COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 1 of 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

SABLE NETWORKS, INC. AND 

SABLE IP, LLC,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., AND 

EMC CORPORATION,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No._________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLC (collectively, “Sable” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this 

action and make the following allegations of patent infringement relating to U.S. Patent Nos.: 

6,977,932 (the “’932 patent”); 7,428,209 (the “’209 patent”); 7,630,358 (the “’358 patent”); and 

8,243,593 (the “’593 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). Defendants Dell Technologies 

Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (collectively, “Dell” or “Defendants”) infringes the patentsin-suit in violation of the patent laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

INTRODUCTION

1. The patents-in-suit arise from technologies developed by Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts

- one of the founding fathers of the internet.1

 The patents relate to technologies for efficiently 

managing the flow of data packets over routers and switch devices. Dr. Roberts and engineers at 

Caspian Networks, Inc. and later Sable Networks, Inc. developed these technologies to address the 

increasing amount of data sent over computer networks. 

 1 Chris Woodford, THE INTERNET: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA VOLUME 2 at 204 (2005) 

(“Widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Internet, Lawrence Roberts was the 

primary architect of ARPANET, the predecessor of the Internet.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 2 of 45

2. Dr. Roberts is best known for his work as the Chief Scientist of the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (ARPA) where he designed and oversaw the implementation of 

ARPANET, the precursor to the internet. Dr. Roberts’ work on ARPANET played a key role in 

the development of digital network transmission technologies.2 Initially, ARPANET was used 

primarily to send electronic mail and Dr. Roberts developed the first program for reading and 

sending electronic messages. 

Keenan Mayo and Peter Newcomb, How The Web Was Won, VANITY FAIR at 96-97 (January 7, 

2009); One of the Engineers Who Invented the Internet Wants to Build A Radical new Router,

IEEE SPECTRUM MAGAZINE (July 2009); Katie Hafner, Billions Served Daily, and Counting, N.Y.

TIMES at G1 (December 6, 2001)(“Lawrence Roberts, who was then a manager at the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency's Information Processing Techniques Office, solved that problem after 

his boss began complaining about the volume of e-mail piling up in his in box. In 1972, Dr. Roberts 

produced the first e-mail manager, called RD, which included a filing system, as well as a Delete 

function.”). 

3. Dr. Roberts’ work on ARPANET played a key role in the development of packet 

switching networks. Packet switching is a digital network transmission process in which data is 

broken into parts which are sent independently and reassembled at a destination. Electronic 

messages sent over the ARPANET were broken up into packets then routed over a network to a 

destination. “In designing the ARPANET, Roberts expanded on the work he'd done at MIT, using 

 2 Katie Hafner, Lawrence Roberts, Who Helped Design Internet’s Precursor, N.Y. TIMES at A2 

(December 31, 2018) (“Dr. Roberts was considered the decisive force behind packet switching, 

the technology that breaks data into discrete bundles that are then sent along various paths around 

a network and reassembled at their destination.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 3 of 45

those tiny data packets to send information from place to place.”3 Packet switching has become 

the primary technology for data communications over computer networks. 

George Johnson, From Two Small Nodes, a Mighty Web Has Grown, N.Y. TIMES at F1 (October 

12, 1999).

4. After leaving ARPANET, Dr. Roberts grew increasingly concerned that existing 

technologies for routing data packets were incapable of addressing the increasing amounts of data 

traversing the internet.

4

 Dr. Roberts identified that as the “Net grows, the more loss and 

transmission of data occurs. Eventually, gridlock will set in.”5 

The Internet is broken. I should know: I designed it. In 1967, I wrote the first plan 

for the ancestor of today's Internet, the Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Network, or ARPANET, and then led the team that designed and built it. The main 

idea was to share the available network infrastructure by sending data as small, 

independent packets, which, though they might arrive at different times, would still 

generally make it to their destinations. The small computers that directed the data 

traffic-I called them Interface Message Processors, or IMPs-evolved into today's 

routers, and for a long time they've kept up with the Net's phenomenal growth. Until 

now.

 3 Code Metz, Larry Roberts Calls Himself the Founder of The Internet. Who Are You To Argue, WIRED MAGAZINE (September 24, 2012); John C. McDonald, FUNDAMENTALS OF DIGITAL 

SWITCHING at 211 (1990) (“The ARPANET was, in part, an experimental verification of the 

packet switching concept. Robert’s objective was a new capability for resource sharing.”).

4 eWeek Editors, Feeling A Little Congested, EWEEK MAGAZINE (September 24, 2001) (“Lawrence 

Roberts, one of the primary developers of Internet precursor ARPANet and CTO of Caspian 

Networks, recently released research indicating that Net traffic has quadrupled during the past 

year alone.”).

5 Michael Cooney, Can ATM Save The Internet, NETWORK WORLD at 16 (May 20, 1996);

Lawrence Roberts, A RADICAL NEW ROUTER, IEEE Spectrum Vol. 46 34-39 (August 2009).

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 4 of 45

Lawrence Roberts, A Radical New Router, IEEE SPECTRUM Vol. 46(7) at 34 (August 2009)

(emphasis added).

5. In 1998, Dr. Roberts founded Caspian Networks.

6 At Caspian Networks, Dr. 

Roberts developed a new kind of internet router to efficiently route packets over a network. This 

new router was aimed at addressing concerns about network “gridlock.” In a 2001 interview with 

Wired Magazine, Dr. Roberts discussed the router he was developing at Caspian Networks – the 

Apeiro. “Roberts says the Apeiro will also create new revenue streams for the carriers by solving 

the ‘voice and video problem.’ IP voice and video, unlike email and static Web pages, breaks 

down dramatically if there's a delay - as little as a few milliseconds - in getting packets from host 

to recipient.”7

Jim Duffy, Router Newcomers take on Cisco, Juniper, NETWORK WORLD at 14 (April 14, 2013); 

Stephen Lawson, Caspian Testing Stellar Core Offering, NETWORK WORLD at 33 (December 17, 

2001); Tim Greene, Caspian Plans Superfast Routing For The ‘Net Core, NETWORK WORLD at 10 

(January 29, 2001); Andrew P. Madden, Company Spotlight: Caspian Networks, MIT

TECHNOLOGY REVIEW at 33 (August 2005); and Loring Wirbel, Caspian Moves Apeiro Router To 

Full Availability, EE TIMES (April 14, 2003).

