Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ORCKIT CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-276
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Orckit Corporation (“Orckit” or “Plaintiff”) submits this complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco” or “Defendant”), requests a trial by
`
`jury, and alleges the following upon actual knowledge with respect to itself and its own acts and
`
`upon information and belief as to all other matters:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement. Orckit alleges that Cisco infringes U.S.
`
`Patents Nos. 6,680,904 (“the ’904 Patent”), 7,545,740 (“the ’740 Patent”), 8,830,821 (“the ’821
`
`Patent”), and 10,652,111 (“the ’111 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”), copies of
`
`which are attached hereto.
`
`2.
`
`Orckit alleges that Cisco: (1) directly and indirectly infringes the Asserted Patents
`
`by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing certain networking hardware and
`
`software; (2) induces infringement of the Asserted Patents and contributes to others’
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents; and (3) infringes the Asserted Patents willfully. Orckit
`
`seeks damages and other relief for Cisco’s wrongful conduct.
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 1 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Orckit is a Delaware Corporation and owns the Asserted Patents by assignment.
`
`Cisco is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 170 West
`
`Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134.
`
`5.
`
`Cisco is registered to do business in Texas, maintains places of business in Texas,
`
`and conducts business in Texas. Cisco has at least two places of business in this district,
`
`including a multi-building campus with over 1,400 employees at 2250 East President George
`
`Bush Turnpike, Richardson, Texas 75082, and a 162,000 square foot data center at 2260 Chelsea
`
`Blvd., Allen, Texas 75013. The Collin County Appraisal District appraised these facilities at a
`
`combined value over $300,000,000.
`
`6.
`
`Cisco has a permanent and continuous presence in Texas and a regular and
`
`established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et
`
`seq. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Cisco. As alleged above, Cisco has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts with Texas so that this action does not offend due process or the
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and so that Texas’s long-arm statute is
`
`satisfied. Among other factors, Cisco is registered in Texas, is domiciled in this district, and has
`
`a continuous presence in and systematic contact with this district. Specifically, Cisco regularly
`
`conducts business at its facilities in Richardson and Allen and derives substantial revenue from
`
`the goods and services that it provides to its customers in Texas. Cisco also undertakes a portion
`
`of its infringing activities in Texas—including by making, using, importing, offering for sale,
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 3
`
`and selling products and services that infringe the Asserted Patents—directly and through its
`
`distributors, retailers, and other intermediaries.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b), (c), (d)
`
`and 1400(b) because Cisco has a permanent and continuous presence in, has committed acts of
`
`infringement in, and maintains a regular and established place of business in this district.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Orckit Communications Ltd. and Its Breakthrough Communications Technology
`
`10.
`
`The patented technology is rooted in research by Orckit Communications Ltd.
`
`(later reorganized and renamed Orckit-Corrigent Ltd.), a company founded in Israel in 1990 by
`
`Izhak Tamir. The company was a pioneer in the development of infrastructure-level networking
`
`products, and in its first decade became the market leader in Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line
`
`(ADSL) technology, winning a client base that included some of the world’s preeminent
`
`telecommunications providers. The company went public, and in 1996 was listed in the United
`
`States on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange.
`
`11.
`
`Building from that initial success, Orckit Communications Ltd. turned its
`
`attention to overcoming significant limitations in Ethernet, the predominant technology used for
`
`local area networks used in offices, schools and other local environments. With the proliferation
`
`of data and the development of the Internet, demand for the data transmission skyrocketed.
`
`While Ethernet could be used to connect a limited number of computers, it was not well suited to
`
`the delivery of video, voice, and other applications with higher bandwidth requirements for a
`
`larger number of users. The existing standard for delivering voice communications, known as
`
`the Synchronous Optical Network (“SONET”) protocol, was not a viable alternative because it
`
`was not designed to process data in an efficient and scalable way. As a result, providers like
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4
`
`cable companies were required to develop and install their own infrastructure to deliver services
`
`and could not rely on a single network to provide different services in parallel.
`
`12.
