Cisco v. Arista, 944 ITC Complaint

KIRKLAND 8.
ELLIS LLP
AND AFFILIATEDPARTNEl$HlPS
655 Fieenth Street, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20005
D. Sean Trainor
To Call Writer Directly:
(202) 8795000
(202)879-5229
d sean.trainor@kirk|and.com
Facsimile:
Dci-
vwwv.kirk|and.com
-'
' -5200
NcMr:Ei
December 19, 2014
BY HANDDELIVERY
K-%0
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
Li
Om "T"19
Secretary to the Commission
Int!I Sticiitiary' '
U.S. International Trade Commission

500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
Re:
'3 e
mm'Ss'"
In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

ComponentsThereof(I), ITC InvestigationNo: 337-TA-_
Dear Secretary Barton:
Enclosed for ling on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Complainant") are the following
documents in support of Complainants request that the Commission commence an investigation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 337 of the Tariff Act or 1930, as amended, l9 U.S.C.
1337. Please note that Condential Exhibits 17, 48, 49, and 52 and Condential Appendices N,
Ex. 1 and N, Ex. 33 to the Complaint contain Condential Business Information and pursuant to
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a request for condential treatment of the
information in those exhibits accompanies this ling. Accordingly, Complainant submits the
following:
l.
One original and nine (9) paper copies of Complainants non-condential
Veried Complaint (including an original and nine (9) copies of this cover letter,
Complainants public interest statement, and Complainants request for condential treatment of
condential exhibits), of which eight (8) copies are for the Corrunission and one (1) copy is for
service on the Proposed Respondent.
2.
Two (2) copies of the accompanying condential exhibits and appendices on
separate CDs, of which one (l) copy is for the Commission, and one (1) copy is for service on
the Proposed Respondent.
3.
Two (2) copies of the accompanying non-condential exhibits and appendices on
separate CDs, of which one (l) copy is for the Commission and one (1) copy is for service on the
Proposed Respondents. Certied copies of the asserted patents, le histories and assigmnent
Chlcago
Hong Kong
London
Los Angeles
Munich
New York
Palo Alto
San Francisco
Shanghai
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATEDPARTN EPSHIPS
records from the United States Patent & Trademark Ofce in the manner received from the PTO
are included in the Appendices.
I am available at your convenience to answer any questions. Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Res
\
D. Sean Trainor
__
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATEDPARTNEIGHIPS
655 Fifteenth Street. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005
D. Sean Trainor
To Call Writer Directly:
(202) 879-5229
d.sean.trainor@kirk|and.com
(202) 879-5000
Facsimile:
(202) 879-5200
vwvw.kirkland.com
December 19, 2014
BY HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
U.S. Lntemational Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Room 112
Re:
In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Components Thereof (1),ITC Investigation No: 337-TA-___
Dear Secretary Barton:

Pursuant to U.S. International Trade Commission Rules 210.5 and 210.6, 19 C.F.R.
210.5-210.6, Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Complainant") respectfully requests that the Commission
grant condential treatment to the condential business information contained in Condential
Exhibits 17, 48, 49, and 52 and Condential Appendices N, Ex. 1 and N, Ex. 33 to
Complainants Veried Complaint.
The information for which condential treatment is requested is proprietary commercial

infonnation not otherwise publically available. Specically, the condential information relates
to detailed condential business records, licenses, covenants, employee data, expenditures,
investments, revenue, sales and/or other nancial information and data of commercial value to
Complainant that has been submitted to support Complainant's domestic industry allegations and
comply with other Commission requirements.
The information described above qualies as condential business infonnation pursuant

to Rule 201 .6(a) because:
1. It is not available to the general public;
2. Unauthorized disclosure of such infonnation could cause substantial hann to the

competitive position of Complainant; and
3. The disclosure of the information could impair the Commission's ability to obtain
infonnation necessary to perform its statutory function.
Chicago
Hong Kong
London
Los Angeles
Munich
New York
Palo Alto
San Francisco
Shanghai
KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

AND AFFILIATEDPARTNEISHIPS
I certify that substantially identical information is not reasonably available to the public
R pect/il ,
D. Sean Trainor
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED
SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (I)
Investigation N0.
STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Pursuant to International Trade Commission (Commission) Rule 2l0.8(b),
Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) respectfully submits this separate Statement On The
Public Interest with respect to the remedial orders it seeks against Respondent Arista Networks,
lnc. (Respondent).
The relief sought by Cisco would serve the strong public interest in
protecting signicant intellectual property rights of Cisco, an innovative corporation

headquartered in the United States, and will have no adverse effect on public health and welfare,
competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. Cisco stands ready to
supply the needs of U.S. customers with networking products that practice each of the Cisco
patents. Moreover, there are many other companies supplying competing products in the U.S.
Accordingly, this is not a case where the Commission should delegate public interest fact-nding
to the ALJ, thereby requiring the Commission, the parties, and the public to undergo the time and
expense for a Recommended Determination by the ALJ.

Cisco seeks a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) specically directed to
Respondent excluding from entry into the U.S. certain networking equipment and components
and software therein (Accused Products) that infringe six important Cisco patents: U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,200,145; 7,162,537; 8,356,296; 7,290,164; 7,340,597; and 6,741,592 (the Asserted
Patents).
Cisco also seeks a cease and desist order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(1) prohibiting
Respondent from marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, warehousing inventory for
distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing infringing products into the U.S.

The Commissions granting of these orders would serve the publics strong interest in
protecting IP rights.
Respondent has unlawfully used a number of important networking
technologies developed by Cisco, including without limitation technologies that Respondents
own founders developed while at Cisco.
Indeed, one of Respondents founders previously
worked at Cisco and is a named inventor on one of the Asserted Patents. Cisco made signicant
investments in research and development, personnel, and engineering hours to support these
innovations.
Cisco also made substantial investments in labor and capital in the U.S. in
connection with products practicing the Asserted Patents.
Granting the orders sought by
Complainant is necessary to protect these substantial investments, as well as innovation, and the
domestic industry they support. Aristas infringement sties innovation and should be stopped.
Moreover, granting these orders would have no adverse effect on public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. Cisco, together with many
other competitors in the market for the Accused Products, supply large quantities of like or
directly competitive products in the U.S. and could readily replace the Accused Products in a
commercially reasonable amount of time if the ITC excludes these products. Cisco brings this
action against one respondent on technologies proprietary to Cisco. This, together with the
nature of the Accused Products, ensures that neither consumers of the Accused Products nor the
market will be unduly impacted by the relief sought.
The Requested Relief Is In Accord With The Public Interest

Cisco, an IT company and worldwide leader in developing and implementing innovative
networking technologies, employs thousands of networking engineers and invests billions of

dollars annually in R&D focused on creating new networking technologies.
Decades after
Ciscos founding, despite knowing that Ciscos technologies are protected by Ciscos patents,
including patents issued to Respondents founders as employees of Cisco, Respondent
incorporated Ciscos technologies into its products.
signicant harm to Cisco and innovation.
Respondents actions have caused
If Respondents unauthorized use of Cisco
technologies allows it to avoid what is needed to develop new technologies, others will be
encouraged to infringe proprietary technologies rather than hire engineers, invest in innovation,
and develop new technologies in the U.S. The Commission has recognized a strong public
interest in enforcing IP rights and that interest is implicated here.
See Certain Baseband
Processor Chips and Chipsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Commn Op., 2007 ITC LEXIS 621 at
*240 (June 19, 2007).
(1)
The Accused Products Are Used For Data, Voice, and Video Distribution
The Accused Products include hardware, such as switches and routers, and their physical
components and software, such as operating systems and other applications running on these
platfonns. These products are used in the U.S. by individuals and businesses to transport data,
voice, and video over networks.
(2)
N0 Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare Concerns Are Implicated By The

Requested Remedial Orders
The requested remedial orders would not have an adverse impact on the public health,
safety, or welfare in the United States; indeed, there is no indication that the Accused Products
implicate public health, safety or welfare. As such, excluding the Accused Products would not,
for example, leave medical needs unlled, impede scientic research, or interfere with important
national interests.
Moreover, as set forth below, there are ample networking technologies
currently available in the United States, including those supplied by Cisco and other competitors,
which would not be subject to the limited exclusion order. Cisco and many other equipment
vendors sell competing networking equipment in the United States and, as described below,
could readily meet the needs of any consumers of the Accused Products.
(3)
Like Or Directly Competitive Articles That Cisco And Other Equipment