 6 Caspian Networks, Inc. was founded in 1998 as Packetcom, LLC and changed its name to 

Caspian Networks, Inc. in 1999.

7 John McHugh, The n-Dimensional Superswitch, WIRED MAGAZINE (May 1, 2001).

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 5 of 45

6. The Apeiro debuted in 2003. The Apeiro, a flow-based router, can identify the 

nature of a packet – be it audio, text, or video, and prioritize it accordingly. The Apeiro included 

numerous technological advances including quality of service (QoS) routing and flow-based 

routing. 

7. At its height, Caspian Networks Inc. raised more than $300 million dollars and 

grew to more than 320 employees in the pursuit of developing and commercializing Dr. Roberts’ 

groundbreaking networking technologies, including building flow-based routers that advanced 

quality of service and load balancing performance. However, despite early success with its 

technology and business, Caspian hit hard times when the telecommunications bubble burst. 

8. Sable Networks, Inc. was formed by Dr. Sang Hwa Lee to further develop and 

commercialize the flow-based networking technologies developed by Dr. Roberts and Caspian 

Networks.8

 Sable Networks, Inc. has continued its product development efforts and has gained 

commercial success with customers in Japan, South Korea, and China. Customers of Sable 

Networks, Inc. have included: SK Telecom, NTT Bizlink, Hanaro Telecom, Dacom Corporation, 

USEN Corporation, Korea Telecom, China Unicom, China Telecom, and China Tietong.

 8 Dr. Lee, through his company Mobile Convergence, Ltd. purchased the assets of Caspian 

Networks Inc. and subsequently created Sable Networks, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 6 of 45

SK Telecom and Sable Networks Sign Convergence Network Deal, COMMS UPDATE – TELECOM 

NEWS SERVICE (February 4, 2009) (“South Korean operator SK Telecom has announced that it has 

signed a deal with US-based network and solutions provider Sable Networks.”); China Telecom 

Deploys Sable, LIGHT READING NEWS FEED (November 19, 2007) (“Sable Networks Inc., a leading 

provider of service controllers, today announced that China Telecom Ltd, the largest landline 

telecom company in China, has deployed the Sable Networks Service Controller in their 

network.”).

9. Armed with the assets of Caspian Networks Inc. as well as members of Caspian 

Networks’ technical team, Sable Networks, Inc. continued the product development efforts 

stemming from Dr. Roberts’ flow-based router technologies. Sable Networks, Inc. developed 

custom application-specific integrated circuits (“ASIC”) designed for flow traffic management. 

Sable Network, Inc.’s ASICs include the Sable Networks SPI, which enables 20 Gigabit flow 

processing. In addition, Sable Networks, Inc. developed and released S-Series Service Controllers 

(e.g., S80 and S240 Service Controller models) that contain Sable Networks’ flow-based 

programmable ASICs, POS and Ethernet interfaces, and carrier-hardened routing and scalability 

from 10 to 800 Gigabits.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 7 of 45

SABLE NETWORKS S-SERIES SERVICE CONTROLLERS (showing the S240-240G Multi-Shelf System, 

S80-80G Single-Shelf System, and S20-20G Stand-Alone System). 

10. Sable pursues the reasonable royalties owed for Dell’s use of the inventions claimed 

in Sable’s patent portfolio, which arise from Caspian Networks and Sable Networks’ 

groundbreaking technology.

SABLE’S PATENT PORTFOLIO

11. Sable’s patent portfolio includes over 34 patent assets, including 14 granted U.S. 

patents. Dr. Lawrence Roberts’ pioneering work on QoS traffic prioritization, flow-based 

switching and routing, and the work of Dr. Roberts’ colleagues at Caspian Networks Inc. and Sable 

Networks, Inc. are claimed in the various patents owned by Sable. 

12. Highlighting the importance of the patents-in-suit is the fact that the Sable’s patent 

portfolio has been cited by over 1,000 U.S. and international patents and patent applications 

assigned to a wide variety of the largest companies operating in the computer networking field. 

Sable’s patents have been cited by companies such as:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

9

 9 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,411,965; 7,436,830; 7,539,499; 7,580,351; 7,702,765; 7,817546; 

7,936,695; 8,077,721; 8,493,867; 8,868,775; and 9,013,985.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 8 of 45

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

10

• Broadcom Limited11

• EMC Corporation12

• F5 Networks, Inc.13

• Verizon Communications Inc.14

• Microsoft Corporation15

• Intel Corporation16

• Extreme Networks, Inc.17

• Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.18

THE PARTIES

SABLE NETWORKS, INC.

13. Sable Networks, Inc. (“Sable Networks”) is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of California. 

14. Sable Networks was formed to continue the research, development, and 

commercialization work of Caspian Networks Inc., which was founded by Dr. Lawrence Roberts 

to provide flow-based switching and routing technologies to improve the efficiency and quality of 

computer networks.

15. Sable Networks is the owner by assignment of all of the patents-in-suit. 

 10 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,463,639; 7,702,810; 7,826,375; 8,593,970; 8,717,889; 8,811,163; 

8,811,183; 8,964,556; 9,032,089; 9,065,773; and 9,832,099.

11 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,187,687; 7,206,283; 7,266,117; 7,596,139; 7,649,885; 8,014,315; 

8,037,399; 8,170,044; 8,194,666; 8,271,859; 8,448,162; 8,493,988; 8,514,716; and 7,657,703.

12 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 6,976,134; 7,185,062; 7,404,000; 7,421,509; 7,864,758; and 

8,085,794.

13 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,206,282; 7,580,353; 8,418,233; 8,565,088; 9,225,479; 9,106,606; 

9,130,846; 9,210,177; 9,614,772; 9,967,331; and 9,832,069.

14 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,349,393; 7,821,929; 8,218,569; 8,289,973; 9,282,113; and 

8,913,623.

15 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,567,504; 7,590,736; 7,669,235; 7,778,422; 7,941,309; 7,636,917; 

9,571,550; and 9,800,592.

16 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,177,956; 7,283,464; 9,485,178; 9,047,417; 8,718,096; 8,036,246; 

8,493,852; and 8,730,984.

17 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,654; 7,978,614; 8,149839; 10,212,224; 9,112,780; and 

8,395,996.

