Portsmouth Network Corp v. Cisco Systems: 4-Patent Router Dispute Ends in Dismissal Without Prejudice
Portsmouth Network Corporation filed suit against Cisco Systems in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents across Cisco’s ASR 9000, ASR 920 router, and Catalyst 9000 switch product families. The case closed after 458 days via joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Four Network Patents, One Tech Giant, and a Silent Exit from E.D. Texas
Portsmouth Network Corporation filed this infringement action on September 26, 2023, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas — one of the country’s most patent-plaintiff-friendly venues. Portsmouth asserted four issued U.S. patents (US7035279B2, US8014394B2, US8199637B2, and US6917986B2) covering network routing and packet-switching technologies against Cisco Systems, targeting three major product lines: the ASR 9000 Series, ASR 920 Series routers, and Catalyst 9000 Series switches.
The case closed on December 27, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation. No merits ruling was issued — neither validity nor infringement was adjudicated. The dismissal without prejudice means Portsmouth retains the right to refile claims against Cisco on these patents, subject to any applicable statutes of limitations or estoppel considerations.
At 458 days, the case ran longer than many E.D. Texas matters resolved without trial, suggesting substantive litigation activity occurred before the parties reached their agreement. The mutual cost-bearing provision — neither side recovering fees — is consistent with either a confidential settlement or a strategic withdrawal. The public record is silent on whether any licensing arrangement was reached, leaving the ultimate commercial outcome between the parties undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 458 days
458 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation, no court merits ruling
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties and takes effect upon filing — the court’s role is purely administrative acknowledgment. Crucially, no merits were decided: the patents were neither found valid nor invalid, and infringement was neither established nor denied. This preserves legal optionality for both parties while ending the immediate litigation.
No merits adjudicatedPortsmouth keeps its powder dry — refiling remains available
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish Portsmouth’s claims. Portsmouth may refile suit on these four patents against Cisco, or pursue licensing negotiations from a position unclouded by an adverse merits ruling. However, a second dismissal on the same claims could be treated as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), commonly called the ‘two-dismissal rule,’ which would warrant close attention if Portsmouth refiles.
Refiling rights preservedCisco avoids a merits ruling — but patent cloud persists
Cisco exits this litigation without any finding of infringement or invalidity of Portsmouth’s four patents. The ASR and Catalyst product lines remain uncleared by judicial decision. Absent a licensing agreement or IPR proceeding extinguishing the patents, Cisco faces residual risk of future assertion. The mutual cost-bearing term suggests Cisco did not achieve fee-shifting — consistent with the case not reaching a stage where exceptional case arguments would land.
Patent cloud unresolvedUnresolved routing patents remain a sector-wide variable
All four asserted patents survive this case in full force. Competitors and customers deploying enterprise routing and switching infrastructure — particularly equipment functionally comparable to Cisco’s ASR and Catalyst lines — should note that Portsmouth’s patent portfolio has not been adjudicated invalid or non-infringed. The network infrastructure sector should monitor whether Portsmouth refiles or asserts these patents against other vendors.
Portfolio risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Portsmouth Network Corporation | Company | Network technology patent assertion entity — holder of US7035279B2 and 3 further routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Cisco Systems, Inc. — global networking hardware and software leader, maker of ASR and Catalyst product linesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Ho | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Everingham, IV | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Alan Suarez | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Claire Abernathy Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel F. Gelwicks | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Nuttall | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine D. Cappaert | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Tellez | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert F. Kappers | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sadaf Misbah | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas C. Yebernetsky | Attorney | Counsel for Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steptoe & Johnson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steptoe, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Portsmouth Network CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deborah Mariottini | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Delon Lier | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily Nicole Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan V. Lewis | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jordan Owens | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leslie M. Spencer | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael R. Rhodes | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tamir Packin | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais Llp – New York | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Desmarais, LLP – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter Minton PC | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissed in its entirety without prejudice’ — confirms the broadest available non-merits exit: every claim, against every product, on all four patents, is released without any judicial finding binding either party. The mutual cost-bearing provision is notable; it rules out any fee-shifting argument under 35 U.S.C. § 285, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a plaintiff concession of case weakness. The court’s acceptance language (‘accepts and acknowledges’) is standard and confers no independent legal weight beyond closing the docket.