`
`Orckit Communications Ltd.’s solutions addressed those shortcomings. It quickly
`
`recognized that existing solutions could accommodate network traffic only so long as data
`
`occupied only a small portion of overall network traffic. The company’s technology overcame
`
`those limitations by enhancing Ethernet switching and routing to optimize the transmission of
`
`data, voice and video, including those using Internet Protocol (“IP”) telecommunications
`
`networks. The capacity, reliability, and resilience offered by Orckit Communications Ltd.’s
`
`inventions opened up the possibility of the transmission of data, voice, and video services on the
`
`same network—the hugely valuable “bundled services” or “triple-play services” sought by both
`
`telecommunications companies and their customers.
`
`13.
`
`Between 2000 and 2010, Orckit Communications Ltd. invested hundreds of
`
`millions of US dollars in research and development of those solutions. It earned recognition
`
`around the world for those innovations and won contracts to rebuild national telecommunications
`
`infrastructure systems along with hundreds of patents—including those at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`14.
`
`With the economic downturn of 2007 and 2008, many of Orckit Communications
`
`Ltd.’s most significant potential customers dramatically reduced their infrastructure spending.
`
`Even with its superior technology the company was unable to weather the global recession and
`
`ultimately went into liquidation.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Orckit Corporation obtained all rights in the Asserted Patents.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,680,904
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 5
`
`16.
`
`Orckit is the lawful owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,680,904 (“the ’904 Patent”) entitled “BI-DIRECTIONAL CHAINING OF NETWORK
`
`ACCESS PORTS” (attached as Exhibit 1), including the right to sue and recover for
`
`infringement thereof. The ʼ904 Patent was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2004, naming
`
`Menachem Kaplan, David Zelig, Roy Kinamon, Eli Aloni, Ron Sdayoor, Eric Paneth and Eli
`
`Magal as the inventors.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`The ʼ904 Patent has 26 claims: 6 independent claims and 20 dependent claims.
`
`The ʼ904 Patent presented novel and unconventional apparatuses and methods for
`
`(among other things) “efficient, high-speed transfer of data packets within an access multiplexer
`
`system.” Ex. 1, ’904 Patent at 1:65-67. The inventions patented in the ’904 Patent include, for
`
`example, “slave” and “master” units that are “connected in one or more daisy chains between the
`
`active and standby masters and are configured so that both downstream and upstream packets
`
`can be transmitted in either direction along each of the chains.” Id. at 2:11-14. Thus, “if a failure
`
`occurs in any one of the slaves or in a link between them, the traffic direction in the chain in
`
`which the failure has occurred is simply reversed so as to run through the standby master.” Id. at
`
`2:15-18. “An advantage of the architecture of system 31 is that additional slaves may be added to
`
`the chains as needed, without having to change the number of interfaces associated with masters
`
`30, and 32.” Id. at 6:33-36 One embodiment of the inventions of the ʼ904 Patent is shown in Fig.
`
`3, reproduced below:
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 6
`
`19.
`
`The claims of the ʼ904 Patent, including claim 1 (reproduced below), recite at
`
`least these inventive concepts of the ʼ904 Patent:
`
`1. Network access apparatus, comprising:
`
`first and second master units, each comprising a physical interface to a packet-
`switched network;
`
`a plurality of slave units, each slave unit comprising one or more ports to respective
`subscriber lines; and
`
`a plurality of physical interface lines, which link the slave units in one or more
`daisy chains, in which the slave units are mutually connected in series by the
`physical interface lines therebetween, each daisy chain comprising at least a first
`slave unit connected one of the physical interface lines to the first master unit, a
`second slave unit connected to the first slave unit but not to the first or second
`master unit, and a last slave unit connected by another of the physical interface lines
`to the second master unit.
`
`Id. at 11:41-55 (claim 1).
`
`20.
`
`The subject matter described and claimed in the ʼ904 Patent, including the subject
`
`matter of claim 1, represented an improvement in computer and communications functionality,
`
`performance, and efficiency, and was novel and not well-understood, routine, or conventional at
`
`the time of the invention of the ʼ904 Patent.
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 7
`
`21.
`
`Cisco had knowledge of the ʼ904 Patent, including at least as of March 2017
`
`when Orckit IP LLC (“Orckit IP”)—a prior owner of the Asserted Patents—initiated discussions
`
`with Cisco about its patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, as described and alleged
`
`below, and at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740
`
`22.
`
`Orckit is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,545,740 (“the ’740 Patent”) entitled “TWO-WAY LINK AGGREGATION” (attached as
`
`Exhibit 2), including the right to sue and recover for infringement thereof. The ʼ740 Patent was
`
`duly and legally issued on June 9, 2009, naming David Zelig, Ronen Solomon, and Uzi Khill as
`
`the inventors.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`The ʼ740 Patent has 31 claims: 12 independent claims and 19 dependent claims.