Vendors Sell Are Readily Available To Replace The Accused Products
Ciscos portfolio of networking products includes products that are directly competitive
with the Accused Products, including products that Cisco relies upon for its domestic industry
and that practice the Asserted Patents. Ciscos products are readily available replacements for
the Accused Products, if they were excluded. Moreover, the networking industry is a highly
competitive market with intense competition. Many major established suppliers such as Cisco,
HP, Alcatel-Lucent, and Juniper Networks compete for market share, and new suppliers such as
Respondent have entered this market in recent years. It has been reported that Respondent has a
small market share, and consumer demand for excluded products could be readily addressed by a
number of existing suppliers, including Cisco. See Declaration of Collin Sacks Regarding
Ciscos Domestic Industry (Sacks Decl.) l4 (discussing the intense competition present in the
networking industry and noting it has been reported that A1-istacomprises no more than a small
percentage of the Ethernet switching market).
(4)
Cisco Has The Capacity To Replace The Volume Of Articles Subject To The
Requested Remedial Orders In A Commercially Reasonable Time
Cisco is the world leader in networking teclmologies with $27.8 billion in revenues from
sales of products and services in the Americas. See Cisco 2014 Annual Report at 44. Through
its existing operations, Cisco has the capital resources and supply-chain capabilities to quickly
4
scale production to meet U.S. consumer demand for directly competitive products in a
commercially reasonable time, if the ITC excludes the Accused Products. See Sacks Decl. 114.
Moreover, Respondent is the only party subject to the limited exclusion order, leaving not just
Cisco but other competitors free to meet U.S. consumer demand for excluded products. See
Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereo Inv. No. 337-TA-744,
C0mmn Op. at 30 (June 5, 2012) (The record shows that there are numerous other sources for
[the articles] and thus, exclusion of the infringing articles will not have a signicant impact on
competitive conditions in the United States economy or on U.S. consumers).
(5)
The Requested Remedial Order Would Only Minimally Impact Consumers
Although the requested remedial orders may have some limited impact on consumers, the
networking industry is highly competitive, and has a demonstrated capacity to handle rapid
growth and technological change. Cisco supplies directly competitive networking products in
the U.S. that can readily replace Resp0ndents infringing Accused Products, minimizing any
potential consumer impact. Furthermore, given the nature of the accused networking products,
the products of Cisco and other suppliers could readily replace the Accused Products if excluded,
eliminating inconvenience or costs to consumers. The Commission does not require that there be
no public impact of remedial relief, only that such impact cannot outweigh the strong public
interest in enforcing intellectual property rights. See Certain Baseband Processor Chips, 2007
ITC LEXIS 621 at *24O. While the requested remedial orders may reduce consumer choice, this
is not a basis for denying relief. See Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications
Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710, Commn Op., 2011 ITC LEXIS 2874 at
*111 (Dec. 29, 2011). Here, the only public impact of the remedial relief is benecial: without
the relief requested by Cisco, signicant domestic industry and innovation will be harmed.
December 19, 2014
Steveh Cherny
Brian Paul Gearing
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

555 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15th Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 879-5000
Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
Counselfor Complainant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN NETWORK DEVICES, RELATED
SOFTWARE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF (I)
Investigation No
COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER

SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. AS AMENDED
COMPLAINANT
PROPOSED RESPONDENT
Cisco Systems, Inc.

170 W Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
Phone: (408) 526-4000
Arista Networks, Inc.

5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California 95054
Phone: (408) 547-5500
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

Steven Chemy
Brian Paul Gearing

Phone: (212) 446-4800 | Fax: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

Phone: (415) 439-1400 | Fax: (415)439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

Phone: (213) 680-8400 IFax: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15 Street. N.W.
Phone: (202) 379-5000 pFax: (202) 879-5200
TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
Description
1.
Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537.
2.
Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 8,356,296.
3.
4.
Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 7,340,597.
5.
6.
7.
Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent N0. 7,162,537.
8.
Certied copy of assignment records for U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Connnation of patent assignment.
14.
Receipt from USPTO of recordation of patent assignment.
15.
Cisco Systems, Inc. 2014 Annual Report.
16.
Chart Depicting How Cisc0s Asserted Patents Are Practiced by Ciscos

Products
17.
List of licensees and parties in receipt of a covenant not to assert for

Ciscos Asserted Patents (CONFIDENTIAL).
18.
U.S. Patent N0. 7,162,537 Infringement Claim Chart.
19.
U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296 Infringement Claim Chart.
20.
21.
U.S. Patent N0. 6,741,592 Infringement Claim Chart.

Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2014.
Arista Networks, Inc. Fonn S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014.
Arista Press Release stating Studio Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T
series switches, July 18, 2013.
Studio Test Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis Missouri company,
captured September 15, 2014.
Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series
switch, October 2, 2013.
Cloudera website showing it is a California company, captured September

15, 2014.
Arista Customer Case Study on America Internet Services use of Arista

7048T and 7050S switches, 2012.
Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista

7048, 7050, 7150 series switches, 2012.
Arista Press Release and Customer Testimonials that Headlands
Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19, 2012.
Headlands Technologies website showing it is a California and Illinois

company, captured September 15, 2014.
Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 7280E series switches, July 15,
2014.
Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and Transmission

Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300/7300X series
switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014.
CDW website advertisement for Arista switches, captured September 15,
2014.
Import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in

California.
Receipts of purchase of Arista Products.
Photos of purchased product of Arista Products.

2
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Code for Accused Products.

Complaint, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc, Case No. 14-cv
5344.
Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim

showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States
(available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRPA2P.IsiI)
Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim

showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop 2013 in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States
(available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBYvzNdT22k)
Screenshots from video showing Arista 7500E series product at Interop
2013 in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KkMiIzrXvg)
Ingram Micro to Distribute Arista Products in United States
Arista Redenes Cloud Networking with 7000 X Series

Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company
Declaration of Collin Sacks (CONFIDENTIAL).

U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 Domestic Industry Chart (CONFIDENTIAL).
U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296 Domestic Industry Chart.
U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 Domestic Industry Chart (CONFIDENTIAL).

Fortune Magazint-:sBest Companies 2014.
Tight battle for 2nd place aer Cisco in Infonetics enterprise networking
infrastructure scorecard, INFONETICS RESEARCH, July 24, 2014.
Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switch Data Sheet.
Cisco Catalyst 6500-E Series Chassis Data Sheet.
Cisco Catalyst 6880-X Series Extensible Fixed Aggregation Switch Data Sheet
3
Cisco Catalyst Switch Module 3110 for IBM BladeCenter Data Sheet.
Cisco Nexus 3548 and 3524 Switches Data Sheet.
Cisco Nexus 5600 Platform Switches Data Sheet.

Cisco Nexus 6001 Switch Data Sheet.
Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches Data Sheet.

Cisco Nexus 9500 Platform Switches Data Sheet.
Cisco ASR 901 Series Aggregation Services Routers Data Sheet.


Cisco CRS 16-Slot Single-Shelf System Data Sheet.
Cisco Industrial Ethemet 3000 Layer 2/Layer 3 Series Switches Data Sheet
Cisco 2520 Connected Grid Switch Data Sheet.
Cisco XR 12000 Series and Cisco 12000 Series Routers.
APPENDICES
Appendix Item
Description
Certied copy of le wrapper for U.S. Patent N0. 7,162,537.
Certied copy of le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296.

Certied copy of le wrapper for U.S. Patent N0. 7,290,164.

Certied copy of le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,145,

Technical references cited in le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537
Technical references cited in le wrapper for U.S. Patent N0. 8,356,296

Technical references cited in le wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597
Exhibits for charted Arista Products.

Exhibits for charted Cisco Products.
Accused Product Data Sheets.
Compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training

advertisements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. ....1
II.
COMPLAINANT ................................................................................................................. ....3
III.
THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT ...................................................................................... ..5
IV.
THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ...................................................... ....5
V.
THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

INVENTIONS ................................................................................................................. ..
A NontechnicalDescriptionof the 537Patent
B
Nontechnical Description of the 296 Patent ........................................................... ..
Nontechnical Description of the 164 Patent ........................................................... ..
NontechnicalDescriptionof the 597Patent

Nontechnical Description of the 592 Patent............................................................ ..
Nontechnical Description of the 145 Patent .........
Foreign Counterparts ................................
Licensees .................................................................................................................. ..
VI.
UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENTPATENT

INFRINGEMENT............................................................................................................ .. 12
A Infringement of the 537 Patent ............................................................................... .. 12
B
Infringement of the 296 Patent ............................................................................... .. 15
Infringementof the 164Patent
17
Infringement of the S97 Patent ......................................................... ..

