IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP 

 (Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES 

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

 Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) hereby files its Answer to Plaintiff Cobblestone 

Wireless, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “Cobblestone”) Complaint for Patent Infringement (the 

“Complaint”) and responds to each of the numbered paragraphs as follows: 

Plaintiff Cobblestone and the Patent-in-Suit 

1. Cisco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies the same. 

2. Cisco admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

State of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, 

California 95134; that its registered agent is Corporation Service d/b/a CSC-Lawyers 

Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218; and that it 

is registered to do business in the state of Texas. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

3. Cisco admits that the Complaint purports to make a claim for patent infringement 

arising under Title 35 of the United States Code, and does not dispute that this Court has subject 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 99
 2 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), but denies that Plaintiff is entitled 

to any relief. 

4. Cisco does not contest personal jurisdiction in this particular action. Cisco denies 

that it has committed acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, or any other District 

within the State of Texas. Cisco otherwise denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. Cisco admits that its products and/or services are purchased and/or used in this 

District. Cisco denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5. 

6. Cisco will not contest that venue is proper in this District for purposes of this action. 

Cisco denies that this District is a convenient venue in which to litigate this action and reserves all 

rights to pursue a motion in that regard. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the 

Complaint set forth legal conclusions, no response is required. Cisco otherwise denies the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. Cisco admits that it conducts business in this District and maintains offices at 2300 

East President George Bush Turnpike, Richardson, Texas, 75082. Cisco otherwise denies the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 

Count 1 – Claim for Infringement of the ’802 Patent 

8. Cisco incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, its responses to the 

allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

9. Cisco admits that a document purporting to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 

entitled “Wireless Communications Systems and Methods” (“the ’802 Patent”) was attached as 

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. Cisco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the Plaintiff’s ownership of the ’802 Patent, and therefore denies the same. Cisco admits 

that the face of the ’802 Patent bears an issue date of April 12, 2011. Cisco denies that the ’802 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 100
 3 

Patent was duly and legally issued. Cisco denies the remaining allegation set forth in Paragraph 

9. 

10. Cisco admits that it sells products that are compatible with the “ac” and “ax” 

amendments to the IEEE 802.11 standard. Cisco denies having committed any acts of patent 

infringement, including with respect to any of the products identified as “Accused 

Instrumentalities” with respect to the ’802 Patent. Cisco otherwise denies the remaining 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 10. 

11. Cisco denies all allegations set forth in Paragraph 11. 

12. Cisco denies all allegations set forth in Paragraph 12. 

13. Cisco admits that what purports to be a claim chart of independent claim 1 of the 

’802 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2. Cisco denies the remaining allegations set 

forth in Paragraph 13. 

14. Cisco denies all allegations set forth in Paragraph 14. 

15. Cisco denies all allegations set forth in Paragraph 15. 

Jury Trial Demanded 

 16. Cisco admits that the Complaint sets forth a demand for a trial by jury. 

Prayer for Relief 

 Cisco denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in Paragraphs A-F of 

Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, or any other relief of any kind.

CISCO’S DEFENSES 

Subject to its responses above, and upon information and belief, Cisco alleges and asserts 

the following defenses in response to the allegations in the Complaint, undertaking the burden of 

proof only as to those defenses deemed affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 101
 4 

defenses are denominated herein. In addition to the defenses described below, subject to the 

responses above, Cisco specifically reserves all rights to allege defenses, such as permitted by any 

scheduling order or that become known through the course of discovery. Cisco denies that Plaintiff 

is entitled to any relief whatsoever, either as prayed for or otherwise. 

FIRST DEFENSE – NON-INFRINGEMENT

Cisco has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Patentin-Suit directly, contributorily, by way of inducement, or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

SECOND DEFENSE – INVALIDITY/INELIGIBILITY 

 Each asserted claim of the Patent-in-Suit is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the 

provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 

102, 103, and 112. By way of example only, each asserted claim is invalid in light of the references 

cited on their face, the admitted prior art in the specifications, arguments, and references cited in 

prosecution of the Patent-in-Suit, and the knowledge of a person of skill in the art. 

THIRD DEFENSE – UNAVAILABILITY OF PRE-SUIT DAMAGES 

 To the extent that the Plaintiff asserts patent claims for which the marking requirements of 

35 U.S.C. § 287(a) are applicable, Plaintiff has failed to plead compliance with that requirement. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages for alleged infringement pre-dating 

the date on which it provided actual notice to Cisco of the Patent-in-Suit. 

FOURTH DEFENSE – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

 Plaintiff is barred from recovering damages for alleged acts of infringement occurring 

outside the statute of limitations, 35 U.S.C. § 286. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 102
 5 

FIFTH DEFENSE – EXPRESS OR IMPLIED LICENSE 

 Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are barred in whole or in part: (i) to the extent 

any allegedly infringing products are supplied, directly or indirectly, to Cisco by an entity or 

entities having express or implied licenses to the Patent-in-Suit; (ii) to the extent Cisco is alleged 

to infringe the Patent-in-Suit indirectly by supplying products, directly or indirectly, to an entity 

or entities having express or implied licenses to the Patent-in-Suit; and (iii) to the extent Plaintiff’s 

infringement allegations are based in whole or in part upon Cisco’s use or sale of products in which 

Plaintiff’s patent rights have exhausted or are subject to the first-sale doctrine. 

SIXTH DEFENSE – SALES TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

 To the extent any products accused of infringement in this case are used by and/or 

manufactured in the United States Government or a person or entity affiliated with the United 

States Government, Plaintiff’s claims with respect to those products cannot be pursued in this 

Court and are subject to other limitations under 38 U.S.C. § 1498. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE – LACK OF STANDING

 Plaintiff may lack standing to assert claims for patent infringement under the Patent-inSuit based on its lack of ownership of all right, title, and interest to the Patent-in-Suit. Defendants 

are investigating, and intend to investigate through discovery, whether any other person or entity 

owns all or part of the rights to the Patent-in-Suit. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 103
 6 

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 

Cisco reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses at law or in equity that 

may exist now or that may be available in the future based on discovery and further factual 

investigation in this action. 

CISCO’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Cisco prays for judgment against Plaintiff as follows: 

A. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, denying each and every prayer for 

relief therein, and entering judgment for Cisco; 

B. If this case is determined to be exceptional, awarding Cisco its reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and 

C. Granting Cisco such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary, just, 

or proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV38, Cisco respectfully demands a jury trial of all issue so triable to a jury in this action. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 104
 7 

Dated: December 8, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay 

Eric H. Findlay 

efindlay@findlaycraft.com 

State Bar No. 00789886 

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 

7270 Crosswater Avenue, Suite B 

Tyler, Texas 75703 

Telephone: (903) 534-1100 

Facsimile: (903) 534-1137 

Holly Engelmann 

State Bar No. 24040865 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

Las Cimas IV 

900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300 

Austin, Texas 78746 

Tel: (512) 277-2246 

Fax: (512) 597-2301 

HEngelmann@duanemorris.com 

Louis N. Jameson 

GA State Bar No. 003970 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

GA State Bar No. 783597 

Jayla C. Grant 

GA State Bar No. 312669 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Tel: (404) 253-6915 

Fax: (404) 253-6901 

WJameson@duanemorris.com 

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

JCGrant@duanemorris.com 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 105
 8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on December 8, 2023 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of 

record. 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay 

 Eric H. Findlay 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/08/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 106