`Cisco’s CLI Is Creative And Expressive In Nature .................................... 17
`
`Arista Copied Substantial Amounts Of Cisco’s CLI .................................. 22
`
`Arista’s Copying Harms The Value Of Cisco’s CLI .................................. 24
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`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
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`1
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.,
`607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather Mfg.,
`No. 10 Civ. 419, 2012 WL 6553403 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012) ..................................................6
`
`CJ Products LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC,
`809 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ..........................................................................................6
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) ...................................................................................................................14
`
`Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp,
`606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................................5
`
`Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video,
`349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................................15
`
`Harper& Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .............................................................................................................14, 17
`
`Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc.,
`886 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................................5
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................16
`
`Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n,
`133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................21
`
`Sega Enterprises v., Accolade, Inc. ,
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................................18
`
`Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................16
`
`Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.,
`863 F. Supp. 2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012) ............................................................................................18
`
`Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,
`212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................................12
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................................................................4
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`2
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..............................................................................................................................4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ................................................................................................................................14
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107— ............................................................................................................................15
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 201(a) ............................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ..............................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ..............................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ...............................................................................................................................1
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`3
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on August 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., or at such other
`
`time as the Court may direct, before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman in the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), will,
`
`and hereby does, move the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for entry of partial summary judgment
`
`on Count I (Copyright Infringement) of its Second Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). Dkt. 64.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities below, the Declarations of Kevin Almeroth, Judith A. Chevalier and Amy H. Candido
`
`filed herewith, and such other papers, evidence and argument as may be submitted to the Court in
`
`connection with the hearing on this motion.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is about the blatant and comprehensive copying by defendant Arista Networks,
`
`Inc. (“Arista”) of Cisco’s copyrighted works. Cisco holds valid copyrights to a set of original
`
`expressions related to its unique command-line interface, including original multi-word command-
`
`line expressions; original hierarchies, modes, prompts, command responses, screen displays, and
`
`help screens in its user interface; and original technical documentation like user guides and
`
`manuals available to those who use its command-line interface (referred to collectively herein as
`“Cisco CLI”).1 Cisco’s engineers created Cisco’s unique CLI from innumerable creative
`possibilities, as Arista’s own witnesses have admitted. And as Arista’s own witnesses have also
`
`admitted, Arista blatantly copied Cisco CLI. In the words of Arista’s own Chief Technology
`
`Officer and Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, Ken Duda:
`
`1 For convenience, Cisco refers to all the asserted aspects of the copyrighted works as “Cisco
`CLI” even though some copyrighted Cisco CLI elements (like hierarchies, modes, prompts,
`command responses, screen displays and help screens) are not themselves command-line
`expressions and some copyrighted CLI-related elements (like user guides and manuals) are not
`contained in Cisco’s command-line interface.
`
` 02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`1        
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`foreclosing any possible affirmative defense of fair use.
`
`Cisco thus respectfully submits that the Court may simplify the case for trial by holding
`
`now, on summary judgment, that: (1) Cisco owns a valid copyright in Cisco CLI, which is
`
`copyrightable as original to Cisco, (2) Arista infringed Cisco’s copyrights by copying Cisco CLI,
`
`and (3) Arista cannot establish a fair use defense to its blatant copying of Cisco CLI.
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Founded in 1984, Cisco pioneered the networking technologies that enabled the growth of
`
`Cisco and its Copyrighted Works
`
`
`
`the Internet. Cisco’s unique “Internetwork Operating System” and “Nexus Operating System
`
`(“NX-OS”) (collectively, Cisco’s “IOS”) allow engineers to configure and manage Cisco servers,
`
`routers and switches. Dkt. 64, ¶¶ 20-30. Cisco registered its IOS, which includes all aspects of
`
`Cisco CLI, with the Copyright Office. See Dkt. 64, Exs. 3-28.
`
`Cisco CLI employs a distinctive “look and feel” that is central to its customers’ user
`
`experience—a network engineer recognizes, interacts with, and “talks” to Cisco’s network devices
`
`(e.g., routers and switches) by way of Cisco’s copyrighted CLI. Cisco CLI differs from other
`
`possible user interfaces, such as (a) a graphical user interface (“GUI”) whereby a user issues
`
`commands by clicking on or touching graphic icons or (b) a menu-driven interface, both of which
`
`provide very different user experiences and a very different “look and feel.”