18 See, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,553; 7,957,421; 10,015,079; 10,505,840; and Chinese Patent 

Nos. CN108028828 and CN106161333.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 9 of 45

SABLE IP, LLC

16. Sable IP, LLC (“Sable IP”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 225 S. 6th Street, Suite 3900, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. 

Pursuant to an exclusive license agreement with Sable Networks, Sable IP is the exclusive licensee 

of the patents-in-suit. 

DELL DEFENDANTS

17. Dell Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Technologies Inc. may be served 

through its registered agent Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, 

DE 19808. 

18. Dell Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell 

Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation 

Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. Dell Inc. is registered to do 

business in the State of Texas and has been since at least October 27, 1987. In addition to its 

corporate headquarters in Round Rock, Texas, Defendant Dell Inc. maintains several other offices 

in this District, including offices at 12500 Tech Ridge Blvd., Bldg. PS4, Austin, Texas 78753; 

1404 Park Center Dr., Austin, Texas 78754; 4309 Emma Browning Ave., Austin, Texas 78719; 

600 Congress Ave., Austin, Texas 78701; 701 E. Parmer Lane, Bldg. PS2, Austin, Texas 78753; 

9715 Burnet Road, Metric – 7, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78758; 5822 Cromo Drive, El Paso, Texas 

79912; 200 Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78758; 2300 Greenlawn Blvd., Round Rock, Texas 

78682; 401 Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682; 501 Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682; and 

9830 Colonnade Blvd., Suite 380, San Antonio, Texas 78230.

19. EMC Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business 

at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. EMC Corporation may be served through its 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 10 of 45

registered agent Corporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. 

EMC Corporation is registered to do business in the State of Texas and has been since at least July 

17, 1987. In addition to its corporate headquarters in Round Rock, Texas, on information and 

belief, EMC Corporation operates out of multiple offices in this District. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United 

States Code. Accordingly, this Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dell in this action because Dell has 

committed acts within the Western District of Texas giving rise to this action and has established 

minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Dell would not offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Dell, directly and/or through subsidiaries or 

intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has committed and continues to 

commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things, offering to sell and selling 

products and/or services that infringe the patents-in-suit. Moreover, Dell Inc. and EMC 

Corporation are registered to do business in the State of Texas. Each of the Defendants is 

headquartered in this District, and Dell Inc. and EMC Corporation each maintain multiple office 

locations in this District. Further, Dell actively directs its activities to customers located in the 

State of Texas. 

22. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b). Dell 

is headquartered in this District, has transacted business in the Western District of Texas, and has 

committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in the Western District of Texas. 

23. Defendants also each have a regular and established place of business in this 

District and have committed acts of infringement in this District. Dell has also committed acts of 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 11 of 45

infringement in this District by commercializing, marketing, selling, distributing, testing, and 

servicing certain accused products. 

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dell. Dell has conducted and does 

conduct business within the State of Texas. Dell, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries 

(including distributors, retailers, and others), ships, distributes, makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, 

imports, and/or advertises (including by providing an interactive web page) its products and/or 

services in the United States and the Western District of Texas and/or contributes to and actively 

induces its customers to ship, distribute, make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, and/or advertise 

(including the provision of an interactive web page) infringing products and/or services in the 

United States and the Western District of Texas. Dell, directly and through subsidiaries or 

intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily 

placed one or more of its infringing products and/or services, as described below, into the stream 

of commerce with the expectation that those products will be purchased and used by customers 

and/or consumers in the Western District of Texas. These infringing products and/or services have 

been and continue to be made, used, sold, offered for sale, purchased, and/or imported by 

customers and/or consumers in the Western District of Texas. Dell has committed acts of patent 

infringement within the Western District of Texas. Dell interacts with customers in Texas, 

including through visits to customer sites in Texas. Through these interactions and visits, Dell

directly infringes the patents-in-suit. Dell also interacts with customers who sell the Accused 

Products into Texas, knowing that these customers will sell the Accused Products into Texas, 

either directly or through intermediaries.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 12 of 45

25. Dell has minimum contacts with this District such that the maintenance of this

action within this District would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Thus, the Court therefore has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Dell.

THE ASSERTED PATENTS

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,977,932

26. U.S. Patent No. 6,977,932 (the “’932 patent”) entitled, System and Method for

Network Tunneling Utilizing Micro-Flow State Information, was filed on January 16, 2002. The 

‘932 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 815 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is 

the owner by assignment of the ‘932 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘932 patent. 

A true and correct copy of the ‘932 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

27. The ‘932 patent discloses novel methods and apparatuses for utilizing a router 

capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state information. 

28. The inventions disclosed in the ‘932 patent enable the use of micro-flow state 

information to improve network tunneling techniques.

29. The inventions disclosed in the ‘932 patent maintain flow state information for 

various quality of service characteristics by utilizing aggregate flow blocks.

30. The aggregate flow blocks disclosed in the ‘932 patent maintain micro-flow block 

information. 

31. The technologies claimed in the ‘932 patent speed the flow of network traffic over 

computer networks by avoiding time consuming and processor intensive tasks by combining flow 

state information with other information such as label switched paths utilization information. This 

permits the micro-flows associated with an aggregate flow block to all be processed in a similar 

manner.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 13 of 45

32. The technologies disclosed in the ‘932 patent result in more efficient computer 

networks by avoiding the processor intensive tasks of searching millions of flow blocks to identify 

flow blocks having certain micro-flow characteristics in order to process large numbers of microflows.

33. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information containing an aggregate flow block having tunnel specific information for a particular 

network tunnel.

34. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information containing a flow block having flow state information for a micro-flow, the flow block 

further including an identifier that associates the flow block with the aggregate flow block.

35. The ‘932 patent discloses a router capable of network tunneling utilizing flow state 

information wherein the aggregate flow block stores statistics for the particular network tunnel.

36. The ‘932 patent has been cited by 86 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘932 patent as 

relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

• Avaya, Inc.

• Fujitsu, Ltd.

• Intel Corporation

• Nokia Corporation

• Qualcomm, Inc.

• Sprint Communications Co.

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,428,209

37. U.S. Patent No. 7,428,209 (the “’209 patent”) entitled, Network Failure Recovery 

Mechanism, was filed on June 12, 2001. The ‘209 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 14 of 45

extension of 655 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by assignment of the ‘209 patent. Sable 

IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘209 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘209 patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

38. The ‘209 patent discloses novel methods and systems for implementing within a 

network router a method for recovering from a failure. 