US7035279B2, US8014394B2, US8199637B2 & US6917986B2 — Network Routing & Switching Portfolio
The four asserted patents — US7035279B2, US8014394B2, US8199637B2, and US6917986B2 — cover technologies in the network routing, packet switching, and data transport domain. Their application numbers span filings from the early-to-mid 2000s through 2009, suggesting foundational claims on network infrastructure techniques developed during a critical period of enterprise and carrier-grade networking evolution. The patents were asserted against Cisco’s ASR 9000 and ASR 920 router series and the Catalyst 9000 switch family — products central to modern enterprise and service provider networks.
Collectively, a four-patent portfolio targeting Cisco’s flagship routing and switching hardware represents a significant assertion in the network infrastructure space. The ASR 9000 is a carrier-grade aggregation router widely deployed by telecoms and large enterprises; the Catalyst 9000 is Cisco’s dominant enterprise campus switching platform. Asserting foundational routing and switching patents against these product lines signals that Portsmouth believes its patents cover methods broadly implemented across the sector — not merely niche implementations — raising the prospect of similar assertions against other major networking vendors.
Should your team run an FTO against US7035279B2 and the Portsmouth portfolio?
Any R&D team or product manager developing enterprise routers, carrier-grade aggregation equipment, or high-density switching platforms should treat these four patents as active FTO flags. The fact that Portsmouth targeted Cisco’s most widely deployed product lines — ASR 9000, ASR 920, and Catalyst 9000 — suggests claim scope potentially broad enough to read on functionally comparable architectures from other vendors. A dismissal without prejudice does not reduce that risk; the patents remain in force and unlitigated on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and engineering teams to map claim language from US7035279B2, US8014394B2, US8199637B2, and US6917986B2 against your specific product architecture, identify design-around options, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope. With Portsmouth’s litigation posture unresolved, running a structured FTO now — before any refiling — provides documented due diligence and informs licensing negotiation strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7035279B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Network Routing & Switching Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable network infrastructure patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against major networking vendors, with similar multi-patent assertion strategies.
What this case signals for the network infrastructure IP landscape
A 458-day E.D. Texas case ending in mutual-cost dismissal carries clear signals for routing and switching patent strategy.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for multi-patent network assertions
Portsmouth’s decision to file before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas reflects the continued strategic value of that venue for patent plaintiffs asserting multi-patent portfolios against large networking vendors. Companies with exposure in enterprise routing and switching should maintain active docket monitoring in E.D. Texas.
Dismissal without prejudice is not closure — litigation risk endures
The absence of a merits ruling means all four Portsmouth patents remain asserted assets. Networking vendors offering products functionally similar to Cisco’s ASR or Catalyst lines face the same assertion risk Portsmouth put before the court. An FTO analysis against these four patent numbers is warranted for any product team deploying comparable routing or switching architectures.
Portsmouth v Cisco — key questions answered
Portsmouth asserted four patents: US7035279B2, US8014394B2, US8199637B2, and US6917986B2. All four cover technologies in the network routing, packet switching, and data transport domain. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on September 26, 2023, and dismissed without prejudice on December 27, 2024.
A dismissal without prejudice means no merits were decided — no finding on infringement or validity of any of the four patents. Portsmouth retains the right to refile these claims against Cisco. Under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ (Rule 41(a)(1)(B)), a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims would constitute an adjudication on the merits, creating a strategic constraint on any future refiling.
Portsmouth accused three Cisco product lines: the ASR 9000 Series Routers, ASR 920 Series Routers, and Catalyst 9000 Series Switches. These are among Cisco’s most widely deployed enterprise and carrier-grade networking platforms, suggesting Portsmouth believed its patent claims had broad applicability across high-capacity routing and switching architectures.
The Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court, has historically been a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its patent-friendly procedures, experienced bench, and established case management. Cisco has a general business presence supporting venue in E.D. Texas. The choice of this court is consistent with a plaintiff-driven venue strategy typical of patent assertion entities.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The case was dismissed via joint stipulation without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. This structure is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement or a strategic withdrawal, but no settlement terms have been publicly disclosed. The mutual cost-bearing provision rules out fee-shifting by either side.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.