[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21827-21829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09439]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-945]


Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof 
(II); Commission Final Determination of Violation of Section 337; 
Termination of Investigation; Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order and 
Cease and Desist Order

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission 
has determined to issue a limited exclusion order. The investigation is 
terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, 
telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission 
may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter 
can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on January 27, 2015, based on a Complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. 
of San Jose, California (``Cisco''). 80 FR 4313-14 (Jan. 27, 2015). The 
Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, importation, 
and sale within the United States after importation of certain network 
devices, related software and components thereof by reason of 
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,023,853; 
6,377,577; 7,460,492; 7,061,875; 7,224,668; and 8,051,211. The 
Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The 
Commission's Notice of Investigation named Arista Networks, Inc. of 
Santa Clara, California (``Arista'') as respondent. The Office of 
Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party to 
the investigation. The Commission previously terminated the 
investigation in part as to certain claims of the asserted patents. 
Order No. 38 (Oct. 27, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Nov. 18, 2015); Order 
No. 47 (Nov. 9, 2015), unreviewed Notice (Dec. 1, 2015).
    On December 9, 2016, the ALJ issued her Final ID, finding a 
violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of 
the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of 
the '668 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect 
to claim 2 of the '577 patent; claims 46 and 63 of the '853 patent; 
claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '492 patent; claims 1-4, and 10 of the '875 
patent; and claims 2, 6, 13, and 17 of the '211 patent.
    In particular, the Final ID finds that Cisco has shown by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe 
asserted claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and asserted 
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and

[[Page 21828]]

64 of the '668 patent. The Final ID finds that Cisco has failed to show 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused products infringe 
asserted claim 2 of the '577 patent; asserted claims 46 and 63 of the 
'853 patent; asserted claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '492 patent; asserted 
claims 1-4, and 10 of the '875 patent; and asserted claims 2, 6, 13, 
and 17 of the '211 patent.
    The Final ID also finds that assignor estoppel bars Arista from 
asserting that the '577 and '853 patents are invalid. The Final ID 
finds, however, that if assignor estoppel did not apply, Arista has 
shown by clear and convincing evidence that claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 
of the '577 patent and claim 46 of the '853 patent are invalid as 
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,920,886 (``Feldmeier''). The Final ID 
further finds that Arista has failed to show by clear and convincing 
evidence that any of the remaining asserted claims are invalid. The 
Final ID also finds that Arista has not proven by clear and convincing 
evidence that Cisco's patent claims are barred by equitable estoppel, 
waiver, implied license, laches, unclean hands, or patent misuse.
    The Final ID finds that Cisco has satisfied the economic prong of 
the domestic industry requirement for all of the patents-in-suit 
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 337(A), (B), and (C). The Final ID finds, 
however, that Cisco has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the 
domestic industry requirement with respect to the '875, '492, and '211 
patents. The Final ID finds that Cisco has satisfied the technical 
prong with respect to the '577, '853, and '668 patents.
    The Final ID also contains the ALJ's recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended that the appropriate remedy is 
a limited exclusion order with a certification provision and a cease 
and desist order against Arista. The ALJ recommended the imposition of 
a bond of five (5) percent during the period of Presidential review.
    On December 29, 2016, Cisco, Arista, and OUII each filed petitions 
for review of various aspects of the Final ID. On January 10, 2017, 
Cisco, Arista, and OUII filed responses to the various petitions for 
review.
    On January 11, 2017, Cisco and Arista each filed a post-RD 
statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 
210.50(a)(4). No responses were filed by the public in response to the 
post-RD Commission Notice issued on December 20, 2016. See Notice of 
Request for Statements on the Public Interest (Dec. 20, 2016); 81 FR 
95194-95 (Dec. 27, 2016).
    On March 1, 2017, the Commission determined to review the Final ID 
in part. Notice of Review (Mar. 1, 2017); 82 FR 12844-47 (Mar. 7, 
2017).
    With respect to the '577 patent, the Commission determined to 
review the Final ID's finding that Arista has indirectly infringed the 
'577 patent by importing Imported Components, as referenced at page 110 
in the Final ID. The Commission also determined to review the Final 
ID's finding that Arista's post-importation direct infringement cannot 
alone support a finding of violation of section 337. The Commission 
further determined to review the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier 
anticipates claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of the '577 patent.
    With respect to the '853 patent, the Commission determined to 
review the Final ID's claim construction findings with respect to claim 
elements (c), (d), and (f) of claim 46. The Commission also determined 
to review the Final ID's findings concerning direct and indirect 
infringement regarding the '853 patent. The Commission further 
determined to review the Final ID's finding that assignor estoppel 
applies to validity challenges based on indefiniteness. The Commission 
also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Feldmeier does 
not anticipate claim 46.
    With respect to the '875 and '492 patents, the Commission 
determined to review the Final ID's finding of no direct infringement 
and the related finding of no indirect infringement. The Commission 
also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Cisco has failed 
to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement 
with respect to the '875 and '492 patents.
    With respect to the '668 patent, the Commission determined to 
review the Final ID's finding of direct infringement and the Final ID's 
finding of indirect infringement, in particular as concerns Arista's 
importation of Imported Components.
    With respect to the '211 patent, the Commission determined to 
review the Final ID's finding that Cisco has failed to satisfy the 
technical prong with respect to claims 1 and 12 of the '211 patent, 
including the Final ID's finding that claims 1 and 12 are invalid.
    The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues 
decided in the Final ID.
    The Commission also requested briefing from the parties on nine 
questions concerning the issues under review, as well as remedy, the 
public interest, and bonding. See Notice of Review at 4-5; 82 FR at 
12845-46.
    On March 15, 2017, the parties submitted initial briefing in 
response to the notice of review. On March 24, 2017, the parties filed 
response submissions.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
Final ID, the petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the 
parties' submissions on review, the Commission has determined to find 
that a violation of section 337 has occurred with respect to the 
asserted claims of the '577 and '668 patents.
    Specifically, with respect to the '577 patent, the Commission did 
not review the Final ID's finding that all of Arista's Accused ACL 
Products directly infringe claims 1, 7, 9-10, and 13 of the '577 
patent. The Commission has determined to affirm the Final ID's finding 
that Arista induces infringement of the '577 patent by importing both 
the Blank Switches and Imported Components (as defined at Final ID at 
110 and Respondent Arista Networks Inc.'s Petition for Review of the 
Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 (Dec. 29, 2016) at 
77, 80). The Commission has further determined to affirm the Final ID's 
finding that Arista contributorily infringes by importing the Blank 
Switches. The Commission has determined not to reach the issue of 
whether Arista contributorily infringes the asserted claims of the '577 
patent by importing the Imported Components. Based on the Final ID's 
unreviewed finding that assignor estoppel applies with respect to the 
'577 patent, the Commission has determined not to reach the issue of 
whether Feldmeier anticipates the '577 patent.
    With respect to the '668 patent, the Commission has determined to 
affirm the Final ID's finding that several variations of the '668 
Accused Products--including Control-Plane Access Control List, Control 
Plane Policing, and non-configurable Per-Input Port Control Plane 
Policing (``PiP CoPP'')--infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 
13, 56, and 64 of the '668 patent, and to affirm with modification the 
Final ID's finding that the variation including configurable PiP CoPP 
infringes those claims, to supply the Commission's reasoning. With 
respect to claim 64, the Commission has determined to affirm with 
modification the Final ID's finding of infringement with respect to 
claim 64 to correct a misstatement in the Final ID. The Commission has 
also determined to affirm the Final ID's finding that Arista induces 
infringement of the asserted claims of the '668 patent by importing 
fully assembled Blank Switches and the Imported Components. The 
Commission has further determined to affirm the Final ID's finding that 
Arista