39. The inventions disclosed in the ‘209 patent enable large-scale computer networks 

to quickly recover from a component failure.

40. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router that recovers 

from a failure.

41. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for sending, 

via a first route, a first set of information from an ingress module to a first egress module for 

forwarding by the first egress module to a destination external to the router, where a first set of 

information traverses a path which encompasses at least a portion of the first route.

42. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for detecting 

an external failure beyond the first egress module.

43. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for directing 

a message to the ingress module informing the ingress module of the external failure in response 

to an external failure.

44. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for selecting 

an alternate egress module capable of forwarding information to a destination in response to an 

error message.

45. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for sending, 

via a second route, a future set of information from the ingress module to the alternate egress 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 14 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 15 of 45

module for forwarding to the destination, where the first set of information and the future set of 

information are both part of a flow.

46. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for causing 

other sets of information associated with the flow to be sent from the ingress module to the 

alternate egress module in response to the message.

47. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router for directing 

to the ingress module that comprises: (1) identifying the ingress module; (2) accessing a routing

table which comprises one or more routes to the ingress module; (3) obtaining a return route from 

the routing table, wherein the return route directs the message to the ingress module along a 

different path than that traversed by said first set of information; and (4) sending a message to the 

ingress module via the return route.

48. The ‘209 patent discloses a method implemented on a network router where the 

first egress module and the alternate egress module are predetermined, where identifiers associated 

with the first egress module and the alternate egress module are stored within a flow block 

associated with the flow. Further, the ’209 patent teaches storing an indication in the flow block 

that all sets of information associated with the flow are to be sent to the alternate egress module.

49. The ‘209 patent family has been cited by 52 patents and patent applications as 

relevant prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘209

patent family as relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• AT&T, Inc.

• Canon, Inc.

• British Telecommunications Public Limited Co.

• EMC Corporation

• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

• Infinera Corporation

• International Business Machines Corporation

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 15 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 16 of 45

• ShoreTel, Inc.

• Nokia Corporation

• Monarch Networking Solutions LLC

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,358

50. U.S. Patent No. 7,630,358 (“the ‘358 patent”) entitled, Mechanism for 

Implementing Multiple Logical Routers Within A Single Physical Router, was filed on July 9, 2002, 

and claims priority to July 9, 2001. The ‘358 patent is subject to a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term 

extension of 1,136 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by assignment of the ‘358 patent. 

Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘358 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘358 patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

51. The ‘358 patent claims specific methods and systems for implementing multiple 

logical routers within a single physical router. 

52. The ‘358 patent discloses systems and methods that combine the benefits of multirouters and virtual routers. The logical routers are included within the same physical router; 

however, internal links permit improved efficiency over virtual routers because the technologies 

claimed in the ‘358 patent can take advantage of the fact that the logical routers are not standalone 

routers bur are embodied in the same physical router.

53. The ‘358 patent discloses technology for implementing multiple logical routers 

within a single physical router.

54. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a first set of one or more components 

capable of being figured to implement a first logical router within the router.

55. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a second set of one or more components 

capable of being configured to implement a second logical router within the router.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 16 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 17 of 45

56. The ‘358 patent discloses a router with a forwarding routing table that comprises 

an identifier that indicates an internal link is internal rather than an external link.

57. The ‘358 patent discloses a router wherein the first and second sets of components 

comprise functionality for establishing the internal link between the first logical router and the 

second logical router and advertising the internal link to other routers external to the router such 

that the first and second logical routers appear to the other routers as interconnected standalone 

routers, wherein the internal link is a logical, non-physical entity. 

58. The ‘358 patent has been cited by 42 United States and international patents and 

patent applications as relevant prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies 

have all cited the ‘358 patent as relevant prior art:

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Dell Technologies, Inc.

• Juniper Networks, Inc.

• Nicira, Inc.

• International Business Machines Corporation

• NantWorks, LLC

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

• Verizon Communications, Inc.

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,593

59. U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 entitled, Mechanism for Identifying and Penalizing 

Misbehaving Flows in a Network, was filed on December 22, 2004. The ‘593 patent is subject to 

a 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) term extension of 1,098 days. Sable Networks, Inc. is the owner by 

assignment of the ’593 patent. Sable IP is the exclusive licensee of the ‘593 patent. A true and 

correct copy of the ‘593 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 

60. The ‘593 patent discloses novel methods and systems for processing a flow of a 

series of information packets. 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 17 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 18 of 45

61. The inventions disclosed in the ‘593 patent teach technologies that permit the 

identification and control of less desirable network traffic.

62. Because the characteristics of data packets in undesirable network traffic can be 

disguised, the ‘593 patent improves the operation of computer networks by disclosing technologies 

that monitor the characteristics of flows of data packets rather than ancillary factors such as port 

numbers or signatures.

63. The ‘593 patent discloses tracking the behavioral statistics of a flow of data packets 

that can be used to determine whether the flow is undesirable.

64. The ‘593 patent further discloses taking actions to penalize the flow of undesirable 

network traffic.

65. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of a series of information 

packets that maintains a set of behavioral statistics for the flow, wherein the set of behavioral 

statistics is updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, as each information 

packet is processed.

66. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of a series of information 

packets that determines, based at least partially upon the set of behavioral statistics, whether the 

flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

67. The ‘593 patent discloses that the determination as to whether the flow is exhibiting 

undesirable behavior is made regardless of the presence or absence of congestion.

68. The ‘593 patent discloses a method for processing a flow of data packets that 

enforces a penalty on the flow in response to a determination that the flow is exhibiting undesirable 

behavior.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 18 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 19 of 45

69. The ‘593 patent has been cited by 17 patents and patent applications as relevant 

prior art. Specifically, patents issued to the following companies have cited the ‘593 patent as 

relevant prior art.

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• AT&T, Inc.

• International Business Machines Corporation

• Telecom Italia S.p.A.