Infringement of the 592 Patent .......................................................... ..
Infringement of the 145 Patent ........................... ..
21
23
I9
VII.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE............................ ..26
VIII.
HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS ........................................... ..30
IX. RELATED LITIGATION .................................................................................................. ..30

X.
THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ...................................... ..
A. CiscosPracticeof CiscosAssertedPatents
B.
XI.
30
31
United States Investments in the Domestic Industry ............................................... ..32

33
1. Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) .................. ..
34
2. Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B).........
35
3. Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C) ................... ..
RELIEF REQUESTED ..................................................................................... ..
37
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This Complaint is led by Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco or Complainant) under
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the unlawful
importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, the sale within
the United States after importation, and/or the use within the United States after importation by
the proposed Respondent of certain networking equipment and components and software thereof
that infringe certain claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,162,537 (the 537 patent), 8,356,296
(the 296 patent), 7,290,164 (the 164 patent), 7,340,597 (the 597 patent), 6,741,592 (the
S92 patent), and 7,200,145 (the 145 patent) (collectively, Ciscos Asserted Patents) either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

2.
Ciseo is an information technology (IT) company and is the worldwide leader in
developing and implementing the networking technologies that enable our interconnected world
and the Intemet of Everything. Cisco employs thousands of the worlds brightest networking
engineers at its headquarters in San Jose, California, and elsewhere, and invests billions of
dollars annually in research and development focused on creating the future of networking
technologies. These investments make possible a broad range of products that enable seamless,
secure commtmication among businesses of all sizes, institutions, telecommunications
companies and other service providers, and individuals. As part of its IT business, Cisco sells
innovative networking products that transport data, voice, and video Within buildings, across
campuses, and around the world.
3.
The proposed Respondent Arista Networks, Inc. (Arista or Resp0ndent)
develops, manufactures, imports, sells for importation into the United States, sells after
importation into the United States, and uses after importation into the United States networking
equipment and components and software therein, such as switches and their components,
operating systems, and/or other software (collectively, the Accused Products). As set forth in
Section Vll below, the Accused Products are manufactured abroad in locations such as China
and Malaysia, and are imported for sale into the United States.
The Accused Products
incorporate, without any license from Cisco, many technologies developed by Cisco and
protected by patents owned by Cisco. The patents-in-suit and their asserted claims (independent
claims in bold) are listed below:
Parantnum
ii 411
bet
AA
537 Patent
296 Patent
164 Patent
S97 Patent
~YA'ssertet1jiClaih_iS[5
5if
A'51"7
t ticlnaepenaearl<:1aimiI1iY.Ba1a)i.r6
S92 Patent
1-2, 8-9, 10-11, and 17-19

1, 6, 12
1, 5-6, 9, 18
1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, 84
86
6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24
145 Patent
1, 3, 5, 7,8-10,11,13,l5,
16-17, 18,
19-21, 22-24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29, 33-35,

36-37, 39-46
4.
Certied copies of Ciscos Asserted Patents are included at Exhibits 1-6. Cisco
owns all rights, title, and interest in each of Cisc0s Asserted Patents, including the right to sue
for infringement. Certied copies of the assignment records for each of Ciscos Asserted Patents
are included at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in Exhibits 13 and 14, additional assignments and
recordation of the assignments were completed recently, and certied copies of the updated
assignment records are not yet available from the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce.
The updated certied copies of the assignment records will be supplied when available from the
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce. See Exhibits 13 and 14.
5.
A domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
United States relating to articles protected by Ciscos Asserted Patents, including signicant
2
investment in plant and equipment, signicant employment of labor and capital, and substantial
investment in the exploitation of the inventions claimed in Cisc0s Asserted Patents, including
through engineering, research, and development.

6.
Cisco seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C.
1337(d) barring from entry into the United States directly-infringing and/or indirectly
infringing networking equipment and components and software manufactured, sold, or used by
or on behalf of Respondent. Cisco further seeks as relief a permanent cease and desist order
under 19 U.S.C. 1337(f) prohibiting Respondent from marketing, distributing, selling, offering
for sale, warehousing inventory for distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing into the
United States infringing networking equipment and/or their components and software.
II.
COMPLAINANT
7.
Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, having
its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California, 95134. Cisco is
the assignee of Ciscos Asserted Patents, with the right to sue for all infringement thereof.
8.
Founded in 1984, Cisco is an IT company that has become the worldwide leading
supplier of, among other things, networking products. Cisco has signicant operations in the
United States, including with respect to Ciscos Asserted Patents.
Cisco has research,
development, testing, engineering, manufacturing, assembly, packaging, installation, customer

service, repair, product support, sales and marketing, and business ofces in more than 100
United States locations, and has its headquarters in San Jose, California. Cisco employs about
35,000 employees in the United States nearly as many as in the rest of the world combined.
Cisco also works with tens-of-thousands of contractors, vendors, and interns in the United States.
Additional information concerning Cisco can be obtained from its 2014 Annual Report at Exhibit
15.
9.
Ciscos networking products, specically Ciscos routing and switching products,
use the inventions claimed in Ciscos Asserted Patents. As explained in more detail in the chart
included as Exhibit 16, one or more of Ciscos Asserted Patents is implemented in the Cisco
Nexus switches (including at least the Nexus 3000, 5000, 6000, 7000, and 9000 series), the Cisco
Catalyst switches (including at least the Catalyst 4500, 6500, and 6800 series), the XR 12000
Series Router, the Cisco Carrier Routing Systems (CRS), the Cisco Aggregation Services
Routers (ASR) (including at least the ASR 901, 1000, and 9000), the Cisco Catalyst Blade
Switches (CBS) (including at least the CBS 3110-40), the Cisco Metro Ethernet (ME) switches
(including at least the Cisco ME 4900 series), the Cisco Connected Grid Switches (CGS)
(including at least the CGS 2520 series), and the Cisco Industrial Internet switches (including at
least the 3000 series).
10.
Cisco researched and developed the technologies that are protected by Ciscos
Asserted Patents. Cisco is the full owner of all rights and title to all of Cisc0s Asserted Patents.
Certied copies of the relevant assignment records are attached at Exhibits 7-12. As shown in
Exhibits 13 and 14, additional assignments and recordation of the assigmnents were completed
recently, and certied copies of the updated assignment records are not yet available from the
United States Patent and Trademark Ofce. The updated certied copies of the assigmnent
records will be supplied when available from the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce.
See Exhibits 13 and 14.
ll.
Cisco has made and continues to make signicant investments in the design and
development of products protected by Ciscos Asserted Patents. In the United States, Cisco
exploits the technologies covered by Ciscos Asserted Patents through various activities,
including substantial research and development, engineering, manufacturing, assembly,

installation, and product and warranty support among others, as discussed more fully in Section
X below. In connection with the exploitation of these technologies, Cisco has made signicant
investments in the United States in facilities, equipment, labor, and capital, also as described in
Section X below.
III.
THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT

12.
On information and belief, Arista Networks, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 5453
Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054.
13.
On infonnation and belief, Arista develops, manufactures, imports, sells for
importation into the United States, sells after importation into the United States, and/or uses after
importation into the United States networking equipment and components and software therein,
including switches, operating systems, and other software, as further described in Section VI
below.
IV.
THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE

14.
The technologies at issue relate to networking equipment and certain components
and software therein.
15.
Specically, the Accused Products include network devices, such as switches, and
their components, and software, such as operating systems and other software. These switches,
components, operating systems, and other software are imported into the United States and in
turn used by businesses, institutions, service providers, and other entities in the United States to
supply networks and transport data, voice, and video. By way of example, the Accused Products
may be deployed in data centers or dedicated computing center environments in connection with
an organizations servers, associated data, and/or IT applications and between such items and
other networks such as the Internet.
The Accused Products are sold for importation into,
imported into, sold after importation into, and used within the United States by or on behalf of
Respondent.
V.
THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE

INVENTIONS
16.
As set forth below, Cisco owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in
and to each of Ciscos Asserted Patents. See Exhibits 7-12.
l7.
Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.12(c), copies of the certied prosecution
histories of each of Ciscos Asserted Patents have been submitted with this Complaint as
Appendices A-F. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.12(c), the cited references for each of
Ciscos Asserted Patents also have been submitted with this Complaint as Appendices G-L.
A.
18.
Nontechnical Description of the 537 Patentl

United States Patent No. 7,162,537, entitled Method and System for Externally
Managing Router Conguration Data in Conjunction With a Centralized Database, issued on

January 9, 2007 and lists Pradeep Kathail as its inventor. The 537 patent expires on January 6,
2020. The S37 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 09/479,607.
l9.
The S37 patent contains 22 claims, including 3 independent claims and 19
dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondents networking equipment and components and
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims l0-ll and l7
1 These descriptions and any other descriptions within this Complaint are for illustrative
purposes only. Nothing contained within this Complaint is intended to, either implicitly or
explicitly, express any position regarding the proper construction of any claim of Ciscos
Asserted Patents.
6
19, and method claims 1-2 and 8-9 of the 537 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents.

20.
The S37 patent generally relates to a system and method for managing data in
networking devices and networking operating systems. The 537 patent can, among other things,
improve the performance and/or increase the resiliency of switching devices. In an aspect of the
invention, the 537 patent provides an apparatus and method for extemally managing networking
data in conjunction with a database system called sysDB.
The sysDB can provide a
centralized storage and retrieval facility for conguration data that is used by subsystems of a
networking operating system. ln one aspect of the invention, certain conguration data can be
managed extemally from the sysDB by one of the client subsystems. Among other things, the
invention of the 537 may enhance a networking devices ability to store and retrieve networking
device congiration data while allowing the various subsystems of that device to remain
modular and independent.
B.
Nontechnical Description of the 296 Patent
21.
United States Patent No. 8,356,296, entitled Method and System for Minimal
Disruption During Software Upgrade or Reload of a Network Device, issued on January 15,
2013 and lists John Thomas Welder, Ratheesh Krishna Vadhyar, Sudhir Rao, and Thomas W.
Uban as its inventors. The 296 patent expires on January 26, 2024. The 296 patent issued
from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 12/852,265, led on August 6, 2010. The 296 patent claims
priority to U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/646,453, led on August 21, 2003.
22.
The 296 patent contains 18 claims, including 3 independent claims and 15
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claim 12 and method
claims 1 and 6 of the 296 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.
23.
The 296 patent relates generally to network devices, and more particularly to a
system and method for reloading and/or upgrading software in network devices with minimal
disruption. The 296 patent can, among other things, improve the availability and reduce the
downtime of a network device during a software upgrade. In an aspect of the invention, the 296
patent provides novel methods and apparatuses that copy certain data to a predetermined region
of memory, temporarily suspend software operations associated with one or more data plane
components of a network device during a software reset, and then, before the communication
session is terminated, recover execution of the software operations. Among other things, the
invention of the 296 Patent can allow network devices to maintain the continuity of
communication sessions and be upgraded with minimal delays or network effects.
C.
Nontechnical Description of the I64 Patent
24.
United States Patent No. 7,290,164, entitled Method of Reverting to a Recovery
Conguration in Response to Device Faults, issued on October 30, 2007 and lists Andrew G.
Harvey, John Ng, and Gilbert R. Woodman, III as its inventors. The I64 patent expires on June
7, 2025. The I64 patent issued from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/792,946, led on March 3,
2004.
25.
The l64 patent contains 38 claims, including 5 independent claims and 33
dependent claims. Cisco asserts that Respondenfs networking equipment and components and
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claim 18 and method
claims I, 5, 6, 9 of the I64 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.
26.
The 164 patent relates generally to a system and method for provisioning
network devices and to improved capabilities for changing the conguration of network devices.
The l64 patent can, among other things, improve performance while reducing the time it takes
to congure a device. ln an aspect of the invention, the I64 patent provides novel methods and
apparatuses for changing the conguration of network devices that include a recovery
conguration for a network device to revert to in the event the network device has a loss of
connectivity resulting from the conguration change.
Among other things, the invention
supports the recovery of comiectivity by a networking device where its conguration le is lost
or modied.
D.
Nontechnical Description of the 597 Patent
27.
United States Patent No. 7,340,597, entitled Method and Apparatus for Securing
a Communications Device Using a Logging Module, issued on March 4, 2008 and lists David
R. Cheriton as its inventor. The S97 patent expires on January 26, 2026. The 597 patent issued
from U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 10/664,551, led on September 19, 2003.
28.
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims l, l4, 15, 29,
71-73, 84-86 and method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84-86 of the 597 patent, directly or
indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

29.
The 597 patent relates generally to the eld of information networks and
communication devices, and more particularly, to a system and method for securing a
communications device using a logging module. The 597 patent can, among other things,
improve the security of a networking device. In an aspect of the invention, the 597 patent
provides a logging module coupled to a subsystem of the device which detects and
9
communicates conguration changes of the subsystem. Among other things, the invention can
improve the security of a networking device without placing unrealistic demands on the system,
either in terms of complexity or restricted congurability.
E.
Nontechnical Description of the S92Patent
30.
United States Patent No. 6,741,592, entitled Private VLANs, issued on May 25,
2004 and lists Thomas J. Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as its
inventors. The S92 patent expires on May 22, 2020. The S92 patent issued from U.S. Patent
App. Ser. No. 09/575,774, led on May 22, 2000.

31.
The S92 patent contains 26 claims, including 13 independent claims and 13
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 6-10, 20-21,
and 23-24 and method claims 17-18 of the S92 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents.

32.
The S92 patent relates generally to networking devices and Virtual Local Area
Networks (VLANs), and more particularly to secondary VLANs. The S92 patent can, among
other things, allow for improved protection and privacy of trafc through the network device. In
an aspect of the invention, the 592 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for separating
packet trafc using a switch by dening three new types of ports, promiscuous ports,
isolated ports, and community ports, and three new types of VLANs intemal to the switch,
primary VLANs, isolated VLANs, and community VLANs. Among other things, the S92
patent can keep the packet traffic of different ports separate and may assist scalability to a larger
number of ports in the network.
10
F.
Nontechnical Description of the I45 Patent
33.
United States Patent No. 7,200,145, entitled Private VLANs, issued on April 3,
2007 and lists Thomas J. Edsall, Marco Foschiano, Michael Fine, and Thomas Nosella as its
inventors. The l45 patent expires on May 22, 2020. The 145 patent issued from U.S. Patent
App. Ser. No. 10/840,212, led on May 5, 2004.
34.
software therein, and activities relating thereto, infringe at least apparatus claims 3, 5, 7-11, 13,
15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 and method claims 1, 18-28, 40, and 43 of the 145
patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

35.
The I45 patent relates generally to networking devices and Virtual Local Area
Networks (VLANs), and more particularly to secondary VLANs. The 145 patent can, among
other things, allow for improved protection and privacy of trafc through the network device. In
an aspect of the invention, the 145 patent provides novel methods and apparatuses for separating
packet traffic using a router by dening three new types of ports, promiscuous ports, isolated
ports, and community ports, and three new types of VLANs intemal to the router, primary
VLANs, isolated VLANs, and community VLANs. Among other things, the 145 patent
can keep the packet trafc of different ports separate and may assist scalability to a larger
number of ports in the network.
G.
Foreign Counterparts
36.
Cisco is aware of no foreign counterparts or foreign counterpart applications
corresponding to Ciscos Asserted Patents.
ll
H.
Licensees
37.
Condential Exhibit 17' includes a list of entities that are either licensed under
Ciscos Asserted Patents or have received a covenant not to assert from Cisco with respect to
Ciscos Asserted Patents.
VI.
UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENTPATENT

INFRINGEMENT
38.
Respondents have engaged in unlawful and unfair acts including the sale for
importation into the United States, importation into the United States, sale within the United
States after importation, and/or use within the United States after importation of the Accused
Products that infringe one or more of the following claims (independent claims in bold):
Patent Number
Asserted Claims
53;;
er; A
S37 Patent
296 Patent
164 Patent
S97 Patent
(IndependentiClaimsiIn;B0ld)
1-2, 3-9, 10-11, and 17-19
1, 6, 12
1, 5-6, 9, 18
1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, 84
S92 Patent
l45 Patent
86
6-1O, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24
1, 3, 5, 7, 8-10, 11, 13, 15, 16-17, 18,
19-21, 22-24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29, 33-35,

36-37, 39-46
A.
Infringement of the 537 Patent
39.
On information and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after
importation into the United States, and/or uses after importation into the United States Accused
Products that infringe the 537 patent.
40.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims
10-11 and 17-19, and method claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 of the 537 patent. Respondent directly and
indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the 537 patent by importing, selling
12
for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States
the Accused Products. See Exhibit 18 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent N0. 7,162,537).
The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 10, 11, and 17-19 at the
time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing,
selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United
States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed
to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 1, 2, 8, and 9,
and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.
In
addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims
by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation
into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010,
7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 728OE, 7300, 7300X, and 750OE series switches.
See
Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets).
41.
Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 8-1 1, and 17-19 of
the 537 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their
networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe at least claims 1,
2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the 537 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 537 patent at
least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 537 patent against
Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further,
having been founded by fonner Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco
personnel, Respondent is aware of the 537 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of
13
the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 537 patent with specic intent to
do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to
perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 8-11,
and 17-19 of the 537 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white
papers, and training advertisements).

42.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of
the 537 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their
networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for
use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 537 patent at least as of
December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 537 patent against Respondent in
the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been
founded by fonner Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel,
Respondent is aware of the 537 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge
that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the 537
patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
43.
Claim charts comparing the 537 patents asserted independent claims 1, 10, and
19 to Resp0ndents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 18. Representative Product 7l5OS
52, charted at Exhibit 18, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are attached at
Exhibit 38; photos showing a manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at
Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
14
B.
44.
45.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claim l2
and method claims l and 6 of the 296 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at
least claims l, 6, and 12 of the 296 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. See
Exhibit 19 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent No. 8,356,296). The Accused Products
satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims l2 at the time of importation, and Respondent
directly infringes this apparatus claim by importing, selling for importation, selling after
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. The
Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the perfonnance of and
automatically perform all steps of method claims 1 and 6, and Respondent directly infringes
these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after
importation into the United States the Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below,
Respondent indirectly infringes each of these method claims by importing, selling for
importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the
Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7300, 73-00X, and 75O0E series
switches. See Appendix O (Accused Products data sheets).
46.
Respondent actively induces others, including purchasers Who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the 296
patent.
On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their
15
6, and 12 of the 296 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 296 patent at least as of
December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 296 patent against Respondent in
founded by fonner Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel,
Respondent is aware of the 296 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above,
Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 296 patent with specic intent to do so
including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perfonn
acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the
296 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and
training advertisements).
47.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 6, and 12 of the 296
patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks, by
providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an
infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial
noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 296 patent at least as of December
5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 296 patent against Respondent in the
Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Ftuther, having been founded
by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is
aware of the 296 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the
Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the 296 patent
and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
48.
Claim charts comparing the 296 patents asserted independent claims 1 and 12 to
Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 19. Arista SEC disclosures state that
16
Arista products are manufactured abroad and imported into the United States for sale by Arista
or its distribution partners. See Exhibits 24-25. For example, Aristas Founder, Chairman, and
CDO Andy Bechtolsheim exhibited a 75OOE product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States.
Exhibits 42-43. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
C.
49.
50.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus
claim l8 and method claims l, 5, 6, and 9 of the 164 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly
infringes at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the 164 patent by importing, selling for importation,
selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused
Products. See Exhibit 20 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164).
The
Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claim 18 at the time of importation,
and Respondent directly infringes this apparatus claim by importing, selling for importation,
selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused
Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate the
performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims l, 5, 6, and 9, and
Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after
importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products.
In
by importing, selling for importation, selling aer importation, and/or using after importation
into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the Arista
17
7010, 7048, 7050, 7050X, 7150, 7250X, 7280B, 7300, 7300X, and 7500E series switches. See

51.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the
164 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their
5, 6, 9, and 18 of the 164 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 164 patent at least as
of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 164 patent against Respondent
in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been
founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel,
Respondent is aware of the 164 patent. Further, on information and belief, in light of the above,
Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 164 patent with specic intent to do so
including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform
acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of
the 164 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and
training advertisements).
52.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 18 of the
164 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in their networks,
by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted for use in an
infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial
noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 164 patent at least as of December
Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been fotmded
18
aware of the 164 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the
Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the 164 patent
and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
53.
Claim charts comparing the I64 patents asserted independent claims 1 and 18 to
Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 20. Representative Product 7048T-A,
charted at Exhibit 20, was purchased in the United States.
Purchase receipts are attached at
Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are attached at
Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
D.
54.
55.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims apparatus
claims 1, 14, 15, 29, 71-73, 84-86 and method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84-86 of the 597
patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims l, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64,
71-73, and 84-86 of the 597 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after
satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims l, 14, 15, 29, 71-73, 84-86 at the time of
importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by importing, selling for
Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are programmed to dictate
the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims 39-42, 63, 64, and 84
19
86, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for importation, selling
after importation, and/or using after importation into the United States the Accused Products. In
into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products include the 7010,
7048, 7050, 705_0X, 7150, 7250X, 7280E, 7300, 7300X, and 7500B series switches.
See

56.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63
64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the 597 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly
infringe at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the S97 patent.
Respondent is aware of the 597 patent at least because the named inventor on the 597 patent,
Mr. Cheriton, is a founder of Respondent. Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge
of the S97 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the
597 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as discussed in Section IX,
below. Further, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the 597
patent with specic intent to do so by providing at least manuals, White papers, training, and/or
other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least
claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the 597 patent.
See Appendix P
(compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements).

57.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63
64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the S97 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused
20
Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products, which are specially made or
adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
Respondent is aware of the 597 patent at least
because the named inventor on the 597 patent, Mr. Cheriton, is a founder of Respondent.
Moreover, Respondent also has had actual knowledge of the S97 patent at least as of December
Noithern District of California, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded
aware of the S97 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge that the
Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the S97 patent
and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial nonjnfringing use.
58.
Claim charts comparing the 597 patents asserted independent claims 1, 39, 71,
and 84 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 21. Representative Product
7150S-52, charted at Exhibit 21, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts are
attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are
attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
E.
Infringement of the 592Patent
59.
On infonnation and belief, Respondent imports, sells for importation, sells after
60.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims
6-10, 20-21, and 23-24 and method claims 17-18 of the 592 patent. Respondent directly and
indirectly infringes at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the 592 patent by importing,
selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into the United
21
States the Accused Products. See Exhibit 22 (infringement claim charts for U.S. Patent No.
6,741,592). The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 6-10, 20-21,
and 23-24 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims
into the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation,
are programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method
claims 17 and 18, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for
Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly infringes each of
these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using
after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products
include the 7150, 7010, 7050, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, and 7300X series switches. See Appendix
O (Accused Products data sheets).
61.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and
23-24 of the S92 patent.
On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the Accused
Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly infringe
at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24 of the S92 patent. Respondent has actual knowledge of
the 592 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 592
patent against Respondent in the Northem District of California, as discussed in Section IX,
below. Further, having been founded by fonner Cisco personnel and having extensively hired
former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the S92 patent. Further, on information and
belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces infringement of the S92 patent with
22
specic intent to do so including by providing at least manuals, white papers, training, and/or
other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to cause direct infringement of at least
claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and 23-24 of the 592 patent. See Appendix P (compilation of
Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training advertisements).