`
`The ʼ740 Patent presented novel and unconventional apparatuses and methods for
`
`(among other things) “connecting users to a communication network with increased capacity and
`
`use of service.” Ex. 2, ’740 Patent at 1:39-41. The inventions patented in the ’740 Patent, for
`
`example, distribute data frames among “parallel physical links, so as to balance the traffic load
`
`among the links,” a process that in turn enables the network to “deliver a higher bandwidth at a
`
`given [quality of service (‘QoS’)] or to improve the QoS at a given bandwidth.” Id. at 1:48-55.
`
`The patented “load balancing operation in embodiments of the present invention enables
`
`statistical multiplexing of the frames, in which there is no direct relationship or connection
`
`between user ports and backplane traces.” Id. at 2:1-4. Furthermore, “[i]n some embodiments,
`
`two or more physical user ports are aggregated into a [link aggregation] group external to the
`
`network element, so as to form an aggregated user port having a higher bandwidth.” Id. at 2:5-8.
`
`One embodiment of the inventions of the ʼ740 Patent is shown in Fig. 2, reproduced below:
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 8
`
`25.
`
`The claims of the ʼ740 Patent, including claim 17 (reproduced below), recite at
`
`least these inventive concepts of the ʼ740 Patent:
`
`17. Apparatus for connecting a network node with a communication network,
`comprising:
`
`one or more interface modules, which are arranged to process data frames having
`frame attributes sent between the network node and the communication network, at
`least one of said interface modules being operative to communicate in both an
`upstream direction and a downstream direction;
`
`a first group of first physical links arranged in parallel so as to couple the network
`node to the one or more interface modules;
`
`a second group of second physical links arranged in parallel so as to couple the one
`or more interface modules to the communication network; and
`
`a control module, which is arranged to select for each data frame sent between the
`communication network and the network node, in a single computation based on at
`least one of the frame attributes, a first physical link out of the first group and a
`second physical link out of the second group over which to send the data frame;
`
`at least one of said first physical links and at least one of said second links being
`bi-directional links operative to communicate in both said upstream direction and
`said downstream direction.
`
`Id. at 13:35-58 (claim 17).
`
`26.
`
`The subject matter described and claimed in the ʼ740 Patent, including the subject
`
`matter of claim 17, represented an improvement in computer and communications functionality,
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 9
`
`performance and efficiency, and was novel and not well-understood, routine, or conventional at
`
`the time of the invention of the ʼ740 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Cisco had knowledge of the ʼ740 Patent, including at least as of March 2017
`
`when Orckit IP LLC (“Orckit IP”)—a prior owner of the Asserted Patents—initiated discussions
`
`with Cisco about its patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, as described and alleged
`
`below, and at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,830,821
`
`28.
`
`Orckit is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,830,821 (“the ’821 Patent”) entitled “METHOD FOR SUPPORTING MPLS TRANSPORT
`
`PATH RECOVERY WITH MULTIPLE PROTECTION ENTITIES” (attached as Exhibit 3),
`
`including the right to sue and recover for infringement thereof. The ’821 Patent was duly and
`
`legally issued on September 9, 2014, naming Daniel Cohn and Rafi Ram as the inventors.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The ’821 Patent has 20 claims: 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims.
`
`The ’821 Patent presented novel and unconventional apparatuses and methods for
`
`(among other things) selecting network transport entities between a first and second endpoint,
`
`using working and protection entities to minimize simultaneous failure and/or a cost function.
`
`Ex. 3, ’821 Patent, at Abstract; 2:5-21. The inventions patented in the ’821 Patent, for example,
`
`switch between working and protection entities, determine a probability of concurrent failure of
`
`both entities, and reselect an entity pair. Id. at 2:32-43. One embodiment of the inventions of the
`
`’821 Patent is shown in Fig. 1, reproduced below:
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 10
`
`31.
