X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Cisco Systems Inc., of San Jose, Calif., scored a major coup recently by selling more than $1 billion worth of telecommunication equipment to SBC Communications Inc., of San Antonio. The U.S. market had previously been dominated by French telecommunications group Alcatel S.A., via its U.S. subsidiary, Alcatel U.S.A. Now, Alcatel is waging an intellectual property war against Cisco on three fronts. Alcatel USA, of Plano, Texas, filed infringement suits in early June in California and Texas federal court. In the Netherlands, the company filed a parallel case in the Regional Court in The Hague. In the Texas case, Alcatel is charging Cisco with copyright violations, trade secret theft and infringement of the ’959 patent for computer network router technology. Alcatel V. Cisco, No. 4: 00CV199. Many of the charges stem from Cisco’s August 1999 acquisition of a smaller router manufacturer, Monterey Networks Inc., of Richardson, Texas. Monterey, founded in 1997, hired more than 30 managers, engineers and designers from Alcatel, and developed a router product Alcatel claims is infringing on its own patented technology. DIFFERENT TACTICS In California, Alcatel has taken a slightly different tack. In this case, the company is charging Cisco with infringing four other patents. These patents — ’052, ’057, ’037, and ’389 — are for technologies used for switching and controlling the movement of data in a network. This particular case contains no allegations of trade secret theft. The Dutch case also involves the ’052 patent cited in California. Cisco officials declined to comment on the suits, other than to state that “Alcatel has chosen a path that is designed to slow down progress in the market. We will defend ourselves vigorously and also are prepared to assert Cisco’s intellectual property rights and technology leadership.” Alcatel is represented by New York’s Proskauer Rose and Kenyon & Kenyon, and by John J. Kendrick, a Dallas sole practitioner. Cisco general counsel David Scheinman was unavailable for comment on the litigation or outside counsel. But Cisco is represented in other patent litigation by the Menlo Park, Calif., office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.