{"id":37520,"date":"2020-10-06T18:56:00","date_gmt":"2020-10-06T18:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.threatshub.org\/blog\/cisco-slapped-with-1-9-billion-judgement-in-security-patent-lawsuit\/"},"modified":"2020-10-06T18:56:00","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T18:56:00","slug":"cisco-slapped-with-1-9-billion-judgement-in-security-patent-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.threatshub.org\/blog\/cisco-slapped-with-1-9-billion-judgement-in-security-patent-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Cisco slapped with $1.9 billion judgement in security patent lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Cisco this week lost a patent infringement case brought by security vendor Centripetal Networks and was hit with a $1.9 billion judgement.<\/p>\n

A non-jury judgement from U.S. District Judge Henry Morgan<\/a> determined Cisco infringed on four security patents related to encrypted traffic and packet filtering technology belonging to plaintiff Centripetal Networks. The award directs $755.8 million in actual damages, multiplied by 2.5 to reflect “willful and egregious” conduct from Cisco, the judge found. <\/p>\n

The award also includes past damages and a running royalty of 10% on the apportioned sales of the patented products for a period of three years, followed by a second three-year term with a running royalty of 5% on such sales, which could take damages from the case north of $3 billion, according to a Centripetal statement<\/a> about the case.<\/p>\n

“…Cisco did not advance any objectively reasonable defenses at trial as to the four infringed and valid patents,” Morgan wrote. The case was “not a close call,” the judge stated.<\/p>\n

According to a Bloomberg<\/a> story about the case, Centripetal Networks said it developed a network protection system, funded in part by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, only to see Cisco integrate the inventions into its own networks after meetings and presentations by Centripetal officials in 2017.<\/p>\n

“The infringing functionality was added to their accused products post June 20, 2017, and resulted in a dramatic increase in sales which Cisco touted in both technical and marketing documents,” the judgement stated.<\/p>\n