Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/204206468/Selene-Communication-Technologies-v-CISCO-Systems
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 15:27:48
Document Index: 356359930

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', 'art153']

Selene Communication Technologies v. CISCO Systems
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SELENE COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
C.A. No. __________
This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff, Selene Communication
Technologies, LLC (“Selene”), makes the following allegations against Defendant Cisco
Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”):
Plaintiff Selene is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business at 2961 Fontenay Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120.
On information and belief, Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. is a California
corporation with its principal office at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, California 95134.
Cisco has appointed Corporation Service Company which will do business in California as CSC
– Lawyers Incorporating Service, 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr Ste 150N, Sacramento, California
95833, as its agent for service of process.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
seq., including § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cisco because, among other reasons,
Cisco has done business in this District, has committed and continues to commit acts of patent
infringement in this District, and has harmed and continues to harm Selene in this District, by,
among other things, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing infringing products and
services in this District.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b)
because, among other reasons, Cisco is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and has
committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. On information
and belief, for example, Cisco has used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing
products/services in this District.
United States Patent No. 7,143,444 (“the ‘444 Patent”), entitled “Application-
Layer Anomaly and Misuse Detection,” issued on November 28, 2006 and was invented by
Phillip Andrew Porras, Magnus Almgren, Ulf E. Lindqvist, and Steven Mark Dawson of SRI
International (“SRI”). SRI, which began as an initiative among researchers at Stanford
University, was founded as Stanford Research Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, by
Stanford University in 1946.
Since its inception, SRI was a pioneer in advancing technology in ways that had a
profound global impact. For instance, in 1963, engineers at SRI created the first optical video
disk recording system, paving the way for modern optical storage technologies such as CDROMs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs. In the early 1960s, SRI engineers invented the world’s first
In the late 1960s, SRI collaborated with the U.S. Department of Defense to create
“ARPANET”—the progenitor of what would become the global Internet.
SRI was spun out from Stanford University in 1970. In the early 1970s, SRI was
the first organization to utilize domain names, with extensions such as “.com,” “.org,” or “.gov.”
In 1977, SRI created what is considered to be the first true Internet connection, by connecting
three dissimilar networks.
In 1988, SRI combined with Sarnoff Corporation (“Sarnoff”). The Sarnoff
Corporation, formed in 1941, traces its origins to David Sarnoff, a principal technology
researcher at RCA Laboratories. It was created to be a research and development company
specializing in vision, video, and semiconductor technology, and it later expanded its research
areas to include various facets of information technology. Sarnoff is known for several
important technological advances. For instance, in 1953, David Sarnoff and RCA Laboratories
created the world’s first color television system. From 1963 to 1968, a team of engineers at the
David Sarnoff Research Center developed a revolutionary method for the electronic control of
light reflected from liquid crystals—leading to their invention of the liquid crystal display
(LCD). Sarnoff is also credited for the development of the electron microscope and early
optoelectronic components such as lasers and LEDs.
In 2007, SRI spun off its creation of Siri, a virtual personal assistant with a natural
language interface, as Siri, Inc. Siri was acquired by Apple Inc. in 2011.
SRI today is a nonprofit, independent research and innovation center serving
government and industry that derives revenue from a variety of sources, including licensing. SRI
employs over 2,500 employees at research facilities across the United States and abroad,
including researchers at the former Sarnoff facilities in Princeton, New Jersey.
All of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the ‘444 Patent were invented and
patented by technology researchers at SRI, a premier institution with a long history of leading
technological innovation. The ‘444 Patent issued as the result of the inventiveness of SRI
personnel and SRI’s substantial investments in research and development.
Pursuant to a purchase agreement and assignment from SRI completed in July
2013, Plaintiff Selene owns the ‘444 Patent, and has the exclusive right to sue for infringement
and recover damages for all past, present, and future infringement. A true and correct copy of
the ‘444 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
On November 28, 2001, Phillip Andrew Porras, Magnus Almgren, Ulf E.
Lindqvist, and Steven Mark Dawson filed their application for what would become the ’444
Patent. Each of the inventors were employed by SRI at its facilities in Menlo Park, California.