62.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 6-10, 17-18, 20-21, and
23-24 of the S92 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused Products in
their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made or adapted
for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 592 patent at least as of
December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the S92 patent against Respondent in
founded by former Cisco personnel and having extensively hired former Cisco personnel,
Respondent is aware of the S92 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had knowledge
that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the 592
patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
63.
Claim charts comparing the 592 patents asserted independent claims 6, 17, 18,
20, 21, 23, and 24 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as Exhibit 22. Representative
Product 7150S-52, charted at Exhibit 22, was purchased in the United States. Purchase receipts
are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing location outside the United States are
attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation is set forth in Section VII, below.
F.
64.
23
65.
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least apparatus claims 3,
5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and 44-46 and method claims 1, 18-28, 40, and 43 of the
145 patent. Respondent directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29,
33-37, and 39-46 of the 145 patent by importing, selling for importation, selling after
satisfy all claim limitations of apparatus claims 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 29, 33-37, 39, 41-42, and
44-46 at the time of importation, and Respondent directly infringes these apparatus claims by
importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation into
the United States the Accused Products. The Accused Products, at the time of importation, are
programmed to dictate the performance of and automatically perform all steps of method claims
1, 18-28, 40, and 43, and Respondent directly infringes these claims by importing, selling for
Accused Products. In addition, as further alleged below, Respondent indirectly ininges each of
these method claims by importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using
after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Exemplary Accused Products
include the 7150, 7010, 7050, 7050X, 7250X, 7300, and 7300X series switches. See Appendix
O (Accused Products data sheets).
66.
Accused Products in their networks, to directly infringe at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29,
33-37, and 39-46 of the I45 patent. On information and belief, purchasers who deploy the
Accused Products in their networks and make routine use of the Accused Products, also directly
infringe at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 of the 145 patent. Respondent
24
has actual knowledge of the I45 patent at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a
Complaint asserting the 145 patent against Respondent in the Northern District of California, as
discussed in Section IX, below. Further, having been founded by former Cisco personnel and
having extensively hired former Cisco personnel, Respondent is aware of the 145 patent.
Further, on information and belief, in light of the above, Respondent knowingly induces
infringement of the 145 patent with specic intent to do so including by providing at least
manuals, white papers, training, and/or other support, to perform acts intended by Respondent to
cause direct infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-29, 33-37, and 39-46 ofthe 145
patent. See Appendix P (compilation of Accused Products manuals, white papers, and training
advertisements).
67.
Respondent contributes to infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 5, 7-1 1, 13, 15-29,
33-37, and 39-46 of the 145 patent of others, including purchasers who deploy the Accused
Products in their networks, by providing the Accused Products thereof, which are specially made
or adapted for use in an infringement of these claims and are not staple articles of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Respondent has actual knowledge of the 145 patent
at least as of December 5, 2014, when Cisco led a Complaint asserting the 145 patent against
Respondent in the Northern District of Califomia, as discussed in Section IX, below. Further,
having been founded by former Cisco p61'SOI"l11l
and having extensively hired former Cisco
personnel, Respondent is aware of the 145 patent. In light of these allegations, Respondent had
knowledge that the Accused Products were specially made or adapted for use in an infringement
of the 145 patent and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
68.
Claim charts comparing the 145 patents asserted independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7,
ll, 13, 15, 18, 22-24, 26, 29, 33-35, and 39-46 to Respondents Accused Products are attached as
25
Exhibit 23.
Representative Product 7150S-52, charted at Exhibit 23, was purchased in the
United States. Purchase receipts are attached at Exhibit 38; photos showing manufacturing
location outside the United States are attached at Exhibit 39. Additional evidence of importation
is set forth in Section VII, below.
VII.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORT ATION AND SALE

69.
On information and belief, Respondent, either itself or through subsidiaries or
third parties acting on behalf of Respondent, is engaged in the importation, sale for importation,
sale after importation into the United States, and/or use after importation into the United States
of infringing networking equipment or components or software therein. The Accused Products

are manufactured abroad and imported for sale into the United States.
70.
According to Aristas public statements, the Accused Products are manufactured
by contract manufacturers, working closely with Arista on-site personnel, and then imported into
the United States.
In Aristas June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company stated that Our
products are manufactured, assembled and tested by third-party contract manufacturers in Asia
who procure components and assemble products on our behalf based on our forecasts. Exhibit
24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 17.
Specically, [a]s of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, two suppliers provided all of our
electronic manufacturing services and the two suppliers are Jabil Circuit and Foxcomi.
Exhibit 24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended Jtme 30, 2014) at 10,
48. These contract manufacturers work closely with Arista on-site personnel and review on an
ongoing basis forecasts, inventory levels, processes, capacity, yields and overall quality, and
Arista retain[s] complete control over the bill of material, test procedures and quality assurance
programs. Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Forrn S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at
26
108.] Additionally, in Aristas June 2014 Quarterly Report, the company also stated that [O]ur
contract manufacturers [] manufacture and assemble our products and deliver them to us for
labeling, quality assurance testing, nal conguration and shipment to our customers. Exhibit
24 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014) at 27.
71.
On information and belief, Arista and its distribution partners sell and have sold
the imported products in the United States. See, e.g., Exhibit 25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1
Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 60 (We market and sell our products through our direct
sales force and in partnership with charmel partners . . . 83.0% of our revenue was generated
from the Americas, substantially all from the United States); Exhibit 45 (Arista Press Release)
(Arista Networks today announced it has signed an agreement with Ingram Micro Inc. (NYSE:
IM), the worlds largest technology distributor, to distribute Aristas 10 Gigabit Ethernet data
center solutions. The contract covers distribution in the United States and its territories); Exhibit
25 (Arista Networks, Inc. Form S-1 Amendment No. 3, May 27, 2014) at 2 (Our customers
include six of the largest cloud services providers based on annual revenue, including eBay,
facebook, Microsoft and Yahool, nancial services organizations such as Barclays, Citigroup,
and Morgan Stanley, and a number of media and service providers, including AOL, Comcast,
Equinix, ESPN, Netix, and Raekspacef); Exhibit 26 (Arista Press Release stating Studio
Network Solutions uses Arista 7048T series switches, July 18, 2013); Exhibit 27 (Studio
Network Solutions website showing it is a St. Louis, Missouri, United States company, captured
September 15, 2014); Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista
7050X series switch, October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a Califomia,
United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study
on America Internet Services use of Arista 7048T and 7050S switches, 2012); Exhibit 31
27
(Arista Customer Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series
switches in the United States, 2012); Exhibit 32 (Arista Press Release and Customer
Testimonials that Headlands Technologies uses Arista 7150 series switches, September 19,
2012); Exhibit 33 (Headlands Technologies Website showing it is a Califomia and Illinois,
United States company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that
eBay uses Arista 7280E series switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista
7300/7300X series switches and Equinix uses Arista 7500E series switches, March 26, 2014);
Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the sale of the 725OX and 7300/7300X series);
Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website showing it is a United States utilities company);
Exhibit 42
(Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista
7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product
is currently being shipped); Exhibit 43 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO
Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from
video showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining
the displayed product is currently being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for
Arista switches including the 7010 series switch, captured September 15, 2014).
72.
U.S. Customs records also evidence that Arista is importing networking
equipment, including the Accused Products, to the United States from overseas.
See, e.g.,
Exhibit 37 (import record for switches from Jabil Circuit in Malaysia to Arista in California).
73.
The following accused products have been purchased in the United States, further
showing that Aristas products are imported. For example, an Arista 7150 series accused switch
28
has been purchased in the United States, which has a casing marked Manufactured in
Malaysia. An Arista 7048 series accused switch has been purchased in the United States, which
has a casing marked Manufactured in China. Photographs of an Arista 75O0E series accused
switch in the United States indicate that it was Manufactured in China.
See Exhibit 38
(receipts of purchase); Exhibit 39 (photos of purchased product). Additionally, Arista press

releases discuss the implementation of the accused products by United States companies. See
Exhibit 28 (Arista Press Release stating Cloudera Enterprise uses Arista 7050X series switch,
October 2, 2013); Exhibit 29 (Cloudera website showing it is a California, United States
company, captured September 15, 2014); Exhibit 30 (Arista Customer Case Study on America
Internet Services use of Arista 7048T and 7050S switches, 2012); Exhibit 31 (Arista Customer
Case Study on Medical Mutual of Ohios use of Arista 7048, 7050, 7150 series switches in the
United States, 2012); Exhibit 34 (Arista Press Release that eBay uses Arista 7280E series
switches, July 15, 2014); Exhibit 35 (Arista Press Release that Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. and IDT Corporation use Arista 7300X series switches and
Equinix uses Arista 75O0E series switches, March 26, 2014); Exhibit 47 (Tri-State website
showing it is a United States utilities company); Exhibit 46 (Arista press release advertising the
sale of the 7250X and 7300/7300X series); Exhibit 42 (Screenshots from video of Arista
Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista 7500E series product in Las Vegas,
Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently being shipped); Exhibit
43 (Screenshots from video of Arista Chairman and CDO Andy Bechtolsheim showing Arista
7500E series product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product
is currently being shipped); Exhibit 44 (Screenshots from video showing Arista 7500E series
product in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States and explaining the displayed product is currently
29
being shipped). Exhibit 36 (CDW website advertisement for Arista switches including the 7010
series switch, captured September 15, 2014).
VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS

74.
On infonnation and belief, the Accused Products fall within at least the
8517.62.00 classication of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States. See
Exhibit 40.
The identied HTS number is intended to be for illustration only and is not
exhaustive of the products accused of infringement in this Complaint. The HTS number is not
intended to limit the scope of the Investigation.
IX.
RELATED LITIGATION
75.
On December 5, 2014, Cisco led a Complaint in the Northern District of
Califomia, accusing Arista of infringing Ciscos Asserted Patents.
See Exhibit 41 (Cisco
Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-5343). Arista was served on December 9,
2014, and has not yet responded to the Complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced in this
action.
X.
THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

76.
There is a domestic industry, as dened under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A), (B),
and/or (C), comprising signicant investments in physical operations and employment of labor
and capital, and substantial investment in the exploitation of Ciscos Asserted Patents.
77.
Cisco makes extensive use of the inventions claimed in Ciscos Asserted Patents
in numerous products and has made and continues to make signicant domestic investments in
these products, as set forth more fully in the accompanying Condential Declaration of Collin
Sacks, attached at Exhibit 48. For example, Cisco has sold and sells in the United States
switches that practice Ciscos Asserted Patents, including the 3000 Series Industrial Internet
30
Switches that practice the 592 and 145 patents; the 2520 Connected Grid Switches (CGS) that
practice the S92 and 145 patents; the Catalyst CBS 3110-40 Series Switches that practice the
S92 and 145 patents; the Catalyst 4500 Series Switches that practice the592, and 145 patents;
the Catalyst 6500 Series Switches that practice the 597, S92, and 145 patents; the Catalyst
6800 Series Switches that practice the 597 patent; the Nexus 3000 Series Switches that practice
the I64, 592, and 145 patents; the Nexus 5000 Series Switches that practice the 164, S92,
and 145 patents; the Nexus 6000 Series Switches that practice the I64, and patents; the Nexus
7000 Series Switches that practice the 296, 164, S97, S92, and 145 patents; and the Nexus
9000 Series Switches that practice the l64, S92, and 145 patents. Similarly, Cisco has sold
and sells in the United States network devices that practice Ciscos Asserted Patents, including
the Carrier Routing System (CRS) that practices the 537 patent; the Aggregation Services
Routers (ASR) 1000 Series that practices the 296 patent; the ASR 9000 Series that practices the
296 and 537 patents; the ASR 901 Series that practices the 597 patent; the XR 12000 Series
Routers that practice the 537 patent. Exhibit 48 at Table 1; Exhibits 57-72 (Cisco product data
sheets). As set forth in greater detail below, these products collectively practice each of Ciscos
Asserted Patents (the Domestic Industry Products). Ciscos investments and expenditures in
its domestic industries for Ciscos Asserted Patents are signicant, continuing and on-going.
A.
Ciscos Practice of Ciscos Asserted Patents
78.
As noted above, Cisco makes extensive use of Ciscos Asserted Patents in many
different products. The allocations of R&D expenses and related items for these patent protected
products are captured in the accompanying Condential Declaration of Collin Sacks

(Condential Exhibit 48). Specic examples of use are described in the above section and
charted in associated exhibits identied below.
31
79.
Ciscos Carrier Router System practices at least claim 10 of the 537 patent. An
exemplary claim chart comparing the Carrier Router System to claim 10 of the S37 patent is
attached as Exhibit 49.
80.
Ciscos Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the 296 patent.
An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 1 of the 296 patent is attached as
Exhibit 50.
81.
Exhibit 51.
82.
Ciscos Catalyst 6500 Series Switch practices at least claim 1 of the 597 patent.
An exemplary claim chart comparing the Catalyst 6500 to claim 1 of the 597 patent is attached
as Exhibit 52.
83.
Ciscos Nexus 7000 Series Switch practices at least claim 6 of the 592
patent. An exemplary claim chart comparing the Nexus 7000 to claim 6 of the 592 patent is
attached as Exhibit 53.
84.
Exhibit 54.
B.
United States Investments in the Domestic Industry
85.
Cisco is the leading provider of switching and routing products in the United
States. Cisco has made long-standing and continuing signicant investments in the United States
in the engineering, research, development, testing, manufacturing, and/or product support of the
Domestic Industry Products. Moreover, in 2013 and 2014, Cisco sold a signicant number of its
Domestic Industry Product in the United States for a large total net sales amount. Cisco expects
32
that its continuing activities and investments in the United States will increase, particularly if
Arista is prohibited from unlawfully using Ciscos patented inventions. Exhibit 48 (Condential
Declaration of Collin Sacks) at W 4, 9, and Table 2.
86.
Specically, and as discussed in greater detail below, there is a domestic industry
as dened under 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(A) at least because Cisco has made signicant
investments in plant and equipment in the United States used in connection with the engineering,
research, and development in the United States, and/or warranty and product support in the
United States of the Domestic Industry Products. There is a domestic industry as dened under
19 U.S.C. l337(a)(3)(B) at least because Cisco has also made signicant investments in the
employment of United States labor and capital in cormection with engineering, research and
development in the United States, and/or warranty and product support in the United States of
the Domestic Industry Products.
There is a domestic industry as dened under 19 U.S.C.
l337(a)(3)(C) at least because Cisco has further made substantial investments in the
exploitation of Ciscos Asserted Patentsthrough engineering, research, and/or development