`
`The claims of the ’821 Patent, including claim 14 (reproduced below), recite at
`
`least these inventive concepts of the ’821 Patent:
`
`14. A system for selecting entities within an MPLS network, comprising:
`
`a data structure comprising a plurality of transport entity descriptors;
`
`an entity protection switch configured to switch between a working entity and a
`protection entity; and
`
`digital logic configured to select said working entity and said protection entity from
`said plurality of transport entity descriptors, comprising: logic configured to
`determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said
`protection entity;
`
`logic configured to determine an entity cost of said plurality of transport entity
`descriptors; and
`
`logic configured to reselect said working entity and said protection entity from said
`plurality of transport entity descriptors upon a reselection event,
`
`wherein said reselection event is selected from a group consisting of adding an
`entity to said plurality of transport entities, removing an entity from said plurality
`of transport entities, an operational status change for one of said plurality of
`transport entities, and a change in over all cost for one of said plurality of transport
`entities.
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 11
`
`Id. at 8:42-63 (claim 14).
`
`32.
`
`The subject matter described and claimed in the ’821 Patent, including the subject
`
`matter of claim 14, represented an improvement in computer and communications functionality,
`
`performance and efficiency, and was novel and not well-understood, routine, or conventional at
`
`the time of the invention of the ’821 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`Cisco had knowledge of the ’821 Patent, including at least as of March 2017
`
`when Orckit IP LLC (“Orckit IP”)—a prior owner of the Asserted Patents—initiated discussions
`
`with Cisco about its patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, as described and alleged
`
`below, and at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`34.
`
`Orckit is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,652,111 (“the ’111 Patent”) entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DEEP PACKET
`
`INSPECTION IN SOFTWARE DEFINED NETWORKS” (attached as Exhibit 4), including the
`
`right to sue and recover for infringement thereof. The ʼ111 Patent was duly and legally issued on
`
`May 12, 2020, naming Yossi Barsheshet, Simhon Doctori and Ronen Solomon as the inventors.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`The ʼ111 Patent has 54 claims: 2 independent claims and 52 dependent claims.
`
`The ʼ111 Patent presented novel and unconventional methods for (among other
`
`things) “deep packet inspection (DPI) in a software defined network (SDN), wherein the method
`
`is performed by a central controller of the SDN.” Ex. 4, ’111 Patent at 2:28-30. As an example,
`
`unlike the prior art, the inventions patented in the ’111 Patent enable the inspection or extraction
`
`of content from data packets belonging to a specific flow or session, thereby enabling security
`
`threat detection. Id. at 1:61-67. The patented inventions also decrease traffic delays between
`
`client and server, avoid overflowing the controller with data, and prevent the concentration of a
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 12
`
`single point of failure for data traffic. Id. at 2:1-7. One embodiment of the inventions of the ʼ111
`
`Patent is shown in Fig. 1, reproduced below:
`
`37.
`
`The claims of the ʼ111 Patent, including claim 1 (reproduced below), recite at
`
`least these inventive concepts of the ʼ111 Patent:
`
`
`
`1. A method for use with a packet network including a network node for
`transporting packets between first and second entities under control of a controller
`that is external to the network node, the method comprising:
`
`sending, by the controller to the network node over the packet network, an
`instruction and a packet-applicable criterion;
`
`receiving, by the network node from the controller, the instruction and the criterion;
`receiving, by the network node from the first entity over the packet network, a
`packet addressed to the second entity;
`
`checking, by the network node, if the packet satisfies the criterion;
`
`responsive to the packet not satisfying the criterion, sending, by the network node
`over the packet network, the packet to the second entity; and
`
`responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, sending the packet, by the network
`node over the packet network, to an entity that is included in the instruction and is
`other than the second entity.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 13
`
`Id. at 10:51-11:4 (claim 1).
`
`38.
`
`The subject matter described and claimed in the ʼ111 Patent, including the subject
`
`matter of claim 1, represented an improvement in computer and communications functionality,
`
`performance and efficiency, and was novel and not well-understood, routine, or conventional at
`
`the time of the invention of the ʼ111 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Cisco had knowledge of the ʼ111 Patent, including at least as of the filing of this
`
`Complaint.
`
`BACKGROUND OF CISCO’S INFRINGING CONDUCT
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Cisco Systems Inc. is a computer networking company that makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale in the United States, and/or imports into the United States, or has
`
`otherwise made, used, sold, offered for sale in the United States, and/or imported in the United
`
`States, routers, switches, and other networking equipment and software that infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`41.