[[Page 21829]]

contributorily infringes asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 56, 
and 64 by importing fully assembled Blank Switches. The Commission has 
determined not to reach the issue of whether Arista contributorily 
infringes the asserted claims of the '668 patent by importing the 
Imported Components.
    The Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 
with respect to the remaining asserted claims of the '853, '875, '492, 
and '211 patents.
    Specifically, with respect to the '853 patent, the Commission has 
determined to affirm with modification, to supply the Commission's 
reasoning, the Final ID's finding that Arista's Accused ACL Products do 
not directly infringe claim 46, and to affirm the Final ID's finding 
that Arista does not directly infringe claim 63 of the '853 patent. 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to affirm the Final ID's 
finding of no indirect infringement with respect to those claims. Based 
on the Final ID's unreviewed finding that assignor estoppel applies 
with respect to the '853 patent, the Commission has determined not to 
reach the issue of whether Feldmeier anticipates the '853 patent.
    With respect to the '875 and '492 patents, the Commission has 
determined to affirm with modification the Final ID's finding of no 
infringement of the asserted claims and that Cisco has failed to 
satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    With respect to the '211 patent, the Commission did not review the 
Final ID's finding of no infringement with respect to the asserted 
claims of the '211 patent. The Commission has also determined to vacate 
the Final ID's finding with respect to the validity of claims 1 and 12 
of the '211 patent, and declines to reach the technical prong issue.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief 
is a limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), prohibiting 
the unlicensed entry of network devices, related software and 
components thereof that infringe any of claims l, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of 
the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 56, and 64 of 
the '668 patent, and an order that Arista cease and desist from 
importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring 
(except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or 
distributors, and aiding or abetting other entities in the importation, 
sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for 
exportation), or distribution of certain network devices, related 
software and components thereof that infringe any of claims l, 7, 9, 
10, and 15 of the '577 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 
56, and 64 of the '668 patent.
    The Commission has determined that the public interest factors 
enumerated in section 337(d) and (f), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) and (f), do not 
preclude the issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and 
desist order. The Commission has determined that bonding at five (5) 
percent of the entered value of the covered products is required during 
the period of Presidential review, 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
    The Commission's order and opinion were delivered to the President 
and the United States Trade Representative on the day of their 
issuance.
    The investigation is terminated.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 4, 2017.
 Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-09439 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P