• McAfee, LLC

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,977,932

70. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

71. Dell designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses the following 

products: Dell EMC PowerSwitch N1500 Series devices (1524, 1524P, 1548, 1548P); Dell EMC 

PowerSwitch N2000 Series devices (2024, 2024P, 2048, 2048P); Dell EMC PowerSwitch N3000 

Series devices (3024, 3024P, 3048, 3048P); and Dell EMC PowerSwitch N4000 Series devices 

(4032, 4032F, 4064, 4064F) (collectively, the “Dell '932 Products(s)”).

72. One or more Dell subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Dell ‘932 Products in regular 

business operations.

73. Dell has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘932 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology that utilize flow 

state information to perform a method of network tunneling. 

74. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products utilize flow state information to perform a 

network tunneling method. 

75. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products create a flow block having flow state 

information for a received first data packet of a micro-flow. The following figure shows that data 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 19 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 20 of 45

packets are received at an ingress port and processed using the ingress port flow table which is 

associated with routing tables such as the “Unicast Routing Flow Table” and “Multicast Routing 

Flow Table”

Dell Networking Operating System for OpenFlow on N-Series (DNOS-OF), DELL USER GUIDE 

V1.1B at 15 (June 2016).

76. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products store a tunnel identifier for the micro-flow 

in the flow block, the tunnel identifier identifying a selected network tunnel to be used to transmit 

the data packet.

77. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products index an aggregate flow block using the 

tunnel identifier. The following excerpt from Dell documentation describes the use of Group 

Flows and Group Type FF Flows.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 20 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 21 of 45

Dell OpenFlow Deployment and User Guide 4.0 – Dell Software Defined Networking (SDN), DELL 

DOCUMENTATION at 22 (January 2017) (emphasis added).

78. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products utilize an aggregate flow block with tunnel 

specific information for the selected network tunnel and that stores statistics for the selected 

network tunnel.

79. One or more of the Dell ‘932 Products transmit data packets using the selected 

network tunnel based on the tunnel specific information. The Dell ‘932 Products enable the use 

of action buckets wherein a packet can be transmitted on. For example, if a packet comes in and 

as part of the flow processing a VLAN is assigned a VLAN tag is bushed as a VLAN Flow Table 

action.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 21 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 22 of 45

Dell Networking Operating System for OpenFlow on N-Series (DNOS-OF), DELL USER GUIDE 

V1.1B at 34 (June 2016).

80. The Dell ‘932 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the 

United States.

81. The Dell ‘932 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

82. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products utilizing flow 

state information to perform a method of network tunneling, including but not limited to the Dell

‘932 Products, Dell has injured Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs for directly infringing one or 

more claims of the ‘932 patent, including at least claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

83. Dell also indirectly infringes the ‘932 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

84. Dell has had knowledge of the ‘932 patent since at least service of this Complaint 

or shortly thereafter, and Dell knew of the ‘932 patent and knew of its infringement, including by 

way of this lawsuit.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 22 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 23 of 45

85. Dell intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users of 

the Dell ‘932 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or was 

willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Dell specifically 

intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products would infringe 

the ‘932 patent. Dell performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce 

actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘932 patent and with the knowledge that the induced 

acts would constitute infringement. For example, Dell provides the Dell ‘932 Products that have 

the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘932 patent, 

including at least claim 1, and Dell further provides documentation and training materials that 

cause customers and end users of the Dell ‘932 Products to utilize the products in a manner that 

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘932 patent.19 By providing instruction and training to 

customers and end-users on how to use the Dell ‘932 Products in a manner that directly infringes 

one or more claims of the ‘932 patent, including at least claim 1, Dell specifically intended to 

induce infringement of the ‘932 patent. Dell engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of 

the Dell ‘932 Products, e.g., through Dell user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and 

 19 See, e.g., Dell EMC Networking N4000 Series Switches, DELL DATASHEET (May 2017); Dell 

Networking N-Series N1500, N2000, N3000, and N4000 Switches, DELL USER’S 

CONFIGURATION GUIDE VERSION 6.3.0.0 (January 2016); Dell Networking N4000 Series and 

Dell PowerConnect 8100 Series – Switch Configuration Guide for EqualLogic SANs, DELL 

DOCUMENTATION (March 2014); Dell Networking N2000 Series Switches, DELL DATASHEET

(November 2013); Dell EMC Networking N-Series: N1100-ON, N1500, N2000, N2100-ON, 

N3000, N3100-ON, and N4000 Switches CLI Reference Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION

(November 2018); OpenFlow Single-table Implementation for Dell Networking N-Series SDN, DELL DEPLOYMENT AND CONFIGURATION GUIDE (October 2016); Dell Networking Operating 

System for OpenFlow on N-Series (DNOS-OF), DELL USER GUIDE V1.1B (June 2016); Dell 

Software-Defined Networking (SDN Deployment Guide Version 1.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION

(2013); Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 User Guide, Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION 

(September 2019); Deploying Dell Networking and Configuring SDN, DELL EMC SUPPORT 

YOUTUBE CHANNEL (September 2013), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=P5gtKAocOIo; and 5.0 Firmware Update For Dell PowerConnect Switches, DELL EMC

SUPPORT YOUTUBE CHANNEL (August 2012), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=ySD5QhbbIhw.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 23 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 24 of 45

training materials to actively induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘932 patent. 

Accordingly, Dell has induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the 

accused products in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘932 patent, knowing that 

such use constitutes infringement of the ‘932 patent.

86. The ‘932 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘932 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Dell is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘932 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Dell is infringing the ‘932 patent in a manner best described 

as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

87. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘932 patent.

88. As a result of Dell’s infringement of the ‘932 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Dell’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Dell together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

COUNT II

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,428,209

89. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

90. Dell designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States products 

and/or services for implementing within a network router a method for recovering from a failure. 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 24 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 25 of 45

91. Dell designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Dell EMC PowerEdge 

MX infrastructure products with the Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 or later network operating 

system (collectively, the "Dell '209 Products").

92. One or more Dell subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Dell ‘209 Products in regular 

business operations.

93. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for implementing within 

a network router a method for recovering from a failure. The below excerpt from Dell 

documentation shows a configuration of the Dell ‘209 products wherein the egress modules are 

connected to external locations.

Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 User Guide, Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION at 471 (2020).

94. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for sending, via a first 

route, a first set of information from an ingress module to a first egress module for forwarding by 

said first egress module to a destination external to said router, wherein said first set of information 

traverses a path which encompasses at least a portion of said first route.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 25 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 26 of 45

95. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for sending, via a first 

route, a first set of information from an ingress module to a first egress module for forwarding by 

said first egress module to a destination external to said router, wherein said first set of information 

traverses a path which encompasses at least a portion of said first route.

96. The Dell ‘209 Products enable the use of “Uplink Failure Detection” with “Virtual 

Link Trunking.” Dell documentation states when the status of an uplink connection goes down 

“the uplink state group in each VLT node disables the downstream VLT port-channel local to the 

node.” Further, when the event “VLTi Link is operationally down with heartbeat up” the VLT 

module sends the VLT port channel disable request to the Interface Manager (“IFM”) for both the 

uplink and downlink.

Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 User Guide, Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION at 1230 (2020) 

(emphasis added).

97. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for detecting a failure of 

said first egress module.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 26 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 27 of 45

Dell EMC OS10 Enterprise Edition User Guide, Release 10.4.0E(R3), DELL DOCUMENTATION at 

476 (May 2018) (emphasis added).

98. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for directing a message 

to said ingress module informing said ingress module of said first egress module failure in response 

to said failure of said first egress module.

99. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for selecting an alternate 

egress module capable of forwarding information to said destination in response to said message.

100. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for sending, via a second 

route, a future set of information from said ingress module to said alternate egress module for 

forwarding to said destination, wherein said first set of information and said future set of 

information are both part of a flow.

101. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology for preventing other sets 

of information associated with said flow from being sent from said ingress module to said first 

egress module in response to said message.

102. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology wherein directing said 

message to said ingress module comprises: (1) identifying said ingress module, (2) accessing a 

routing table which comprises one or more routes to said ingress module, (3) obtaining a return 

route from said routing table, wherein said return route directs said message to said ingress module 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 27 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 28 of 45

along a different path than that traversed by said first set of information, and (4) sending said 

message to said ingress module via said return route.

103. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology wherein the first egress 

module and said alternate egress module are predetermined.

104. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology wherein identifiers 

associated with said first egress module and said alternate egress module are stored within a flow 

block associated with said flow.

105. One or more of the Dell ‘209 Products include technology wherein the abovedescribed preventing comprises storing an identification in said flow block that all sets of 

information associated with said flow are not to be sent to said first egress module.

106. Dell has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘209 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling technology for implementing 

within a network router a method for recovering from a failure, including but not limited to the 

Dell ‘209 Products. 

107. The Dell ‘209 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the 

United States.

108. The Dell ‘209 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

109. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

implementing within a network router a method for recovering from a failure, including but not 

limited to the Dell ‘209 Products, Dell has injured Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs for directly 

infringing one or more claims of the ‘209 patent, including at least claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(a).

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 28 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 29 of 45

110. Dell also indirectly infringes the ‘209 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

111. Dell has had knowledge of the ‘209 patent since at least service of this Complaint 

or shortly thereafter, and Dell knew of the ‘209 patent and knew of its infringement, including by 

way of this lawsuit.

112. Alternatively, Dell has had knowledge of the ‘209 patent since at least December 

27, 2011, based on its citation of the ‘209 patent as relevant prior art during the prosecution of the 

application leading to U.S. Patent No. 8,085,794, which is assigned to EMC Corporation and 

issued on December 27, 2011.

113. Dell intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users of 

the Dell ‘209 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or was 

willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Dell specifically 

intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products would infringe 

the ‘209 patent. Dell performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce 

actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘209 patent and with the knowledge that the induced 

acts would constitute infringement. For example, Dell provides the Dell ‘209 Products that have 

the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘209 patent, 

including at least claim 1, and Dell further provides documentation and training materials that 

cause customers and end users of the Dell ‘209 Products to utilize the products in a manner that 

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘209 patent.20 By providing instruction and training to 

 20See, e.g., PowerEdge MX-Series Fabric Management, DELL DOCUMENTATION (2018); Dell 

EMC Networking MXG610s Fibre Channel Switch, Fibre Channel IO Module MX7000 Chassis 

Deployments, DELL DOCUMENTATION (2018); Dell EMC PowerEdge MX SmartFabric

Deployment Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION (November 2018); Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 

User Guide, Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION (2020); Dell EMC OpenManage 

Enterprise-Modular Edition Version 1.10.20 for PowerEdge MX7000 Chassis User's Guide, 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 29 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 30 of 45

customers and end-users on how to use the Dell ‘209 Products in a manner that directly infringes 

one or more claims of the ‘209 patent, including at least claim 1, Dell specifically intended to 

induce infringement of the ‘209 patent. Dell engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of 

the Dell ‘209 Products, e.g., through Dell user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and 

training materials to actively induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘209 patent. 

Accordingly, Dell has induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the 

accused products in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘209 patent, knowing that 

such use constitutes infringement of the ‘209 patent.

114. The ‘209 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘209 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Dell is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘209 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Dell is infringing the ‘209 patent in a manner best described 

as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

115. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘209 patent.

116. As a result of Dell’s infringement of the ‘209 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Dell’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Dell together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

 

DELL DOCUMENTATION (2020); Dell EMC PowerEdge MX Networking Architecture Guide,

DELL DOCUMENTATION (October 2019); Dell PowerEdge FN I/O Aggregator Configuration 

Guide 9.6(0.0), DELL DOCUMENTATION (September 2019); Dell EMC OS10 Enterprise Edition 

User Guide, Release 10.4.0E(R3), DELL DOCUMENTATION (May 2018); and Dell EMC 

PowerEdge MX SmartFabric Deployment, DELL EMC YOUTUBE.COM CHANNEL (September 20, 

2018); available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjjyV5hdTMo.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 30 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 31 of 45

COUNT III

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,358

117. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

118. Dell designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States products 

and/or services for implementing multiple logical routers within a single physical router.

119. Dell designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Dell EMC 

PowerSwitch devices with the Dell EMC Networking OS10 or later network operating system, 

which include: Dell EMC PowerSwitch S-Series devices (S3048-ON, S4048-ON, S4048T-ON, 

S4112F-ON, S4112T-ON, S4128F-ON, S4128T-ON, S4148F-ON, S4148FE-ON, S4148T-ON, 

S4148U-ON, S4248FB-ON, S4248FBL-ON, S5148F-ON, S5212F-ON, S5224F-ON, S5232FON, S5248F-ON, S5296F-ON, S6010-ON) and Dell EMC PowerSwitch Z-Series devices (Z9100-

ON, Z9264F-ON) (collectively, the “Dell ‘358 Products(s)”).