`
`Cisco’s products that infringe the Asserted Patents (collectively, “Accused
`
`Products”) include at least the following:
`
`Patent
`
`’904
`’740
`’821
`’111
`
`Infringing Cisco Products
`Cisco 550X Series Stackable Managed Switches
`Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switches
`Cisco Network Convergence System 4000 Series
`Cisco ASR 1000 Series Aggregation Services Routers
`
`The above-listed Accused Products are non-limiting. Additional products may infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents, and the above-listed Accused Products may infringe additional patents or other
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 14
`
`42.
`
`Cisco infringes and continues to infringe the Asserted Patents by making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, without license or authority, the Accused Products as
`
`alleged herein.
`
`43.
`
`Cisco markets, advertises, offers for sale, and/or otherwise promotes the Accused
`
`Products and does so to induce, encourage, instruct, and aid one or more persons in the United
`
`States to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell their Accused Products. For example, Cisco
`
`advertises, offers for sale, and/or otherwise promotes the Accused Products on its website. Cisco
`
`further publishes and distributes data sheets, manuals, and guides for the Accused Products, as
`
`set forth in detail below. Therein, Cisco describes and touts the use of the subject matter claimed
`
`in the Asserted Patents, as described and alleged below.
`
`BACKGROUND OF CISCO’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVENTIONS DESCRIBED
`AND CLAIMED IN THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`44.
`
`Cisco has had knowledge of the Asserted Patents and the inventions described and
`
`claimed therein since at least around March 2017, when Orckit IP—a prior owner of the Asserted
`
`Patents—initiated discussions with Cisco about the Asserted Patents and the Accused Products.
`
`On March 20, 2017 Orckit IP sent a letter to Cisco concerning its “Patent Portfolio.” Ex. 5
`
`(“March 2017 Letter from Orckit IP to Cisco”). In that letter, Orckit IP notified Cisco that it:
`
`…owns a patent portfolio related to certain communications technologies
`developed by Orckit Communications Ltd. and Corrigent Systems Ltd. (f/k/a
`Orckit-Corrigent Ltd.). Orckit IP’s patent portfolio includes over 100 patents and
`pending patent applications. One or more of these patents and patent applications
`may be of interest to Cisco and require your company’s attention.
`
`Ex. 5 at 1.
`
`45.
`
`Orckit IP further identified several “Cisco switches and routers,” including certain
`
`of the Accused Products, which are accused of infringing the Asserted Patents. Id. Orckit IP
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 15
`
`concluded that “Cisco may be interested in obtaining a license to (or acquiring) the ʼ983 Patent
`
`and/or other patent assets from Orckit IP’s patent portfolio.” Id. at 2.
`
`46.
`
`On April 10, 2017, Cisco responded by letter and requested additional
`
`information. Ex. 6 (“April 2017 Letter from Cisco to Orckit IP”). On July 11, 2018, Orckit IP
`
`sent a second notice letter to Cisco, again concerning its “Patent Portfolio.” Ex. 7 (“July 2018
`
`Letter from Orckit IP to Cisco”). Orckit IP again notified Cisco that Orckit IP’s patent portfolio
`
`relates to Cisco’s switch and router products and concluded that “Cisco may be interested in
`
`obtaining a license to (or acquiring) the ’821 Patent, the ’928 Patent, and/or other patent assets
`
`from Orckit IP’s patent portfolio (in addition to the ’983 Patent, discussed above).” Ex. 7 at 2.
`
`47.
`
`On July 25, 2018, Cisco responded by letter and requested additional information.
`
`Ex. 8 (“July 2018 Letter from Cisco to Orckit IP”).
`
`48.
`
`On November 20, 2018, Orckit IP identified additional patents within its patent
`
`portfolio, including the asserted ʼ904 Patent. Ex. 9 (“November 2018 Email from Orckit IP to
`
`Cisco”). Orckit IP offered to send Cisco exemplary “evidence of use charts” relating to any of
`
`the patents, including the asserted ʼ904 patent. Ex. 9 at 2.
`
`49.
`
`Cisco has also had knowledge of the Asserted Patents and the inventions
`
`described and claimed therein since at least as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 6,680,904
`
`50.