SRI pioneered the field of network intrusion detection. In 1997, SRI researchers
published their creation of the Event Monitoring Enabling Responses to Anomalous Live
Disturbances (“EMERALD”),1 which became a foundational and patented industry standard for
intrusion detection. See http://www.sri.com/work/timelineinnovation/timeline.php?timeline=computing-digital#!&innovation=network-intrusion-detection:
See Porras et al., EMERALD: Event Monitoring Enabling Responses to Anomalous Live
Disturbances, 1997 National Information Systems Security Conference (Oct. 1997), available at
http://www.csl.sri.com/papers/emerald-niss97/ (last visited Sept. 22, 2013).
SRI continues to license its patents related to its EMERALD technology to
industry leaders in the field of cyber-security to date, including, most recently, Symantec and
IBM.2 SRI’s EMERALD research team is led by Principal Investigator Phillip Porras, the
Program Director of SRI’s Internet Security Group and an inventor of the ’444 Patent.3
The ’444 Patent, while covering technology distinct from EMERALD, advanced
the state of the art of intrusion detection by teaching methods and systems for effectively hosting
an intrusion detection process in a server and integrating the intrusion detection processes into
server processes. The inventions of the ’444 Patent are fundamental to modern methods and
systems for intrusion detection. The ’444 Patent has been cited during the prosecution of more
See, e.g., Press Release, SRI International Licenses EMERALD Network Intrusion Detection
Patents to IBM (Mar. 14, 2013), available at http://www.sri.com/newsroom/press-releases/sriinternational-licenses-emerald-network-intrusion-detection-patents-ibm (last visited Sept. 22,
See SRI International, EMERALD, at http://www.csl.sri.com/projects/emerald/ (last visited
Sept. 22, 2013). Dr. Ulf Lindqvist, another inventor of the ’444 Patent, is also a staff member of
the EMERALD team.
than 13 later-filed patents. The ’444 Patent has been cited in the patent applications of a variety
of industry leaders in intrusion detection including Hewlett-Packard, Symantec, and Microsoft.
By way of example only, Claim 1 recites one of the inventions disclosed in the
’444 Patent: “1. A method comprising: in a server, hosting an intrusion detection process that
provides intrusion detection services; integrating the intrusion detection process with a server
process; and passing a request for data received by the server process to the intrusion detection
process, where the intrusion detection process comprises: packing a subset of information from
the request into an analysis format; and delivering the subset in a funneling process, via a socket,
to an analysis process.”
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,143,444
Cisco is a privately owned, multinational computer technology company that
develops, sells, repairs, and supports computers and related products and services, including
software and network security products. In 2012, Cisco was the third largest PC vendor in the
world and reported approximately $62.1 billion in revenue. Cisco was a publicly traded
company until October 30, 2013, when it became private in a leveraged buyout.
Cisco markets products called Cisco Security Agents (“Agents”), which are
“[h]ost-based IPS software running on servers and desktops to be protected and monitored,”
Management Center for Cisco Security Agents (“Cisco Security Agent MC”), which is “a
standalone application that provides centralized security policy configuration, monitoring, and
administration for Cisco Security Agents … perform[ing] global correlation based on event and
posture information generated by the Cisco Security Agent [which can] integrate with IPS,” and
Cisco IPS (“Sensor”), which is “[a]ny Cisco IPS platform running at minimum Cisco IPS Sensor
Software Version 6.0, configured either in inline protection (IPS) or promiscuous mode (IDS).”
See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/vpndevc/ps5729/ps5713/ps4077/prod_white_
paper0900aecd805c389a_ns441_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html.
Cisco also markets products called Cisco ASA 5500-X Series Next-Generation
Firewalls, which run Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall Services, including Intrusion
Prevention System (IPS). See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/vpndevc/ps6032/
ps6094/ps6120/data_sheet_c78-701659.pdf. Cisco’s IPS operates, inter alia, to analyze
incoming packets over the network and determine whether to forward or drop a packet. See
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/security_management/cisco_security_manager/securi
ty_manager/4.1/user/guide/monidiag.html#wpxref140238.
On October 7, 2013, Cisco acquired Sourcefire for an aggregate purchase price of
roughly $2.6 billion. See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/ime/8_0_2/
config/ime-802.pdf. As a result of the Sourcefire acquisition, Cisco also markets the Sourcefire
Virtual Appliance, which "enable[s] organizations to inspect traffic between virtual machines
(VMs) … The Sourcefire Virtual Appliance detects … any malicious traffic between the two
[virtual] networks.” See
https://na8.salesforce.com/sfc/p/80000000dRH9KXPLJqkSwWBoW3e_vtLbnXOyiNg=.