120. One or more Dell subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Dell ‘358 Products in regular 

business operations.

121. One or more of the Dell ‘358 Products include technology for implementing 

multiple logical routers within a single physical router.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 31 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 32 of 45

Dell Networking Configuration Guide for the C9000 Series Version 9.9(0.0), DELL 

DOCUMENTATION at 1051 (October 2015) (emphasis added).

122. One or more of the Dell ‘358 Products include a router with a first set of one or 

more components capable of being figured to implement a first logical router within the router.

Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 User Guide Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION at 471 (June 

2020) (emphasis added).

123. One or more of the Dell ‘358 Products include a router with a second set of one or 

more components capable of being configured to implement a second logical router within the 

router. Specifically, the Dell ‘358 Products enable multiple logical routers to be setup within a 

Dell ‘358 Product. The below excerpt from Dell’s documentation shows that interfaces for a VRF 

can be either physical (ethernet port or port channel) or logical (VLANs). 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 32 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 33 of 45

Dell Networking Configuration Guide for the C9000 Series Version 9.9(0.0), DELL 

DOCUMENTATION at 1052 (October 2015).

124. One or more of the Dell ‘358 Products include a router with a forwarding routing 

table that comprises an identifier that indicates an internal link is internal rather than an external 

link.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 33 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 34 of 45

Dell Networking: Multitenancy Across Physical and Logical Environments with VRF-lite and 

VMware NSX – Technical White Paper, DELL DOCUMENTATION AT 4 (December 2014) (emphasis 

added).

125. One or more of the Dell ‘358 Products include a router wherein the first and second 

sets of components comprise functionality for establishing the internal link between the first 

logical router and the second logical router and advertising the internal link to other routers 

external to the router such that the first and second logical routers appear to the other routers as 

interconnected standalone routers, wherein the internal link is a logical, non-physical entity.

126. The Dell ‘358 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the 

United States.

127. The Dell ‘358 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas. 

128. Dell has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘358 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling routers implementing multiple 

logical routers within a single physical router, including but not limited to the Dell ‘358 Products.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 34 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 35 of 45

129. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling routers implementing 

multiple logical routers within a single physical router, including but not limited to the Dell ‘358

Products, Dell has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for directly infringing one or more claims of the 

‘358 patent, including at least claim 1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

130. Dell also indirectly infringes the ‘358 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

131. Dell has had knowledge of the ‘358 patent since at least service of this Complaint 

or shortly thereafter, and Dell knew of the ‘358 patent and knew of its infringement, including by 

way of this lawsuit.

132. Dell intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users of 

the Dell ‘358 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or was 

willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Dell specifically 

intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products would infringe 

the ‘358 patent. Dell performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce 

actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘358 patent and with the knowledge that the induced 

acts would constitute infringement. For example, Dell provides the Dell ‘358 Products that have 

the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘358 patent, 

including at least claim 1, and Dell further provides documentation and training materials that 

cause customers and end users of the Dell ‘358 Products to utilize the products in a manner that 

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘358 patent.21 By providing instruction and training to 

 21 See, e.g., Dell Networking Configuration Guide for the C9000 Series Version 9.9(0.0), DELL 

DOCUMENTATION (October 2015); Dell Networking: Multitenancy with VRF-lite – Deployment 

and Configuration Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION (October 2014); Dell Networking: 

Multitenancy Across Physical and Logical Environments with VRF-lite and VMware NSX –

Technical White Paper, DELL DOCUMENTATION (December 2014); Dell EMC Networking OS10 

Enterprise Edition Quick Start and Interoperability Guide - An Introduction Guide to OS10 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 35 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 36 of 45

customers and end-users on how to use the Dell ‘358 Products in a manner that directly infringes 

one or more claims of the ‘358 patent, including at least claim 1, Dell specifically intended to 

induce infringement of the ‘358 patent. Dell engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of 

the Dell ‘358 Products, e.g., through Dell user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and 

training materials to actively induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘358 patent. 

Accordingly, Dell has induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the 

accused products in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘358 patent, knowing that 

such use constitutes infringement of the ‘358 patent.

133. The ‘358 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘358 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Dell is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘358 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Dell is infringing the ‘358 patent in a manner best described 

as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

134. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘358 patent.

135. As a result of Dell’s infringement of the ‘358 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seeks recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Dell’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Dell together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

 

Enterprise Edition, DELL DOCUMENTATION (July 2018); Dell EMC SmartFabric OS10 User 

Guide Release 10.5.0, DELL DOCUMENTATION (June 2020); Dell Networking S6000 10/40GbE 

and VMWare NSX, DELL EMC SUPPORT YOUTUBE.COM CHANNEL (last visited June 2020), 

available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQ0fQp998c.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 36 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 37 of 45

COUNT IV

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,593

136. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

137. Dell designs, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale in the United States products 

and/or services for processing a flow of a series of information packets.

138. Dell designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses Dell devices that 

enable the identification and penalization of data flows based on the behavior of the data flow 

including at least the following devices: the Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 3000 and the Dell EMC 

SD-WAN Edge 600 Series (Edge 600, Edge 610, Edge 620, Edge 640, Edge 680) (collectively, 

the “Dell ‘593 Products(s)”).

139. One or more Dell subsidiaries and/or affiliates use the Dell ‘593 Products in regular 

business operations.

140. One or more of the Dell ‘593 Products include technology for processing a flow of 

a series of information packets. Specifically, the Dell ‘593 Products maintain a set of behavioral 

statistics based on each and every information packet belonging to a flow. 

141. The Dell ‘593 Products are available to businesses and individuals throughout the 

United States.

142. The Dell ‘593 Products are provided to businesses and individuals located in the 

Western District of Texas.

143. Dell has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ‘593 patent by, 

among other things, making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

processing a flow of a series of information packets. 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 37 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 38 of 45

144. The Dell ‘593 Products maintain behavioral statistics based on the processing of 

packets belonging to a flow. This processing is conducted by the Dell ‘593 Products using 

“factory-integrated” VeloCloud software.

Dell EMC SD-WAN Solution Overview, DELL DOCUMENTATION at 2 (2019).