`B.
`Arista was founded in 2004—20 years after Cisco—by former Cisco executives who,
`
`Arista and its Infringing Works
`
`
`
`before departing from Cisco, had enjoyed full access to and knowledge of Cisco’s IOS. Arista
`
`sells networking equipment using an operating system Arista denominates “Extensible Operating
`
`System” (“EOS”). Arista’s EOS is designed to compete directly with Cisco’s IOS. Arista
`
`released no product until 2008, and by 2013, reported only $361 million in revenues (0.74% of
`
`Cisco’s $48.6 billion in revenues in fiscal year ending July 27, 2013). Ex. 38 at 35; Ex. 39 at 5.
`C.
`Arista’s Public Admissions of Copying
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`2
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Arista executives publicly stated that Arista had deliberately copied Cisco’s CLI in order to
`
`allow anyone trained on Cisco’s CLI to use Arista’s EOS “right away.” Ex. 28. Arista’s Chief
`
`Executive Officer Jayshree Ullal, who had stated in 2013, “Where we don’t have to invent, we
`
`don’t,” id., further explained in 2014 why Arista copied Cisco CLI: “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.” Ex. 27.
`D.
`Once Cisco learned of Arista’s massive copying through Arista’s own public statements in
`
`Cisco’s Copyright Claim
`
`
`
`2014, Cisco investigated Arista’s EOS, found Arista’s massive copying of Cisco CLI, and
`
`promptly filed this action on December 5, 2014. Dkt. 1. Arista touted its slavish copying of the
`
`overall “look and feel” of Cisco’s CLI as a key competitive advantage of EOS. See, e.g., Ex. 28
`
`(Arista’s CEO: “[A] Cisco CCIE expert would be able to use Arista right away, because we have a
`similar command-line interface and operational look and feel.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco CLI, as asserted here, includes Cisco’s original:
`Multi-word command-line expressions: Cisco CLI incorporates numerous multi-word
`
`command-line expressions originally created by Cisco’s engineers. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at
`
`¶¶ 53-57. Arista copied more than 500 multi-word command-line expressions verbatim from
`
`Cisco IOS into Arista EOS. Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at Exhibit Copying-2.
`Command hierarchies: Cisco’s IOS expresses its multi-word command-line expressions
`
`
`
`according to hierarchies designed by Cisco engineers. An initial keyword at the start of a multi-
`
`word command-line expression leads to successive sets of additional keywords. Such hierarchical
`
`arrangement conveys to a user an aesthetically pleasing set of choices that is easy to understand,
`
`easy to remember, and easy to teach. As Cisco engineer Kirk Lougheed, a central author of the
`
`Cisco CLI, testified, there is value in “the aesthetic of having a … symmetric hierarchy” that is
`
`“elegant.” Ex. 44 (Lougheed Tr. at 128:10-129:19). Arista copied the hierarchies in Cisco’s IOS.
`
`See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at Exhibit Copying-5.
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`3
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Command modes and prompts: Cisco CLI offers a series of “modes” associated with
`
`visual “prompts.” The “mode” the user selects determines the command-line expressions from
`
`which a user can select. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 58-63. Arista’s EOS copies the modes
`
`and prompts available in Cisco CLI. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at Exhibit-Copying-4.
`Command responses and screen displays: Inputting a given command-line expression
`
`
`
`presents a Cisco CLI user with varying responses and screen displays. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1
`
`at ¶¶ 64-65. Arista’s EOS copies Cisco’s command responses and screen displays. See id. at
`
`Exhibit-Copying-3.
`
`“HelpDesc” command responses: Cisco’s screen displays in response to command-line
`
`expressions include “HelpDesc” screens that show available command-line expressions and
`
`narrative descriptions thereof.
