Cisco v. Corrigent Corp (25-1021): Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 133 Days
Cisco Systems and Corrigent Corp agreed to voluntarily dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal over US9118602B2, a patent covering tunnel provisioning with link aggregation technology. The parties jointly terminated proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) in just 133 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A swift, agreed exit from a Federal Circuit invalidity appeal
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 4 October 2024 under case number 25-1021, challenging a patentability determination involving US9118602B2, a patent held by Corrigent Corp. covering tunnel provisioning with link aggregation — a networking technology relevant to multi-path data transport and redundancy in carrier and enterprise environments. The appeal was styled as an invalidity/cancellation action, suggesting the underlying proceeding likely concerned a USPTO inter partes review or similar administrative challenge.
The case closed on 14 February 2025 when the parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court ordered dismissal on those agreed terms, with each side bearing its own costs. Critically, no merits ruling was issued: the Federal Circuit did not affirm, reverse, or vacate any underlying decision. The public record is silent on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice at the appellate level, and the agreed cost arrangement suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
At 133 days from filing to closure, the appeal resolved far faster than a typical Federal Circuit briefing cycle, which commonly runs 12–18 months to oral argument. This strongly suggests the parties reached a commercial or licensing accommodation shortly after the appeal was filed, rendering further litigation unnecessary. What drove that accommodation — whether a settlement, cross-licence, or business relationship change — remains undisclosed. The absence of any merits ruling means the validity of US9118602B2 was not adjudicated at the appellate level.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 133 days
133-day appeal lifecycle — notably brief for a Federal Circuit patent invalidity appeal
Voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b): what the agreed exit means for both parties
Rule 42(b) dismissal ends the appeal with no merits adjudication
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by agreement. The Federal Circuit’s order reflects exactly that: both Cisco and Corrigent consented, and the court closed the proceeding without ruling on whether the underlying patentability determination was correct. No precedent was set and no claim was invalidated or upheld by this court.
No merits ruling issuedWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Rule 42(b) dismissals can be with or without prejudice depending on the parties’ agreement, but the court order in this case does not specify. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would bar Cisco from re-filing the same appeal; ‘without prejudice’ would leave that door open. Because the basis of termination states only ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without qualification, practitioners should not assume either characterisation from the public docket alone.
Prejudice status undisclosedCisco exits without an invalidity ruling in its favour
As appellant, Cisco sought to challenge the patentability determination below. By agreeing to dismiss, Cisco did not obtain a ruling invalidating US9118602B2 at the Federal Circuit level. Whether Cisco achieved its commercial objectives through settlement or licensing negotiations outside the court process is unknown from the public record, but the agreed cost allocation suggests a balanced exit rather than a concession.
No invalidity ruling obtainedCorrigent’s patent survives the appeal without formal validation
Corrigent Corp. retains US9118602B2 without having it formally affirmed or struck down at the Federal Circuit. The patent’s enforceability status after the underlying proceeding remains whatever the tribunal below determined — this appellate dismissal neither strengthens nor weakens that baseline. Corrigent may continue to assert the patent, though any prior adverse finding below is not overturned either.
Patent status unchanged at appellate levelFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Global networking technology company — appellant challenging validity of US9118602B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CORRIGENT CORP. | Company | Corrigent Corp. — patent assertion entity holding US9118602B2 for tunnel provisioning technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Blake | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Merchant & Gould PC | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Alan Suarez | Attorney | Counsel for CORRIGENT CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Richard Nuttall | Attorney | Counsel for CORRIGENT CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Dorothy Cappaert | Attorney | Counsel for CORRIGENT CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Steptoe, LLP | Law Firm | Representing CORRIGENT CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order records a purely procedural closure: the parties agreed, Rule 42(b) was invoked, and the proceeding was dismissed with each side absorbing its own costs. No legal standard was applied to the merits of the patentability challenge. The symmetrical cost allocation — rather than an award to either side — is consistent with a negotiated resolution and offers no inferential basis for assessing which party held the stronger appellate position.
