mark chandler

2 min read

Earlier this week, Cisco received some welcome news. The U.S Patent and Trademark Office has rejected Arista’s second attempt to invalidate a Cisco patent that was asserted in the ‘945 International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation. This is also a patent where the ITC staff recommended a finding of infringement. We are now looking forward to […]

1 min read

Earlier today the International Trade Commission issued a preliminary ruling in the first of their ITC investigations related to Arista’s systemic copying of Cisco’s intellectual property. This decision represents the beginning of the end for Arista’s systemic copying of Cisco’s intellectual property. Please read Mark Chandler’s blog for additional information.

3 min read

Earlier today, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a ruling in the first of their investigations into Arista. This follows a lengthy investigation, a review of thousands of pages of briefing materials and supporting evidence, and a two-week hearing involving testimony and cross-examination. We thank Judge Shaw and the ITC staff for their diligence. Specifically […]

2 min read

Arista’s filing of bogus antitrust claims today is not accidental or a coincidence. The claims, most of which were included in earlier Arista filings, are a smokescreen to divert attention from the important ruling expected from the International Trade Commission (ITC) on February 2*. This is when Judge Shaw will rule on the validity of […]

3 min read

Our legal action to stop Arista’s copying and use of Cisco’s intellectual property is proceeding according to schedule. With a number of important procedural steps about to take place, we feel now is a good time to provide an update. Last December we brought two actions in the United States District Court for the Northern […]

4 min read

Cisco SVP and General Counsel Mark Chandler testifies before the Senate Commerce Committee on consumer protection.

2 min read

To facilitate the understanding about what actually happened in the Cisco v. Huawei litigation and allow Huawei to itself clear up any confusion, we waive any confidentiality requirement for the sealed report and suggest that Huawei itself have the expert's complete final report put into the public domain.