145. The Dell ‘593 Products maintain a set of behavioral statistics for the flow, wherein 

the set of behavioral statistics is updated based on each information packet belonging to the flow, 

as each information packet is processed. 

146. The Dell ‘593 Products enable the generation of behavioral statistics based on each 

packet that is processed. 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 38 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 39 of 45

Guide – VMware SD-WAN by VeloCloud Features & Benefits, VMWARE DOCUMENTATION at 2 

(2019) (emphasis added).

147. The Dell ‘593 Products determine, based at least partially upon the set of behavioral

statistics, whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

148. The Dell ‘593 Products determine whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable 

behavior regardless of the presence or absence of congestion. 

149. The Dell ‘593 Products enable the processing of packets into flows that share “the 

same tuples.” Documentation for the Dell ‘593 Products describes “[o]nce the application has 

been correctly identified, any future flows matching the same tuple will be reclassified 

automatically and hit the correct rule.”

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 39 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 40 of 45

VMware SD-WAN by VeloCloud Stateful Firewall (78116), VMWARE KNOWLEDGE BASE (March 

16, 2020), available at: https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/78116.

150. Documentation for the Dell ‘593 Products state that as packets are processed 

statistics about the flow are. “Since an Edges is now session-aware, there is much more 

information that can be reported in the firewall logs. The logs will contain the following fields: 

Time, Segment, Edge, Action, Interface, Protocol, Source IP, Source Port, Destination IP, 

Destination Port, Rule, Bytes Received/Sent, Duration.” VMware SD-WAN by VeloCloud Stateful 

Firewall (78116), VMWARE KNOWLEDGE BASE (March 16, 2020), available at: 

https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/78116.

151. The Dell ‘593 Products enforce a penalty on the flow in response to a determination 

that the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior.

152. The Dell ‘593 Products compile statistics for each flow and based on the monitoring 

of these statistics can take “On Demand Remediation” to penalize misbehaving flows.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 40 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 41 of 45

Tony Banuelos and Jaspreet Bhatia, Know, Understand, Execute: Network Monitoring and 

Analytics with SD-WAN, VMWORLD 2019 SESSION NEDG2576BU PRESENTATION AT 16 (2019).

153. By making, using, testing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services for 

processing a flow of a series of information packets, including but not limited to the Dell ‘593

Products, Dell has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for directly infringing one or more claims of the 

‘593 patent, including at least claim 4, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

154. Dell also indirectly infringes the ‘593 patent by actively inducing infringement 

under 35 USC § 271(b).

155. Dell has had knowledge of the ‘593 patent since at least service of this Complaint 

or shortly thereafter, and Dell knew of the ‘593 patent and knew of its infringement, including by 

way of this lawsuit.

156. Dell intended to induce patent infringement by third-party customers and users of 

the Dell ‘593 Products and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or was 

willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement. Dell specifically 

intended and was aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products would infringe 

the ‘593 patent. Dell performed the acts that constitute induced infringement, and would induce 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 41 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 42 of 45

actual infringement, with knowledge of the ‘593 patent and with the knowledge that the induced 

acts would constitute infringement. For example, Dell provides the Dell ‘593 Products that have 

the capability of operating in a manner that infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘593 patent, 

including at least claim 4, and Dell further provides documentation and training materials that 

cause customers and end users of the Dell ‘593 Products to utilize the products in a manner that 

directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘593 patent.22 By providing instruction and training to 

customers and end-users on how to use the Dell ‘593 Products in a manner that directly infringes 

one or more claims of the ‘593 patent, including at least claim 4, Dell specifically intended to 

induce infringement of the ‘593 patent. Dell engaged in such inducement to promote the sales of 

the Dell ‘593 Products, e.g., through Dell user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and 

training materials to actively induce the users of the accused products to infringe the ‘593 patent. 

Accordingly, Dell has induced and continues to induce users of the accused products to use the 

accused products in their ordinary and customary way to infringe the ‘593 patent, knowing that 

such use constitutes infringement of the ‘593 patent.

157. The ‘593 patent is well-known within the industry as demonstrated by multiple 

citations to the ‘593 patent in published patents and patent applications assigned to technology 

companies and academic institutions. Dell is utilizing the technology claimed in the ‘593 patent 

without paying a reasonable royalty. Dell is infringing the ‘593 patent in a manner best described 

 22 See e.g., Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 600 Series Installation Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION (April 

2020); Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 600 Series Setup Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION (August 

2019); Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 3000 Series Setup Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION (August 

2019); Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 3000 Series Installation Guide, DELL DOCUMENTATION

(August 2019); Dell EMC SD-WAN Solution Overview, DELL DOCUMENTATION (2019); Dell 

EMC SD-WAN Solutions Overview and Demo, TECH FIELD DAY PRESENTATION FROM DELL 

EMC (October 4, 2019), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuXsKDynAcw; and 

What is SD-WAN and Why Do You Need It, DELL YOUTTUBE.COM CHANNEL PRESENTATION

(October 18, 2019), available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF997v3H2i4.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 42 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 43 of 45

as willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate.

158. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been met 

with respect to the ‘593 patent.

159. As a result of Dell’s infringement of the ‘593 patent, Plaintiffs have suffered 

monetary damages, and seek recovery in an amount adequate to compensate for Dell’s 

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by 

Dell together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sable IP, LLC and Sable Networks, Inc. respectfully request that this 

Court enter:

A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Dell has infringed, either literally 

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘932, ‘209, ‘358, and ‘593

patents;

B. An award of damages resulting from Dell’s acts of infringement in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

C. A judgment and order finding that Dell’s infringement was willful, wanton, 

malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or 

characteristic of a pirate within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 and 

awarding to Plaintiffs enhanced damages.

D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the 

meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable 

attorneys’ fees against Dell.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 43 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 44 of 45

E. Any and all other relief to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be 

entitled. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Sable IP, LLC and 

Sable Networks, Inc. request a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 44 of 45
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Page 45 of 45

Dated: June 26, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424)

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763)

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: 323-886-3430

Facsimile: 323-978-5508

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

114 E. Commerce Ave.

Gladewater, TX 75647

Telephone: 903-845-5770

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for Sable Networks, Inc. and 

Sable IP, LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/26/20 Page 45 of 45