`
`User Guides and Manuals: With every version of Cisco’s IOS, Cisco released technical
`
`documentation, such as user guides and manuals related to Cisco CLI. See, e.g., Ex. 56. Arista
`
`copied those user guides and manuals so slavishly that it even included Cisco’s typographical
`
`errors. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at Exhibit Copying-1. Arista also copied Cisco’s user guides
`
`and manuals into its help screens. See Almeroth Decl. Ex. 2 at ¶ 148(b); Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at
`
`¶¶ 202-203; Almeroth Decl. Ex. 1 at Exhibit Copying-3.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Cisco Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Copyrightability
`The Copyright Act provides protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any
`
`
`
`tangible medium of expression,” including “literary works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Software, or
`
`“computer programs,” qualify for copyright protection as “literary works.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101;
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is undisputed that
`
`computer programs… can be subject to copyright protection as ‘literary works.’”) (quoting Atari
`
`Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). As the Federal Circuit
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`4
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`noted in Oracle v. Google: “[T]he legislative history explains that ‘literary works’ includes
`
`‘computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer’s expression
`
`of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas themselves.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th
`
`Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5667).
`
`
`
`It is also “well established that copyright protection can extend to both literal and non-
`
`literal elements of a computer program.” Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1355 (citing Computer Assocs. Int’l
`
`v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693, 702 (2d Cir. 1992)). The literal elements of a computer program include
`
`(inter alia) its source code. Id. The non-literal components of a computer program, also
`
`copyrightable so long as they qualify as original expression of an idea, include “the program’s
`sequence, structure, and organization, as well as the program’s user interface.” Oracle, 750 F.3d
`
`at 1355-56 (emphasis added) (citing Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc., 886 F.2d
`
`1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 1989)).
`1.
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To A Presumption of Validity and Ownership
`
`Cisco’s ownership of valid copyright interests in Cisco CLI its engineers created is beyond
`
`dispute. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 201(a) (“title vests initially in the author… of the work”); 201(b) (“[i]n
`
`the case of a work made for hire, the employer… is considered the author”). Cisco is entitled to a
`
`presumption of validity and ownership by virtue of its timely registration filings. See 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 410(c); see also Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 619 (9th Cir. 2010)
`
`(“[I]f a copyright holder secures a registration certificate within five years after first publication,
`
`such certificate will constitute prima facie evidence of both the validity of the copyright and the
`
`facts stated in the certificate.”). Of the 26 copyright registrations at issue in this case, 20
`
`registrations were filed within five years of the works’ initial publication, giving rise to a
`
`presumption of validity and ownership. See Ex. 56. Those 20 registrations cover the vast majority
`
`of Cisco CLI at issue in this case. See Ex. 55 at pp. 5-22; Ex. 56.
`
`Whether the remaining 6 registrations are entitled to the statutory presumption of validity
`
`is left to this Court’s discretion. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Where there is a majority of similar
`
`registrations entitled to the presumption of validity, courts apply the presumption to those
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`5
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`registered outside the five-year period. See, e.g., CJ Products LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC, 809
`
`F. Supp. 2d 127, 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (treating the certificates of registration for the “stale”
`
`registration products as prima facie evidence of their validity, despite the fact that they were
`
`registered outside the five-year period, where the products were made and marketed as part of the
`
`identical product line); see also Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather Mfg., 2012 WL
`
`6553403, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2012) (“Most courts conclude that untimely certificates
`
`constitute prima facie evidence.”). Because all of the registrations at issue here relate to different
`
`versions of Cisco’s IOS, Dkt. 64, Exs. 3-28, all 26 registrations should be afforded the
`
`presumption of validity.
`2.
`
`There Can Be No Material Dispute On Ownership
`
`In addition to the presumption of validity, the undisputed evidence supports Cisco’s
`
`ownership here. For every multi-word command-line expression it asserts, Cisco has identified
`
`voluminous historical evidence of the individual Cisco employee(s) associated with the creation of
`
`each command, the date each such command was affixed or published, the operating systems in
`
`which such commands were first released, and corroborating documentary evidence such as
`
`historical source code and internal Cisco emails relating to the origination of each such command
`
`within Cisco. See Ex. 57 at Interrogatory No. 16; Ex. 54; Ex. 49 (documenting command modes
`
`and prompts created by Kirk Lougheed).
