IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00097-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF 

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED’S COMPLAINT

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Cisco”), by and through its attorneys, 

hereby answers the Complaint (“Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Lionra Technologies Limited 

(“Plaintiff” or “Lionra”), as follows. Anything in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted is 

hereby denied. 

The headings and subheadings in Cisco’s Answer are used solely for purposes of 

convenience and organization to mirror those appearing in the Complaint; to the extent that any 

headings or other non-numbered statements in the Complaint contain or imply any allegations, 

Cisco denies each and every allegation therein.

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Response to “Introduction”

1. Cisco denies that it infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,738,471 (“the ’471 patent”). Cisco 

is otherwise without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1 and on that basis denies all remaining allegations 

in paragraph 1.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 115
2

Response to “Parties”

2. Cisco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 and on that basis denies each and every allegation.

3. Cisco admits that its principal place of business is at 170 West Tasman Drive, San 

Jose, California 95134. Cisco admits that it is registered to do business in Texas. Otherwise, Cisco 

denies the allegations in paragraph 3.

Response to “Jurisdiction and Venue”

4. Cisco admits that the Complaint was filed as a patent infringement action under 

Title 35 of the United States Code, but denies that there are factual or legal bases for Lionra’s 

claims. To the extent paragraph 4 alleges legal conclusions, no response is required. To the extent 

an answer is required, Cisco denies the allegations in paragraph 4.

5. Cisco admits that it has a business address at 2250 East President George Bush 

Turnpike, Richardson, TX 75082. Cisco denies that it conducts any “acts of infringement” related 

to the ’471 patent. To the extent paragraph 5 alleges legal conclusions, no response is required. 

To the extent an answer is required, Cisco denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 5.

6. To the extent paragraph 6 alleges legal conclusions, no response is required. To the 

extent an answer is required, Cisco denies the allegations in paragraph 6.

Response to “Count 1 – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,738,471”

7. Cisco repeats and re-alleges the responses set forth in the preceding paragraphs 

above as though set forth in length herein.

8. Cisco admits that Exhibit 1 appears to be a copy of the ’471 patent, which appears 

to be titled “High speed packet processing in a wireless network.” Cisco is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in 

paragraph 8 and on that basis denies all remaining allegations.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 116
3

9. Cisco denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 9.

10. Cisco denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 10.

11. Cisco denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 11.

12. Cisco admits that it has knowledge of the existence of the ’471 patent after 

receiving service of the Complaint. Otherwise, Cisco denies each and every allegation contained 

in paragraph 12.

13. Cisco admits that it has knowledge of the existence of the ’471 patent after 

receiving service of the Complaint. Otherwise, Cisco denies each and every allegation contained 

in paragraph 13.

14. Cisco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 and on that basis denies each and every allegation.

15. Cisco denies that it infringes the ’471 patent, and therefore denies that Lionra is 

entitled to damages. Cisco is otherwise without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 15 and on that basis denies 

all remaining allegations in paragraph 15.

16. Cisco denies that it infringes the ’471 patent, and therefore denies that Lionra is 

entitled to damages. Cisco is otherwise without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16 and on that basis denies 

all remaining allegations in paragraph 16.

Response to “Prayer For Relief”

17. Cisco denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Prayer for 

Relief, and to the extent that such prayer contains factual allegations relating to Cisco, such 

allegations are denied. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief should be denied, with prejudice, in its entirety.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 117
4

Response to “Demand for Jury Trial”

18. No response is required to Plaintiff’s demand for a trial by jury in this case. Cisco

also demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

* * *

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

19. Further answering the Complaint and as additional defenses thereto, Cisco asserts 

the following affirmative and other defenses. Cisco does not intend hereby to assume the burden 

of proof with respect to those matters as to which, pursuant to law, Plaintiff bears the burden. 

Cisco reserves the right to add additional defenses and/or supplement its defenses, including (but 

not limited to) those related to the unenforceability of the ’471 patent based on inequitable conduct, 

as Cisco learns additional facts.

