On August 26, 2016, Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California (“Cisco”) filed an enforcement complaint in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I) (Inv. No. 337-TA-944). The enforcement complaint alleges that Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California (“Arista”) has violated a cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in the underlying investigation.
By way of background, the underlying investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint filed by Cisco alleging that Arista unlawfully imports into the U.S., sells for importation, sells within the U.S. after importation, and/or uses within the U.S. after importation certain network devices, related software, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of, inter alia, U.S. Patent No. 7,162,537 (the ’537 patent). See our December 29, 2014 and February 5, 2015 posts for more details on the underlying investigation. On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued its final determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Arista based on, inter alia, infringement of certain claims of the ’537 patent. The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a CDO directed at Arista. See our August 16, 2016 post for more details on the Commission’s opinion.
In the enforcement complaint, Cisco alleges that Arista has violated the CDO issued in the underlying investigation. In particular, Cisco accuses Arista of continuing to market, distribute, offer for sale, sell, advertise, and/or aid and abet other entities in the sale and/or distribution of imported products or components that infringe the asserted claims of the ’537 patent and are covered by the CDO.
In view of these alleged violations of the CDO, Cisco requests that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75. With respect to potential remedy, Cisco requests that the Commission impose civil penalties for violation of the CDO, and if necessary, bring a civil action in an appropriate U.S. district court pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.75 requesting the imposition of civil penalties or the issuance of an injunction preventing further violation of the CDO.