`
`The same is true for Cisco’s original creation of the hierarchies, modes, prompts, and
`
`command responses protected as part of Cisco CLI. See Ex. 57 at Interrogatory No. 19; Ex. 54;
`
`Ex. 49 (documenting command responses). While Arista may dispute the originality of isolated
`
`words or a miniscule number of command-line expressions,
`
`that Cisco itself did not independently author the asserted elements and independently compile
`
` there is no credible evidence to suggest
`
`those elements together.
`3.
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`There Can Be No Material Dispute On Originality
`6
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`The testimony of past and present Cisco engineers in the record establishes Cisco’s
`
`original authorship of its copyrighted Cisco CLI beyond any possible dispute. Cisco engineer
`
`Kirk Lougheed, who played a central role in authoring Cisco CLI, testified that his selection of
`
`multi-word command-line expressions involved aesthetic and creative choices. See, e.g., Ex. 44 at
`
`338:24-339:9 (testifying to the creative process of writing software); id. at 130:11-17 (testifying to
`
`the history of Cisco’s “IP address” commands: “And that gave a very—what I thought was a very
`
`elegant, symmetric, elegant way of referring to different protocols within a multi-protocol
`
`router.”); id. at 331:6-23, 337:17-20 & 145:3-25 (testifying to choice to express the multi-word
`
`commands like “show ip route,” “show spanning-tree” and “IP routing”); id. at 168:21-169:16
`
`(identifying various alternatives for “hosts” not selected when choosing the command expression
`
`“show hosts,” including “computers,” “names,” “systems,” “network systems” and “end
`
`systems”); id. at 174:5-175:4 (testifying that the command expression “clear hierarchy” “seemed
`
`aesthetically pleasing to me”); id. at 185:13-186:5 (“timers basic RIP”). See also Almeroth Decl.
`
`Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 99-121; Ex. 73 at 24:12-25, 26:2-9 45:6-20 & 47:8-18 (Cisco engineer Abhay Roy
`
`testifying to his selection of particular Cisco multi-word command-line expressions); Ex. 71 at
`
`161:19-162:1, 186:7-11 & 187:1-9 (former Cisco engineer Devadas Patil testifying to the
`
`subjective factors he considered when formulating Cisco’s command-line expressions, noting that
`
`“intuitiveness, extensibility, usability, aesthetics are all factors that we considered”).
`
`
`
`Arista’s own witnesses, many of them former Cisco employees whose work at Cisco had
`
`given them deep exposure to Cisco CLI, repeatedly confirmed the subjectivity (and thus
`
`originality) involved in Cisco’s selection of particular command-line expressions. See Ex. 31 at
`
`CSI-CLI-00608716 (Arista’s Adam Sweeney admitting in an April 7, 2014 e-mail chain that “I
`
`agree with CLI naming is very subjective”);
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`7
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
` Thus, by Arista’s own
`
`admission, Cisco CLI is original because it involves creative, expressive choices that could have
`
`been made in any of numerous other ways.
`
`
`
`Like the command-line expressions comprising the Cisco CLI, the Cisco CLI modes,
`
`prompts and hierarchies were the product of original aesthetic and creative choices, as Mr.
`
`Lougheed testified. See, e.g., Ex. 44 at 108:12-109:22 (identifying various alternatives to his
`
`selection of “EXEC” mode); id. at 109:23-111:15 (testifying to his selection of the “most aesthetic
`
`choice” that provided a “nice visual” as a command prompt); id. at 129:10-130:19 & 148:1-23
`
`(testifying to his selection of the Cisco CLI hierarchies to achieve a particular “aesthetic” that was
`
`“elegant,” “symmetric and organized”).
`
`In the face of this overwhelming evidence of originality, Arista has failed to adduce any
`
`countervailing evidence. There is no evidence that any Cisco engineer derived any of its
`
`copyrighted multi-word command-line expressions from any prior work. See Ex. 48 at
`
`Interrogatory No. 10. Nor is there any evidence that any Cisco engineer derived any of the modes,
`
`prompts or hierarchies contained in copyrighted Cisco CLI from any prior work. Candido Decl.