FIRST DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

20. The Complaint, and one or more claims for relief set forth therein, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE: NON-INFRINGEMENT

21. Cisco does not infringe, has not infringed, and does not and has not induced 

infringement or contributed to infringement of any claim of the ’471 patent under any theory, 

including literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

THIRD DEFENSE: INVALIDITY AND INELIGIBILITY 

22. Each and every claim of the ’471 patent is invalid and/or ineligible for failure to 

meet the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth, inter alia, in 35 U.S.C. § 101, et 

seq., including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 118
5

FOURTH DEFENSE: PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND DISCLAIMER

23. By virtue of statements, amendments made, and/or positions taken during 

prosecution of the application for the ’471 patent and/or related patents or patent applications, 

whether explicit or implicit, Plaintiff is barred from claiming that the ’471 patent covers or 

includes, either literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, any of Cisco’s methods, 

products, systems, services, or processes. To the extent that Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action for 

infringement of any of the ’471 patent is based on the doctrine of equivalents, Plaintiff is barred 

under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel and/or other limits to allegations of 

infringement.

FIFTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO MARK

24. To the extent Plaintiff has failed to comply with the notice requirements of 35 

U.S.C. § 287, Plaintiff is barred from all monetary relief for acts that occurred prior to Plaintiff 

providing actual notice to Cisco.

SIXTH DEFENSE: LIMITATION ON DAMAGES

25. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 286, Plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages for 

acts that occurred more than six years before it filed the Complaint in this action.

SEVENTH DEFENSE: NO EXCEPTIONAL CASE 

26. Plaintiff cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorney 

fees against Cisco under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise.

EIGHTH DEFENSE: NO ENTITLEMENT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

27. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief against Cisco, including because any 

alleged injury to Plaintiff as a result of Cisco’s alleged activities is not immediate or irreparable, 

Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and/or public policy concerns weigh against any injunctive 

relief.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 119
6

NINTH DEFENSE: LICENSE, EXHAUSTION, WAIVER, AND ESTOPPEL

28. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by license, exhaustion, and/or the 

doctrines of waiver and/or equitable estoppel.

TENTH DEFENSE: UNCLEAN HANDS

29. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE: GOVERNMENT SALES EXEMPTION

30. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that Plaintiff 

accuses products or services that are provided by or for the government of the United States of 

America.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Cisco respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor against Plaintiff, and 

grant the following relief:

A. A judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint against Cisco in its entirety with 

prejudice;

B. An Order declaring that Plaintiff take nothing on the claims asserted in the 

Complaint;

C. A Declaration that Cisco has not infringed any valid claim of the ’471 patent and is 

not liable on Count 1;

D. All costs be taxed against Plaintiff;

E. A finding that this case is exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding 

Cisco its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in connection with 

this action;

F. An award to Cisco for its costs, expenses, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees 

incurred in connection with this action; and

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 120
7

G. Any such other relief in favor of Cisco and against Plaintiff as the Court may deem 

appropriate and just under the circumstances.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 121
8

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Cisco demands a jury trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), as to all issues that may be 

tried by a jury.

Dated: April 22, 2024 By /s/ Brian A. Rosenthal

Brian A. Rosenthal (lead attorney)

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Katherine Dominguez

kdominguez@gibsondunn.com

Sanjay Nevrekar

snevrekar@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000

Facsimile: 212.351.4035

Christine Ranney

cranney@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1801 California Street, Suite 4200

Denver, CO 80202-2642

Telephone: 303.298.5700

Facsimile: 303.298.5907

Albert Suarez IV

asuarez@gibsondunn.com

Texas State Bar No. 24113094

Monica Lin

mlin2@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100

Dallas, TX 75201-6912 

Telephone: 214.698.3360

Facsimile: 214.571.2907

Melissa R. Smith

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Texas State Bar No. 24001351

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, TX 75670

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 122
9

Telephone: 903.934.8450

Facsimile: 903.934.9257

Attorneys for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 123
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 22, 2024 the foregoing was electronically filed in compliance 

with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via the Court’s electronic filing system on all counsel who 

have consented to electronic service. 

/s/ Brian Rosenthal

Brian Rosenthal

Case 2:24-cv-00097-JRG Document 17 Filed 04/22/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 124