`
`Cisco directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’904 Patent by making, using,
`
`offering for sale, sold, and/or importing products, including at least the Accused Products, that
`
`meet every limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of at least claim 1 of
`
`the ʼ904 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 16
`
`51. With knowledge of the ʼ904 Patent, Cisco has actively induced and continues to
`
`induce the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’904 Patent, including claim 1, in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by its customers and/or end users of their products, including at
`
`least the Accused Products, by selling, providing support for, providing instructions for use of,
`
`and/or otherwise encouraging its customers and/or end-users to directly infringe, either literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ʼ904 Patent, including claim
`
`1, with the intent to encourage those customers and/or end-users to infringe the ’904 Patent.
`
`52.
`
`By way of example, Cisco actively induces infringement of the ʼ904 Patent by
`
`encouraging, instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including but not
`
`limited to customers and end users who purchase, test, operate, and use Cisco’s products,
`
`including at least the Accused Products, to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell Cisco’s products,
`
`including at least the Accused Products, in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ʼ904
`
`Patent, including claim 1.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Cisco’s inducement of infringement, its customers and/or end users
`
`made, used, sold, or offered for sale, and continue to make, use, sell, or offer to sell Cisco’s
`
`products, including the Accused Products, in ways that directly infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ʼ904 Patent, including claim 1. Cisco had actual knowledge of its customers’ and/or end
`
`users’ direct infringement at least by virtue of its sales, instruction, and/or otherwise promotion
`
`of Cisco’s products, including the Accused Products, at least as of March 2017 when Orckit IP
`
`initiated discussions with Cisco about its patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, and no
`
`later than the filing of this Complaint.
`
`54. With knowledge of the ʼ904 Patent, Cisco has willfully, deliberately, and
`
`intentionally infringed the ʼ904 Patent, and continues to willfully, deliberately, and intentionally
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 16 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 17
`
`infringe the ʼ904 Patent. Cisco had actual knowledge of the ʼ904 Patent and Cisco’s
`
`infringement of the ʼ904 Patent as set forth above. After acquiring that knowledge, Cisco
`
`directly and indirectly infringed the ʼ904 Patent as set forth above. Cisco knew or should have
`
`known that its conduct amounted to infringement of the ʼ904 Patent at least because Orckit IP
`
`notified Cisco of the ʼ904 Patent and its infringement of the ʼ904 Patent as set forth above.
`
`55.
`
`Cisco will continue to infringe the ʼ904 Patent unless and until it is enjoined by
`
`this Court. Cisco, by way of its infringing activities, has caused and continues to cause Orckit to
`
`suffer damages in an amount to be determined, and has caused and is causing Orckit irreparable
`
`harm. Orckit has no adequate remedy at law against Cisco’s acts of infringement and, unless it is
`
`enjoined from its infringement of the ʼ904 Patent, Orckit will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
`
`56.
`
`Orckit is entitled to recover from Cisco damages at least in an amount adequate to
`
`compensate for its infringement of the ʼ904 Patent, which amount has yet to be determined,
`
`together with interest and costs determined by the Court.
`
`57.
`
`Orckit has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the
`
`ʼ904 Patent.
`
`COUNT TWO: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,545,740
`
`58.
`
`Cisco directly infringes at least claim 17 of the ’740 Patent by making, using,
`
`offering for sale, sold, and/or importing products, including at least the Accused Products, that
`
`meet every limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of at least claim 17 of
`
`the ʼ740 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`59. With knowledge of the ʼ740 Patent, Cisco has actively induced and continues to
`
`induce the direct infringement of one or more claims of the ʼ740 Patent, including claim 17, in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by its customers and/or end users of their products, including at
`
`
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1010
`Cisco v. Orckit – IPR2023-00554
`Page 17 of 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00276-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 07/22/22 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: 18
`
`least the Accused Products, by selling, providing support for, providing instructions for use of,
`
`and/or otherwise encouraging its customers and/or end-users to directly infringe, either literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ʼ740 Patent, including claim
`
`17, with the intent to encourage those customers and/or end-users to infringe the ʼ740 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`By way of example, Cisco actively induces infringement of the ʼ740 Patent by
`
`encouraging, instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including but not
`
`limited to customers and end users who purchase, test, operate, and use Cisco’s products,
`
`including at least the Accused Products, to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell Cisco’s products,
`
`including at least the Accused Products, in a manner that infringes at least one claim of the ʼ740
`
`Patent, including claim 17.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Cisco’s inducement of infringement, its customers and/or end users
`
`made