As a result of the Sourcefire acquisition, Cisco also markets the Sourcefire Virtual
Defense Center™, which can correlate and prioritize event data with network and user
awareness” and “aggregate[e] and analyz[e] security and compliance events from across the
organization.” See https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/83616T/20120404/AR_124967/
PDF/sourcefire-ar2011_0015.pdf, Page 5.
Cisco has been and now is directly infringing the ‘444 Patent literally and/or
under the doctrine of equivalents, in this judicial District and elsewhere in the United States, by,
among other things, practicing a method comprising: in a server, hosting an intrusion detection
process that provides intrusion detection services; integrating the intrusion detection process with
a server process; and passing a request for data received by the server process to the intrusion
detection process, where the intrusion detection process comprises: packing a subset of
information from the request into an analysis format; and delivering the subset in a funneling
process, via a socket, to an analysis process. Cisco has also been and now is directly infringing
the ‘444 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in this judicial District and
elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering for sale,
or importing a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium having
instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: host, in
a server, an intrusion detection process that provides intrusion detection services; integrate the
intrusion detection process with a server process; and pass a request for data received by the
server process to the intrusion detection process, where the intrusion detection process
comprises: packing a subset of information from the request into an analysis format; and
delivering the subset in a funneling process, via a socket, to an analysis process. The infringing
products and services include, for example, (1) Cisco Security Agent/IPS Collaborative
Architecture, including Cisco Security Agent, Cisco Security Agent MC, and Cisco IPS; (2)
Cisco ASA 5500-X Series Next-Generation Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation
Firewall Services, including Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security
Manager; (3) the Sourcefire Virtual Appliance; and (4) the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™.
Cisco has had knowledge of the ‘444 Patent and evidence of infringement of the
‘444 Patent by (1) the Cisco Security Agent/IPS Collaborative Architecture, including Cisco
Security Agent, Cisco Security Agent MC, and Cisco IPS, (2) Cisco ASA 5500-X Series NextGeneration Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall Services, including Intrusion
Prevention System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security Manager, (3) the Sourcefire Virtual
Appliance; and (4) the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™, since at least the date Cisco was
served with this Complaint for Patent Infringement, and Cisco has induced its customers, users
of (1) the Cisco Security Agent/IPS Collaborative Architecture, including Cisco Security Agent,
Cisco Security Agent MC, and Cisco IPS, (2) Cisco ASA 5500-X Series Next-Generation
Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall Services, including Intrusion Prevention
System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security Manager, (3) the Sourcefire Virtual Appliance; and
(4) the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™ to infringe the ‘444 Patent by providing instructions
to (1) assemble the Cisco Security Agent/IPS Collaborative Architecture, including Cisco
Security Agent, Cisco Security Agent MC, and Cisco IPS and use same, and use (2) the Cisco
ASA 5500-X Series Next-Generation Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall
Services, including Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security Manager; (3)
the Sourcefire Virtual Appliance; and (4) the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™, to practice a
method comprising: in a server, hosting an intrusion detection process that provides intrusion
detection services; integrating the intrusion detection process with a server process; and passing
a request for data received by the server process to the intrusion detection process, where the
intrusion detection process comprises: packing a subset of information from the request into an
analysis format; and delivering the subset in a funneling process, via a socket, to an analysis
For example, Cisco has instructed its customers, users of the Cisco Security
Agent/IPS Collaborative Architecture, including Cisco Security Agent, Cisco Security Agent
MC, and Cisco IPS, to connect and configure Cisco Security Agent, Cisco Security Agent MC,
and Cisco IPS as shown in Figure 1 below:
paper0900aecd805c389a_ns441_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html. Cisco further
explains the functionality of this configuration to its customers as follows:
“The Cisco Security Agent is a host-based agent that seats between the applications and
OS kernel, gaining maximum endpoint visibility, and providing defense-in-depth
protection to mission-critical servers and desktops. As part of their operation, Cisco
Security Agents generate valuable event and posture information that is collected and
correlated by Cisco Security Agent MC. The transfer of information between the agents
and Cisco Security Agent MC is protected by the use of SSL.
