Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc

Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling that Cisco Systems, Inc. did not infringe Egenera, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430, which covers technology for deploying virtual processing area networks through software commands. Egenera had accused Cisco’s Unified Computing System (UCS) of infringing several claims of the patent, arguing that Cisco’s system used processors and control nodes to “emulate Ethernet functionality” and establish virtual network topologies as described in the patent.

The court focused on whether Cisco’s UCS processors actually performed the claimed “emulation” of Ethernet functionality. The district court had previously determined that in Cisco’s system, the emulation was handled by network interface cards (NICs), not by the central processing units (CPUs) themselves. Since the patent claims required the CPUs to perform this emulation, and Egenera could not show evidence to the contrary, the court granted summary judgment in Cisco’s favor for those claims.

Egenera also challenged the jury’s finding of noninfringement on other claims, but the Federal Circuit found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The court noted that Cisco’s UCS established network topology at the NICs, not at the processors as required by the patent. Additionally, the court rejected Egenera’s arguments for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or closing arguments.

This decision highlights the importance of precise claim language and the need for clear evidence linking accused products to each element of a patent claim. It also serves as a reminder that issues not properly raised at trial—such as claim construction disputes—cannot be revived on appeal.