`
`Ex 54. As to the user guides, manuals and “HelpDesc” content that help comprise the copyrighted
`
`Cisco CLI, Arista has waived any argument as to lack of originality.
`
`Arista may assert that Cisco’s multi-word command-line expressions are not original
`
`contains any of Cisco’s
`asserted multi-word command-line expressions. Even if Arista could cherry-pick isolated pre-
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`8
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`existing words, it is well-established that “an original combination of elements can be
`
`copyrightable” even if some element of that combination is unoriginal. Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1363
`
`Cisco Is Entitled To Summary Judgment On Copying
`
`(citing Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Commmc’ns, 118 F.3d 955, 964 (2d Cir. 1997)).
`B.
`
`This case is rare among copyright cases in that the record establishes Arista’s blatant
`copying of Cisco’s copyrighted CLI through overwhelming direct evidence. The undisputed
`
`circumstantial evidence likewise indisputably establishes Arista’s copying as a matter of law.
`1.
`
`Direct Evidence Indisputably Shows Arista’s Copying
`
`The record shows a deeply ingrained culture of copying at Arista, in which Arista’s leaders
`
`have repeatedly touted, in both public and internal statements, that Arista copies copyrighted
`
`Cisco CLI—including not only its original multi-word command-line expressions, but also its
`
`original hierarchies, modes, prompts, command responses, screen displays, user guides and
`
`manuals. See, e.g.,
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`9
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`QuestNET Conference in 2013: “Arista CLI commands are the same as cisco IOS”);
`
` Ex. 42 (Arista presentation at the
`
`The same is true for other aspects of Cisco’s copyrighted CLI. Arista’s Answer admits
`
`using the same command modes and prompts used in Cisco’s CLI. See Dkt. 65 at ¶ 54 (“Arista
`
`admits that it uses the command modes and prompts identified under the subheading ‘Arista EOS
`
`Command Modes’ in paragraph 54 [of Cisco’s Second Amended Complaint].”). Arista also has
`
`admitted copying help screens. See
`
` As to Cisco’s user guides
`
`and manuals Arista’s CEO has admitted Arista’s verbatim copying right down to the typographical
`
`errors, stating: “I own up to that. That’s a mistake.” Ex. 29 at CSI-CLI-00357849; see also
`
`
`
`These repeated admissions of copying by Arista’s key employees are themselves more
`
`than enough to warrant summary judgment on copying. But they are further reinforced by
`repeated Arista admissions about why Arista copied Cisco’s CLI: so that Arista could get Cisco’s
`
`customers familiar with Cisco CLI to buy Arista products containing “a practical drop-in
`
`replacement for the Cisco given the 99.999% similarity in the CLI.”
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`10
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`Ex. 28 (“a Cisco CCIE expert would be able to use Arista right
`
`away, because we have a similar command-line interface and operational look and feel. Where we
`
`don’t have to invent, we don’t”); Ex. 30 (Arista’s CTO Duda reporting that “80% [of Arista
`
`customers] tell [Arista] they appreciate the way they can leverage their deep [Cisco] IOS
`
`experience, as they can easily upgrade an aging [Cisco] Catalyst infrastructure to Arista”);
`
`
`
`Third-party reviewers confirmed that the virtual identity between Arista’s interface and
`
`Cisco’s copyrighted CLI enabled Cisco customers to switch seamlessly to Arista products. See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`02099-00004/8117426.1
`
`11
`
`CISCO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 5:14-cv-05344-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case 5:14-cv-05344-BLF Document 348 Filed 07/01/16 Page 16 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Arista also acknowledged that its rampant copying of Cisco’s CLI provides ancillary
`
`benefits—like freeing it from having to create its own user guides because Arista’s customers
`could simply use Cisco’s user guides. See
`
`2.
`
`Circumstantial Evidence Indisputably Shows Arista’s Copying
`
`
`
`Even if the undisputed direct evidence did not overwhelmingly establish that Arista copied
`
`Cisco’s CLI (it does), the undisputed circumstantial evidence is independently sufficient to
`
`warrant summary judgment on copying. Under Ninth Circuit law, copying may be shown by
`
`(i) access and (ii) substantial similarity to the copyrighted works. See, e.g., Three