In addition to the detailed endpoint information collected from agents, Cisco Security
Agent MC global correlation generates threat data that can be valuable to Cisco IPS.
When shared with Cisco IPS, this data helps increase the sensor visibility on endpoints
and global threats. The Cisco IPS sensor accesses this information via Secure Device
Event Exchange (SDEE), a protocol developed by a consortium (led by Cisco) designed
for the secure exchange of network event information. Communications between Cisco
Security Agent MC and IPS are protected with SSL/TLS encryption and HTTP
authentication.”
See also http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/vpndevc/ps5729/ps5713/ps4077/
prod_white_paper0900aecd805c389a.pdf (“Integrating Cisco Security Agent with Cisco
Intrusion Prevention System ”), Pages 3-4 (explaining that the Cisco Security Agent and Cisco
IPS collaborate “to capture traffic from and to the hosts protected with Cisco Security Agents”
and “block attacks dynamically as malicious packets move through the system.”).
By way of further example, Cisco explains to its customers, users of Cisco ASA
5500-X Series Next-Generation Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall
Services, including Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security Manager,
that such products/services operate to “[p]rotect[] against theft of data and passwords” (see
http://www.cisco.com/cdc_content_elements/flash/asa_vpn/demo.htm) and monitor “traffic
patterns throughout the network” to “support[] real-time and historical event analysis” “that may
be required for anomalous traffic.” See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/vpndevc/
ps5739/ps12635/data_sheet_c78-711823.html.
By way of further example, Cisco explains to its customers, users of the
Sourcefire Virtual Appliance, that the Sourcefire Virtual Appliance, which can be hosted on
VMware ESX/ESXi 4.1/5.0, and Xen 3.3.2/3.4.2 or RHEV 3.0 servers, and deployed in passive
or inline mode (see https://na8.salesforce.com/sfc/p/80000000dRH9KXPLJqkSwWBoW3e_
vtLbnXOyiNg=), “provide[s] the capability to inspect communications between different virtual
machines residing on the same box, providing the same control and protection as their physical
counterparts.” See https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/83616T/20120404/AR_124967/
Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™, that the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™ is “[i]dentical
in functionality to Sourcefire’s physical Defense Center management console”, which can
“correlate and prioritize event data with network and user awareness” and “aggregate[e] and
analyz[e] security and compliance events from across the organization.” See
https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/83616T/20120404/AR_124967/PDF/sourcefirear2011_0015.pdf, Page 5. In particular, “[s]nort-based security alerts are generated at the sensor
and forwarded to the DC. The DC evaluates each threat against RNA’s asset data.” See
http://tinyurl.com/kqhlzdh. Furthermore, “[t]he Snort output system receives events from the
event selector and processes them. It checks whether they match suppression and thresholding
rules, and withholds processing of these rules if they do. If not, the events are logged or passed to
other systems for remediation and response purposes.” See
http://www.imerja.com/files/file/White_Papers/Sourcefire/Snort%20Threat%20Prevention.pdf.
The Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™ logs event information details:
See http://soleranetworks.co.jp/ecosystem/integrations/. This information is then used for
“Continuous File Analytics”. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzptyVo5yFU&noredirect=1:
These instructions were made available by Cisco to its customers on Cisco’s own
cisco.com websites as specified in Paragraphs 27-30 above, and in making these instructions
available, Cisco specifically intended to encourage its customers to follow these instructions to
(1) assemble the Cisco Security Agent/IPS Collaborative Architecture, including Cisco Security
Agent, Cisco Security Agent MC, and Cisco IPS and use same, and use (2) the Cisco ASA 5500X Series Next-Generation Firewalls running Cisco ASA Next-Generation Firewall Services,
including Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and/or Cisco Prime Security Manager, (3) the
Sourcefire Virtual Appliance; and (4) the Sourcefire Virtual Defense Center™, knowing that the
assembly and use of these systems described in its instructions constituted infringement of the
‘444 Patent.
Thus, Cisco has induced its customers to infringe the ‘444 Patent literally and/or
under the doctrine of equivalents. Upon information and belief, Cisco acted with the specific
intent to induce its customers to use the methods claimed by the ‘444 Patent by continuing the
above-mentioned activities with knowledge of the ‘444 Patent.