US9118602B2 — Tunnel Provisioning with Link Aggregation
US9118602B2 (application number US13/969520) covers tunnel provisioning combined with link aggregation — a networking architecture that enables multiple physical links to be bundled as a single logical channel while simultaneously managing tunnel-based forwarding paths. This combination is technically significant in carrier Ethernet, MPLS, and software-defined networking environments where redundancy, load balancing, and seamless failover are operational requirements. The patent’s grant reflects claims directed at the intersection of two foundational networking abstractions.
For the networking equipment sector, US9118602B2 represents a potentially broad enforcement foothold across vendors implementing IEEE 802.3ad link aggregation alongside GRE, VXLAN, or MPLS tunnel protocols. Cisco’s decision to challenge validity — and Corrigent’s willingness to litigate through at least one tribunal before this appeal — suggests the claims were treated as commercially meaningful by both sides. With no merits ruling, the patent’s scope and validity remain unresolved, heightening risk for any company deploying compatible architectures in multi-vendor or service-provider networks.
Should your team run an FTO against US9118602B2?
Any R&D or product team implementing tunnel provisioning alongside link aggregation — particularly in carrier Ethernet switches, SD-WAN appliances, data centre fabrics, or virtual network overlays — should assess exposure to US9118602B2. The patent has attracted litigation from a major OEM, and the absence of any invalidity ruling means it cannot be discounted. Products supporting LACP, ECMP, or tunnel encapsulation protocols in combination are the highest-priority candidates for review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9118602B2’s independent claims against your product architecture, surface the full Corrigent continuation family, and identify any prior art references that emerged during the underlying USPTO proceeding. Eureka’s claim-chart automation and prosecution history analysis reduce the time from initial query to actionable clearance opinion — critical when a patent’s enforceability status is unresolved and commercial timelines are tight.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9118602B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in network routing patent disputes
Federal Circuit cases involving tunnel provisioning, link aggregation, and carrier networking patents — relevant precedent for assessing US9118602B2 enforceability.
What this case signals for the network routing IP landscape
A 133-day agreed dismissal at the Federal Circuit typically reflects deal-making, not litigation defeat — and the networking IP sector should take note.
Speed of dismissal strongly suggests a post-filing settlement or licence
Federal Circuit appeals rarely resolve in under five months through normal briefing. The 133-day timeline here — combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement — is consistent with parties reaching a commercial accommodation shortly after the appeal was docketed. Companies operating in the tunnel provisioning and link aggregation space should treat this as a signal that licensing discussions can move quickly once appellate pressure is applied.
US9118602B2 remains a live enforcement risk without a merits ruling
Because the Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the patent’s validity, US9118602B2 retains whatever enforceability it had following the underlying USPTO or district court proceeding. Competitors and implementers of link aggregation and multi-path tunnel provisioning protocols cannot rely on this dismissal as any form of clearance. An independent FTO analysis against this patent remains necessary for at-risk product teams.
Cisco v CORRIGENT — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal in case 25-1021 was voluntarily dismissed on 14 February 2025 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of both parties. No merits ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The appeal concerned the patentability of US9118602B2, covering tunnel provisioning with link aggregation.
The Federal Circuit dismissal in case 25-1021 issued no validity ruling on US9118602B2. The patent’s legal status is determined by whatever the underlying tribunal (likely a USPTO proceeding) decided before this appeal was filed. Practitioners should not treat the appellate dismissal as any form of validity confirmation or invalidation.
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) allows parties to jointly or unilaterally dismiss an appellate proceeding. In Cisco v. Corrigent, both sides agreed to dismiss, and the court closed the case without adjudicating the merits of the patentability challenge. Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice is not specified in the public order.
US9118602B2 covers tunnel provisioning combined with link aggregation — a networking technology that bundles multiple physical links into a logical channel while managing tunnel-based forwarding. It is relevant to carrier Ethernet, MPLS, SD-WAN, and data centre overlay network architectures. Application number US13/969520 was asserted in the underlying invalidity/cancellation action.
The public record does not disclose the reasons for the 133-day resolution. However, the brevity of the appeal lifecycle — well under the typical Federal Circuit briefing schedule — and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a commercial settlement or licensing agreement reached after the appeal was filed. No official settlement terms have been made public.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.