directed to each of these products in the United States.
1.
87.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A)
There is a domestic industry as dened under Subsection (A) at least because
Cisco has made signicant investment in plant and equipment in the United States with respect
to the Domestic Industry Products. Cisco has numerous facilities and locations throughout the
United States, including its headquarter campus in San Jose, California, which spans
approximately 1,000 acres and has 53 buildings, and its campus in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, which spans more than 300 acres and has 12 buildings.
For example,
collectively, ten different Cisco Business Units (BUs) based in San Jose, California, with
support from personnel, resources, and facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
33
contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at
111]
7, 13-20, and Table 5. In scal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco invested a signicant amount of
money in connection with plant and equipment comprising operating expenses, such as rent,
facilities maintenance costs, and equipment maintenance costs for the facilities used by Ciscos
engineers in the United States in connection with engineering, research, and development related
to the Domestic Industry Products. See also Exhibit 48 at Table 5.
88.
Ciscos U.S.-based contract manufacturers (CMs) manufacture and assemble a
large number of the Domestic Industry Products in the United States, including at Foxconn, Inc.
in Houston, Texas and Solectron Texas, Inc. in Austin, Texas. See Exhibit 48 at 1[1110, 16, and
Table 3.
Ciscos U.S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics, planning and other
interfacing activities with Ciscos CMs. See Exhibit 48 at 1110.
2.
89.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)
There is a domestic industry as dened under Subsection (B) at least because
Cisco has made signicant employment of labor and capital in the United States with respect to
the Domestic Industry Products. Research and engineering teams based in the United States
contributed to the design and development of the Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at
111113-18, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. Ciscos design and development of the Domestic Industry
Products included signicant U.S.-based investment by Cisco in the employment of labor and
capital, and other investments, related thereto. See Exhibit 48 at 111]
21-22, and Tables 6-7.
90.
Specically, Cisco employs more than 35,000 individuals throughout the United
States. See Exhibit 48 at 113. For example, at Ciscos headquarter campus in California, Cisco
employs over 31,000 people, including 15,694 Cisco employees and 15,542 contractors, vendors,
and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 117. Many of these individuals are involved in engineering,
research, and development of the Domestic Industry Products. For example, as explained above,
34
ten Cisco BUs based in San Jose, California, with support from personnel, resources, and
facilities in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, were involved in the development of the
Domestic Industry Products. See Exhibit 48 at W 7, 21-22, and Tables 6-7. In scal years 2013
and 2014, Cisco spent a signicant amount of money on salaries for its thousands of U.S.-based
engineers in connection with the engineering, research, and development contributing to the
Domestic Industry Products, and spent a signicant amount of money on capital expenses related
to the purchase of computer and networking equipment and computer software in the United
States to support the work of these engineers in connection with the Domestic Industry Products.
See Exhibit 48 at 1]21-22 and Tables 6-7. As another example, one of Ciscos main customer
support centers for the Domestic Industry Products is located at Ciscos Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina campus where over 9,000 individuals are employed, including 4,787 Cisco
employees and 4,410 contractors, vendors, and interns. See Exhibit 48 at 1] 7. Additionally,
Ciscos U.S.-based engineering teams assist with logistics and other activities associated with the
CM manufacturing process in the United States. See Exhibit 48 at 1]10.
3.
91.
Domestic Industry Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)
There is also a domestic industry as dened under Subsection (C) at least because
Cisco has also made substantial U.S. investments in exploitation of Ciscos Asserted Patents
through the Cisco Domestic Industry Products, including by way of example, investments in
engineering, research, and development.
92.
Since its founding thirty years ago, Cisco has pioneered many of the important
technologies that created and enabled the era of comiectivity in which we live. During the past
three decades, Cisco has invested billions of dollars and the time and dedication of tens of
thousands of its engineers in the research and development of networking products and services.
In 2014 alone, Cisco invested more than $6 billion in research and development, and in 2013
35
Cisco invested approximately $5.9 billion. These substantial investments have culminated in the
development of Ciscos substantial patent portfolio, including Ciscos Assened Patents, and the
highly-successful Domestic Industry Products at issue here. See Exhibit 15 (Cisco 2014 Annual
Report); Exhibit 48 (Condential Sacks Decl.) at 1111
3, 13-18, 23-43, and Table 8.
93.
Cisco invests substantially in engineering, research, and development in the
United States for the technology claimed by Ciscos Asseited Patents.
See Exhibit 48
(Condential Sacks Decl.) at 1l1[6-8, 13-18, 23-43, and Table 8. In particular, and as discussed
above, Cisco has made substantial investments in its headquarters in San Jose, California and its
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina campus, as well as in the employment of substantial
engineering staff and the necessary equipment to support them. Cisco invests in U.S.-based
engineers who design, research and develop, and engineer products. See Exhibit 48 at 1111
13-18,
23-43, and Table 8. Cisco has made substantial investments contributing to the engineering,
research, and development of its Domestic Industry Products by investing in the following
engineering, research, and development expenses in the United States: investments in equipment
and designs used in connection with engineering, research, and development activities; training
of engineering personnel, including by attending trade shows and travel costs related thereto,
recruiting and relocation of engineering talent to work on Ciscos Domestic Industry Products;
and investments in the compensation packages for Ciscos engineers, including in salaries and
overtime pay. See Exhibit 48 at 1[1l23-43 and Table 8. In scal years 2013 and 2014, Cisco
invested substantially in engineering, research, and development contributing to Ciscos

Domestic Industry Products in the United States. See Exhibit 48 111123-43and Table 8.
94.
Cisco further invests in U.S.-based persormel who provide technical and warranty
support to Cisco customers in the U.S. who have purchased Ciscos networking products in the
36
U.S.
Cisco has made substantial investments in the U.S.-based facilities that house the
employees that provide this support, including those at its main customer support center in
Research Triangle Park, as well as investments in the U.S. equipment, salaries, and operating
costs associated with Ciscos customer support teams. See Exhibit 48 at 1H17, 18.
XI.
RELIEF REQUESTED
95.
WHEREFORE, by reason of the foregoing, Cisco respectfully request that the
United States International Trade Commission:
a)
Institute an immediate investigation, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii), with respect to violations of
Section 337 based upon the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, and use after
importation into the United States of Respondents certain networking equipment and
components and software therein that infringe one or more asserted claims of Complainants
537, 296, I64, 597, 592, and I45 patents;
b)
Schedule and conduct a hearing pursuant to 19 U.S.C. l337 for the
purposes of (i) receiving evidence and hearing argument concerning whether there has been a
violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337, and (ii) following the hearing, determining that there has been a
violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337;
c)
Issue a permanent limited exclusion order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(1), barring from entry into the United States all certain networking equipment and
components and software therein made by or on behalf of Respondent, that infringe one or more
asserted claims of Ciscos 537, 296, I64, S97, S92, and l45 patents;
d)
Issue a permanent cease and desist order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. l337(t),
prohibiting Respondent, or others acting on its behalf, from importing, marketing, advertising,
37
demonstrating, warehousing inventory for distribution, distributing, offering for sale, selling,
licensing, using, or transferring outside the United States for sale in the United States any
networking equipment or components or software therein that infringe one or more asserted
claims of Ciscos S37, 296, l64, 597, S92, and I45 patents;
e)
Impose a bond, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 13376), upon importation of any
networking equipment and components and soware therein that infringe one or more asserted
claims of Cisc0s 537, 296, 164, 597, S92, and 145 patents during any Presidential Review;
and
f)
Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and
proper based on the facts determined by the investigation and the authority of the Commission.
38
Dated
014
ReO H1su
Steven Cherny
Brian Paul Gearing

Telephone: (212) 446-4800
Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
Adam R. Alper

Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
Michael W. De Vries

Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
D. Sean Trainor

655 15*Street. N.W.
Telephone: (202) 879-5000
Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
Counselfor Complainant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
39
VERIFICATIGN OF COMPLAINT
I, Collin Sacks, declare, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 210.4(c) and 210.12(a), under
penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true:

1.
I am currently an Operations Manager in Cisco Systems, lnc.s Legal Department.
I am duly authorized by Complainant Cisco Systems, Inc. to verify the foregoing Complaint
2.
The Complaint is not being led for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to
cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
3.
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable
inquiry, the claims and other legal contentions set forth in the Complaint are warranted by
existing law or by a good faith, non-frivolous argument for extension, modication, or reversal
of existing law, or by the establishment of new law.

4.
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable
inquiry, the allegations of the Complaint are well grounded in fact and have evidentiary support,
or, where specically identied, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
Executed on December 18, 2014
By:
//r,
&l
.
*~\
COLLIN SACKS

Cisco v. Arista, 944 ITC Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cisco v. Arista, 944 ITC Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KIRKLAND 8.

655 Fieenth Street, NW.

December 19, 2014

The Honorable Lisa R. Barton

Secretary to the Commission

Int!I Sticiitiary' '

U.S. International Trade Commission

In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Dear Secretary Barton:

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

655 Fifteenth Street. N.W.

December 19, 2014

In the Matter of Certain Network Devices, Related Software and

Dear Secretary Barton:

The information for which condential treatment is requested is proprietary commercial

The information described above qualies as condential business infonnation pursuant

1. It is not available to the general public;

2. Unauthorized disclosure of such infonnation could cause substantial hann to the

KIRKLAND 8. ELLIS LLP

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST

protecting signicant intellectual property rights of Cisco, an innovative corporation

expense for a Recommended Determination by the ALJ.

distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing infringing products into the U.S.

Respondent has unlawfully used a number of important networking

technologies developed by Cisco, including without limitation technologies that Respondents

own founders developed while at Cisco.

Indeed, one of Respondents founders previously

connection with products practicing the Asserted Patents.

Granting the orders sought by

The Requested Relief Is In Accord With The Public Interest

networking technologies, employs thousands of networking engineers and invests billions of

incorporated Ciscos technologies into its products.

signicant harm to Cisco and innovation.

Respondents actions have caused

If Respondents unauthorized use of Cisco

interest in enforcing IP rights and that interest is implicated here.

See Certain Baseband

N0 Public Health, Safety, Or Welfare Concerns Are Implicated By The

Moreover, as set forth below, there are ample networking technologies

Like Or Directly Competitive Articles That Cisco And Other Equipment

percentage of the Ethernet switching market).

competitive conditions in the United States economy or on U.S. consumers).

The Requested Remedial Order Would Only Minimally Impact Consumers

December 19, 2014

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMPLAINT OF CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. UNDER

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Arista Networks, Inc.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

TABLE OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537.

Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 8,356,296.

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,290,164.

Certied copy ofU.S. Patent No. 7,340,597.

Certied copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,741,592.