from the United States International Trade Commission in
Investigation No. 337-TA-944.
C. O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for appellant Cisco Systems, Inc. Also represented by
Jason M. Wilcox; Dennis J. Abdelnour, Chicago, IL; Adam R.
Alper, San Francisco, CA; Steven Cherny, New York, NY;
Michael W. De Vries, Los Angeles, CA; Paul M. Bartkowski,
Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP, Washington, DC.
Matthew D. Powers, Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, Redwood City,
CA, argued for appellant Arista Networks, Inc. Also
represented by William P. Nelson; Michael J. McKeon, Ruffin
B. Cordell, Lauren Ann Degnan, Linhong Zhang, Fish &
Richardson, PC, Washington, DC; Brian P. Boyd, Atlanta, GA.
Pitcher Fisherow, Office of the General Counsel, United
States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, argued
for appellee. Also represented by Wayne W. Herrington, Sidney
A. Rosenzweig, Dominic L. Bianchi.
Reyna, Schall, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.
International Trade Commission entered a limited exclusion
order against Arista Networks, Inc. based on its final
determination that Arista infringed three of Cisco Systems,
Inc.'s patents. The Commission also determined that
Arista did not infringe two other Cisco patents. The
exclusion order excluded entry into the United States imports
of certain network devices, related software, and components
thereof. Arista appeals the Commission's infringement
determination and the scope of the limited exclusion order.
Cisco cross-appeals the Commission's noninfringement
determination. Finding no error in the Commission's final
determination or exclusion order, we affirm.
January 2015, the Commission instituted a § 337
investigation based on Cisco's complaint alleging that
Arista's imports of certain network devices, related
software, and components thereof infringed six of its
pa-tents. J.A. 501-02; 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (2012).
In February 2016, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a
final initial determination finding a § 337 violation
with respect to three patents: the '537 patent, '592
patent, and '145 patent. The ALJ's final initial
determination found no § 337 violation based on the
'597 patent and '164 patent. The '296 patent had
previously been terminated from the investigation. Cisco and
Arista filed petitions for review before the Commission.
Commission agreed to review the ALJ's final initial
determination. In June 2016, the Commission issued its final
determination. The Commission determined that Arista
infringed the asserted claims of the '537 patent,
'592 patent, and '145 patent, and did not infringe
the asserted claims of the '597 patent and '164
patent. J.A. 502. Based on this finding, the Commission
entered a limited exclusion order against imports by Arista
of "certain network devices, related software and
components thereof." J.A. 502-03.
appeals the Commission's claim construction of a term in
the '537 patent and the scope of the limited exclusion
order. Cisco cross-appeals the Commission's
noninfringement finding with respect to the '597 patent.
'537 patent relates to a system and method of managing
data in network devices. J.A. 903 at Abstract. Network
devices, like routers or switches, have an operating system
that controls the system's functions. Network devices use
different specialized subsystems to perform the functions
related to routing network traffic. In some prior art network
devices, different subsystems carried out each network
function, which required multiple dependencies between the
subsystems. J.A. 912 at col. 1 ll. 37-40. These multiple
dependencies made common transactions cumbersome and
unnecessarily complicated, increasing the time required to
design and develop various subsystems. J.A. 912 at col. 1 l.
65-col. 2 l. 3.
'537 patent discloses a way to solve this
multiple-dependency problem. The '537 patent employs a
centralized database that allows each subsystem to be modular
(i.e., capable of being easily added or removed from the
network) and to operate independently to carry out its
specialized functions. J.A. 913 at col. 3 ll. 13-38, col. 4
ll. 11-19. The centralized database is referred to as SysDB.
asserted claims 1, 2, 8-11, and 17-19 of the '537 patent.
Claim 19 is representative of the claims and recites:
19. In a router device having a processor and memory, a
router operating system executing within said memory
(a) a database subsystem;
(b) a plurality of client subsystems, each operatively
coupled for communication to said database subsystem, one of
said client subsystems configured as a managing subsystem to
externally manage router data upon issuing a management
request to said database subsystem; and
(c) a database operatively coupled to said database
subsystem, said database configured to store router
configuration data and delegate management of router
configuration data to a management subsystem that requests to
manage router configuration data, said router configuration
data managed by said database system and derived from
configuration commands supplied by a user and executed by a
router configuration subsystem before being stored in said
J.A. 920 at col. 18 ll. 21-39.
'597 patent generally relates to the field of information
networks, and a method and apparatus for securing a
communications device using a logging module. The patent
explains that prior attempts to develop flexible and secure
logging modules were vulnerable to security attacks. An
attacker could, for example, disable a security device by
changing its configuration and then proceed to attack the
now-defenseless network device. J.A. 14342 at col. 2 ll.
'597 patent describes a logging module that detects and
communicates information regarding a change to a
configuration of a subsystem. J.A. 14342 at col. 2 ll. 34-38.
The logging module thereby can provide an indication whenever
an attacker attempts to circumvent the security of the
subsystem. J.A. 14342 at col. 2 ll. 40-42.
asserted claims 1, 14, 15, 29, 39, 63, 64, and 71- 73 of the
'597 patent. Claim 1 is ...