Alpha Modus v. Cisco Systems: Three FCoE Patents, 197 Days, Dismissed With Prejudice
Alpha Modus Ventures filed an infringement action against Cisco Systems in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents covering Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) converged network technology including Cisco’s UCS CNA M72KR-Q adapter. The case closed in 197 days via a joint motion to dismiss, with plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice.
FCoE network patent suit against Cisco ends before discovery completes
Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC filed suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. on June 9, 2025 in the Western District of Texas before Judge David Alan Ezra, asserting infringement of three patents — US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 — directed to Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) networking technology. The accused products include Cisco’s UCS CNA M72KR-Q QLogic Converged Network Adapter, its Unified Computing System platform, and other products and services implementing the FCoE standard, including Ethernet Interface and Virtual Fibre Channel Port functionality.
The case closed on December 23, 2025, just 197 days after filing, following a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties on December 22, 2025. The court ordered Alpha Modus’s claims against Cisco dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring re-litigation of these claims — while Cisco’s counterclaims, defenses, or any cross-claims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving Cisco’s affirmative positions available in future proceedings if warranted. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution.
The 197-day resolution, before any reported trial date, strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement agreement or licensing arrangement, though the public record contains no financial terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without — is characteristic of confidential settlement in patent cases, where the patent holder agrees to extinguish claims permanently in exchange for undisclosed consideration. The specific trigger for resolution and any licensing terms remain entirely outside the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 197 days
197 days — resolved significantly faster than the W.D. Tex. median for patent cases
Asymmetric dismissal: what the with/without prejudice split means for both parties
Joint motion to dismiss: a negotiated exit, not a litigated loss
A joint motion to dismiss signals mutual agreement to end the case rather than a court determination on the merits. Here, the court gave effect to the parties’ agreed terms: plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice (permanent bar), defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice (preserves future optionality). This structure is standard in settled patent matters where the defendant has not filed a counterclaim it wishes to preserve as leverage.
Rule 41 joint dismissalWith-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Alpha Modus from re-asserting these claims
Dismissal with prejudice functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Alpha Modus cannot refile these three patent claims against Cisco in any future action based on the same accused products and conduct. This is the most common outcome in patent cases resolved by settlement, where the patent holder receives consideration in exchange for a permanent covenant not to sue. The absence of a fee award to Cisco suggests the case was not deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Permanent claim barCisco’s counterclaims preserved — without-prejudice exit maintains future flexibility
Cisco’s counterclaims, defenses, and any cross-claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can technically be revived should litigation reopen in a related context. In practice this matters if licensing terms break down or if Alpha Modus asserts related patents against Cisco products in future proceedings. The without-prejudice status also ensures Cisco does not waive any invalidity or unenforceability arguments it may have developed during the case’s initial phase.
Counterclaims preservedFCoE patent landscape remains active risk for network adapter vendors
Alpha Modus’s three asserted patents remain in force and could be asserted against other vendors implementing the FCoE standard — including makers of converged network adapters, SAN switching equipment, and unified computing platforms. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only Cisco’s exposure. Companies operating in the data centre networking, storage area networking, or HCI infrastructure segments that have not received a licence or covenant from Alpha Modus should treat these patents as live enforcement risk.
FCoE vendors at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Global networking and IT infrastructure leader; maker of the accused UCS CNA M72KR-Q adapterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ariana D. Pellegrino | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher E. Hanba | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua G. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Prince Lobel Tye LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alpha Modus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gilbert Andrew Greene | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph A. Powers | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order gives precise effect to the parties’ agreed asymmetric dismissal: Alpha Modus’s infringement claims are permanently extinguished with prejudice, while Cisco’s counterclaims are released without prejudice, preserving Cisco’s invalidity and non-infringement arguments for any future related proceeding. The ‘each party bears own costs’ clause is significant — it indicates no finding of exceptional case conduct under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigation-tested outcome. No merits determination was made on any of the three asserted patents.
US11303473B2, US11108591B2 & US11310077B2 — FCoE converged network adapter technology
The three asserted patents — US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 — relate to Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) networking technology, which enables storage-area network (SAN) traffic to be transmitted over standard Ethernet infrastructure. This convergence reduces data centre cabling complexity and hardware costs by consolidating Fibre Channel and Ethernet onto a single physical adapter. The patents span application numbers US17/346048, US13/999756, and US17/346054, with the US13/999756 application suggesting an earlier priority date that may anchor the family’s claim scope.
