Fish Wins $56.9 Million Judgment for SRI International Against Cisco Systems; $23.7 Million Jury Verdict Doubled and $8 Million in Attorneys' Fees Awarded

Fish & Richardson today announced that it won a $56.9 million judgment for client SRI International in its patent-infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in Delaware federal court. On May 25, 2017, Judge Sue Robinson rejected Cisco's request for a new trial, and doubled the earlier jury award of $23.7 million as enhanced damages based on the jury's willfulness verdict. Judge Robinson also added prejudgment interest of approximately $1.6 million, ordered Cisco to pay SRI approximately $8 million in attorneys' fees and expenses, and ordered Cisco to pay a 3.5% royalty for post-verdict sales of the infringing products.

In May 2016, a Delaware jury awarded SRI $23.7 million in damages after finding all of SRI's patent claims valid, that Cisco directly infringed two SRI patents that cover technology for monitoring computer networks and identifying intruders and suspicious activity, and that Cisco had induced others to infringe SRI's patent claims.

Fish filed the case for SRI, which is an independent, not-for-profit research institute that conducts client supported research and development for government agencies, commercial businesses, foundations, and other organizations, against Cisco in 2013. Fish also represented SRI in successfully enforcing these same patents in an earlier lawsuit in September 2008; a verdict that was later upheld at the Federal Circuit.

Fish principals Frank Scherkenbach and Howard Pollack were lead counsel for SRI. Principals Susan Morrison and David Hoffman were also key members of the trial team.

In making her decision on willfulness and fees, Judge Robinson found "that Cisco pursued litigation about as aggressively as the court has seen in its judicial experience. While defending a client aggressively is understandable, if not laudable, in the case at bar, Cisco crossed the line in several regards." She added, "Cisco’s litigation strategies in the case at bar created a substantial amount of work for both SRI and the court, much of which work was needlessly repetitive or irrelevant or frivolous."