On July 20, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a notice of its decision to deny Respondent Arista Networks Inc.’s (“Arista”) petitions to suspend or temporarily rescind the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist order (“CDO”) issued in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II) (Inv. No. 337-TA-945).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a December 19, 2014 complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain networking equipment and components and software thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853; 6,377,577 (the ’577 patent); 7,460,492; 7,061,875; 7,224,668 (the ’668 patent); and 8,051,211. See our December 29, 2014 and February 6, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. On May 4, 2017, the Commission issued its final determination finding that Arista violated Section 337 with respect to the ’577 and ’668 patents, and issued an LEO and a CDO. See our May 8, 2017 post for more details.

According to the July 20, 2017 notice, on June 1, 2017, Arista filed an emergency petition to modify, suspend, or rescind the remedial orders pending appeal of a May 25, 2017 final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding unpatentable all of the claims of the ’577 patent which formed the basis for the Commission’s final determination of violation. Arista then filed a second emergency petition to suspend or rescind the remedial orders pending appeal of a June 1, 2017 final written decision of the PTAB finding unpatentable all of the claims of the ’668 patent which formed the basis for the Commission’s determination of violation.

In the July 20, 2017 notice, the Commission determined to deny Arista’s petitions. Specifically, the Commission found that the PTAB’s final written decisions did not constitute a changed circumstance such that the remedial orders should be suspended or rescinded. The Commission found that the legal status of the claims at issue would not actually change unless and until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues a certificate cancelling the claims following the exhaustion of all appeals of the PTAB’s decisions. Accordingly, the LEO and CDO against Arista remain in place.