Selene has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of Cisco’s
infringement of Selene’s ‘444 Patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Selene is entitled to recover
damages from Cisco for its infringing acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, but no less than
Cisco’s infringement of Selene’s ‘444 Patent has damaged and will continue to
damage Selene, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless
Cisco is enjoined by this Court.
Selene, respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Cisco,
granting the following relief:
Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor that Cisco has infringed and continues to
infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly and/or indirectly, the ‘444
A permanent injunction enjoining Cisco and its officers, directors, agents,
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
active concert therewith from infringement of the ‘444 Patent, or such other equitable relief the
Court determines is warranted;
An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate it for Cisco’s
acts of patent infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest,
costs, and expenses as fixed by the court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
A judgment and order requiring Cisco to provide an accounting and to pay
supplemental damages to Selene, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
Any further relief to which Selene may be entitled.
Selene, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
any issues so triable by right.
/s/_Stephen Brauerman___________________
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
Sara E. Bussiere (sb5725)
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
rkirk@bayardlaw.com
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
Marc A. Fenster
Jeffrey Z.Y. Liao
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
(310) 826-7474
mfenster@raklaw.com
agiza@raklaw.com
jliao@raklaw.com
Selene Communication Technologies, LLC
Selene Communication Technologies v. CISCO Systems by PriorSmart153 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00126-UNA: Selene Communication Technologies LLC v. CISCO Systems Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delawa...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00126-UNA: Selene Communication Technologies LLC v. CISCO Systems Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Rf for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedSpherix v. Cisco Systemsby PriorSmartinstcsa[1]by Kha NgSoTel Systems - 2011 June Specialsby James A. Arconatilab (285)by juanma0610ciscoby gabino_martínezSAN Design Ciscoby Arun SondhiCall Manager QIsg Trunksby Sudhir MenonE1_T1by Ochie RomeroConfig q.sigtrunks Ccm Avayaby Ronaldo RomeroPRESENTACION-COLABORACIONby Vane GarcíaCisco UCS by mukuldhklTop 5 Ways to Enhance Your Cisco Environmentby IxiaCisco Catalyst 4500 Series Line Cardsby Joe DoeCisco Catalyst 4500 Series Line Cards Data Sheetby duti18Product Data Sheet0900aecd802109ea 4500 Linecardby Fredy Wyshng10_ds.pdfby nithish.singh8946Cisco OC-3 OC-12 OC-48 SFP Transceivers Compatibility Matrixby Cassandra Shafferc2960_release_notes_15.0(2)SE5by asurada120Deploying IP Multicastby HieuNBqa_c67_610073by khanmonirProduct Data Sheet09186a0080091b9cby cmsabus25375-Juniper vs Cisco(1).pdfby Nb A Dungcable_guide5_31_10583by Alejandro CardenasCisco 5.2.2 Release Notesby Ankey Don6500by rakivanatanCANAC21_LGby Paul Merida Maldonadocmts_cbl_arp_fltrby Suman KaranjeetCisco GLBP Load Balancing Optionsby Alex AlvarezSimilar to Selene Communication Technologies v. CISCO SystemsSpherix v. Cisco Systemsinstcsa[1]SoTel Systems - 2011 June Specialslab (285)ciscoSAN Design CiscoCall Manager QIsg TrunksE1_T1Config q.sigtrunks Ccm AvayaPRESENTACION-COLABORACIONCisco UCS Top 5 Ways to Enhance Your Cisco EnvironmentCisco Catalyst 4500 Series Line CardsCisco Catalyst 4500 Series Line Cards Data SheetProduct Data Sheet0900aecd802109ea 4500 Linecardhng10_ds.pdfCisco OC-3 OC-12 OC-48 SFP Transceivers Compatibility Matrixc2960_release_notes_15.0(2)SE5Deploying IP Multicastqa_c67_610073Product Data Sheet09186a0080091b9c25375-Juniper vs Cisco(1).pdfcable_guide5_31_10583Cisco 5.2.2 Release Notes6500CANAC21_LGcmts_cbl_arp_fltrCisco GLBP Load Balancing OptionsNational Cheng Kung University v. Cisco SystemsMulticast TroubleshootingSelene Communication Technologies v. CISCO Systems