SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1534 - SLR, April 11, 2016.

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity under sections 101, 102(b), and 103 are denied; defendant’s motion barring pre-suit damages based on laches is denied; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is denied. Defendant’s motion to exclude certain expert testimony regarding lump sum settlement agreements is granted in part and denied in part; defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony regarding apportionment is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that two references are not prior art is granted in part and denied in part. The court sua sponte grants summary judgment of no anticipation by a third prior art reference.

The disputed patents relate to monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. The first step of Alice is generally a given in computer-implemented patents because they generally involve abstract ideas. The second step is the more difficult part. The claims at bar are necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. As for step two, the court finds an inventive concept and defendant’s invalidity motion is denied. Defendant’s anticipation motion is denied and the court sua sponte grants summary judgment of no anticipation. The court finds that one prior art reference was not publicly available, and that a second reference included in in conference materials was published and therefore grant’s plaintiff’s motion in part. As for infringement, the parties dispute whether the accused sensors meet the limitation “detecting suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data. Expert opinions present factual disputes and defendant’s motion is denied in this regard. Aches, With respect to laches, plaintiff should have known of its claims against defendant, but plaintiff persuades the court of the reasonableness of its conduct based upon the fact that it was engaged in other litigation. Expert testimony regarding settlement agreements reached in litigation is excluded; licenses entered into as a product of business negotiations outside the context of litigation are properly considered. Defendant may challenge plaintiff’s expert on apportionment on cross examination.