FCoE technology underpins a significant segment of enterprise data centre infrastructure, particularly in hyper-converged environments and high-density server deployments. Alpha Modus’s three-patent portfolio, if construed broadly, could implicate any vendor whose products implement the FCoE standard — including converged network adapter manufacturers, SAN switch vendors, and unified computing platform providers. The fact that Cisco resolved this matter quickly, without a fee award, suggests the patents were treated as presenting meaningful claim coverage risk rather than being immediately subject to invalidity attack.
Should you run an FTO against US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2?
Any R&D team or product manager working on FCoE-compliant converged network adapters, virtual Fibre Channel port software, or Ethernet-to-SAN bridging hardware should treat these three Alpha Modus patents as active FTO concerns. The Cisco settlement confirms the patents are being actively enforced and that at least one major vendor has resolved its exposure — but the patents remain in force for all others. Companies shipping FCoE-capable NICs, HBA/CNA combo adapters, or unified computing platforms incorporating FCoE fabric extender technology are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation applications still in prosecution that could extend Alpha Modus’s claim coverage. Use Eureka to monitor the Alpha Modus portfolio for new filings and to benchmark claim scope against competitor design-around strategies in the converged networking space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11303473B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar FCoE and converged network patent cases in W.D. Texas and Federal Circuit
Cases involving Fibre Channel over Ethernet patents and converged network adapter infringement disputes in the Western District of Texas and related appellate proceedings.
What this case signals for the data centre networking IP landscape
A fast resolution in W.D. Tex. with asymmetric dismissal terms typically signals a confidential licensing deal — here is what that means for FCoE and converged networking stakeholders.
Alpha Modus’s FCoE patents remain enforceable against other vendors
The with-prejudice dismissal covers only Cisco. US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 remain issued and in force. Any company making, using, or selling FCoE-compliant converged network adapters, virtual Fibre Channel port implementations, or Ethernet-to-SAN bridging technology should assess their exposure against these three patents before Alpha Modus initiates further enforcement activity.
Speed of resolution suggests pre-existing settlement posture or licensing infrastructure
197 days from filing to joint dismissal is unusually rapid for a three-patent infringement case in W.D. Tex. This pace — before any Markman hearing or significant discovery — is consistent with Alpha Modus operating a structured licensing programme rather than pursuing full litigation. Companies that receive demand letters from Alpha Modus in the FCoE or converged networking space should evaluate licensing terms early, as trial-track leverage appears limited.
Alpha v Cisco — key questions answered
Alpha Modus Ventures filed a patent infringement action against Cisco Systems in the Western District of Texas on June 9, 2025, asserting three patents — US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 — covering FCoE converged network adapter technology. The case was resolved by joint motion to dismiss filed December 22, 2025, with Alpha Modus’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Cisco’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs. The case closed after 197 days with no merits determination.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Alpha Modus is permanently barred from asserting the same patent claims against the same Cisco products and conduct that were the subject of this action. However, the three patents — US11303473B2, US11108591B2, and US11310077B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against other companies making, using, or selling FCoE-compliant products who have not received a licence or covenant.
The complaint identified Cisco’s UCS CNA M72KR-Q QLogic Converged Network Adapter, Cisco’s Unified Computing System platform, and other products and services implementing the FCoE standard. Specific accused functionalities included Ethernet Interface and Virtual Fibre Channel Port implementations. These products are widely deployed in enterprise data centre and hyper-converged infrastructure environments.
The three patents relate to Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) technology, which allows Fibre Channel storage-area network traffic to travel over standard Ethernet infrastructure via converged network adapters. The patents span application numbers US17/346048, US17/346054 (both suggest a later filing cluster), and US13/999756, which may represent an earlier priority date anchoring the family. The patents cover systems and methods for converging Fibre Channel and Ethernet traffic on unified networking hardware.
At 197 days from filing to joint dismissal — before any reported Markman hearing or substantive discovery rulings — the pace strongly suggests a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement. The joint motion structure, asymmetric dismissal terms (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without), and absence of any fee award are all consistent with a privately-agreed resolution. The financial terms, if any, are not part of the public record. Alpha Modus’s operating model appears consistent with a structured patent licensing programme rather than full litigation pursuit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.