Lionra Technologies Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 01/21/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2024-2153 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:23-cv-00206-JRG, 2:23- cv-00207-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. ______________________ Decided: January 21, 2026 ______________________ JONATHAN RANDY YIM, BC Law Group, PC, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by BRETT E. COOPER; ROBERT AUCHTER, Auchter PLLC, Wash- ington, DC.

MARK CHRISTOPHER FLEMING, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant-ap- pellee. Also represented by JEFFREY SOLLER; HEATH BROOKS, Washington, DC; BRIAN ROSENTHAL, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.

Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 01/21/2026

2 LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

______________________ Before PROST, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Lionra Technologies Ltd. (“Lionra”) appeals from the parties’ stipulated final judgment of noninfringement.

J.A. 1–6. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND I On June 30, 2022, Lionra entered into a patent license agreement with RPX Corporation (“the Agreement”).

J.A. 2 ¶ 2, 672–712. The Agreement is governed by Dela- ware law. J.A. 683. It provides an “exclusive and irrevo- cable right of RPX to grant to each Initial Licensee: (i) sublicenses under the Patent License, as well as (ii) an irrevocable, unconditional release from all Claims relating to any Patent including those for damages for past, present and future infringement of the Patents.” J.A. 676. For the purposes of this appeal, the parties stipulated that “Intel Corporation [(‘Intel’)] is an enumerated ‘Initial Licensee,’” J.A. 3 ¶ 8, and each of the accused products includes an Intel processor, J.A. 1 ¶ 1.

II Relevant to this appeal are two lawsuits between Li- onra and Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”)—Lionra Technolo- gies Ltd. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-0322 (E.D. Tex.) (“Lionra I”), and the current case being appealed.

In Lionra I, the magistrate judge recommended grant- ing Cisco’s motion for summary judgment as to its license defense, concluding that the Agreement extinguished Li- onra’s infringement claims against Cisco. Lionra I, 2024 WL 2178751 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2024). The magistrate judge held that certain Cisco products are “Licensed Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 01/21/2026

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 3

Product[s] and Service[s]” and “Combined Licensed Prod- uct[s] and Service[s]” under the Agreement, and Lionra was barred from asserting a theory of infringement under the covenant-not-to-sue provision. Id. at *4–6. The district court judge ultimately adopted the magistrate judge’s re- port and recommendation and entered judgment of nonin- fringement. Lionra I, 2024 WL 2154735 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2024). Lionra did not appeal that judgment.

Lionra filed a second lawsuit against Cisco, which this appeal arises from, asserting patents different from the one in Lionra I. The second lawsuit was filed before the mag- istrate judge’s report and recommendation issued in Lionra I.

Relevant to this appeal is representative claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,623,518 (“the ’518 patent”), which states in relevant part: A network switching circuit, comprising: ... a processor coupled to the forwarding circuit and to the memory circuit, the processor operable to define the specific packets detected by the forwarding cir- cuit and operable to process the specific packets stored in the memory circuit using the enhanced access control list to generate the dynamic access control list and store the dynamic access control list in the memory circuit, and further operable to pro- vide the specific packets to the processor port of the forwarding circuit after processing the packets. ’518 patent claim 15 (emphasis added).

As a result of the Agreement and the district court’s decision in Lionra I, the parties stipulated to noninfringe- ment of the ’518 patent. J.A. 1–6; see also J.A. 5 ¶ 16 (“The parties stipulate that the [district court’s] reasoning in Li- onra I applies equally to the [a]sserted [c]laims and Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 01/21/2026

4 LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

[a]ccused [p]roducts in this case.”). The district court en- tered the stipulated final judgment. J.A. 6.

Lionra timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION This appeal is about contract interpretation. “We re- view the construction of a license agreement without defer- ence and interpret the licensing agreement under the law governing the agreement, here [Delaware] law.” Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Contract interpretation is a question of law.”

Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 967 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (applying Delaware law).

The only issue for us to decide is whether the Agree- ment barred Lionra’s allegations against Cisco. On appeal, Lionra argues that the Intel processors used in the accused products do not satisfy an “element” under the Agreement because the asserted claims require that the processor be “operable” to perform multiple functions and the Intel pro- cessors alone do not perform those functions. We disagree.

The accused products are licensed under the Agree- ment. The Agreement defines “Licensed Product and Ser- vice” to include any product “of an RPX Licensee [e.g., Intel] . . . alone or in combination with other products, soft- ware, technology, materials and services, the . . . use . . . of which would result in infringement . . . of one or more Pa- tents . . . . Licensed Product and Service will include any Combined Licensed Product and Service.” J.A. 673–74.

“Combined Licensed Product and Service” is defined to in- clude, in relevant part, “any past, present or future combi- nation or use,” including by a “Covered Third Party [i.e., Cisco], of a Licensed Product and Service with any other product [or] technology” if “a portion of such Licensed Prod- uct and Service provided by or on behalf of the RPX Licen- see or any RPX Licensee Affiliate satisfies (or is alleged by Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 5 Filed: 01/21/2026

LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 5

Licensor [i.e., Lionra] or its Affiliates to satisfy), one or more material elements or steps of a claim in any Patent.” J.A.

672 (emphasis added). The Agreement also includes a cov- enant-not-to-sue provision which states that “neither Li- censor [i.e., Lionra] nor any of its Affiliates will Assert or allege that any product, software, technology, material and/or service of any RPX Licensee or any RPX Licensee Affiliate satisfies an element or step of a claim in any Patent against any Entity.” J.A. 679 (emphasis added).

The parties stipulated that “[e]ach of the [a]ccused [p]roducts includes a processor made by Intel.” J.A. 1 ¶ 1.

And each of the asserted claims requires a “processor.” The parties stipulated that “[f]or all [a]ccused [p]roducts, Li- onra’s only infringement accusation for this limitation is that an Intel [p]rocessor is alleged to satisfy the claimed ‘processor’ limitation.” J.A. 4–5 ¶¶ 9–12. Thus, the ac- cused products are “Combined Licensed Product[s] and Service[s]” because the use of Intel processors in the ac- cused products “satisfies (or is alleged by [Lionra] or its Af- filiates to satisfy), one or more material elements or steps of a claim in any Patent.” J.A. 672 (emphasis added). Addi- tionally, under the covenant-not-to-sue provision, Lionra cannot “Assert any Patent . . . against any Covered Third Party with respect to any Licensed Product and Service or Combined Licensed Product and Service.” J.A. 679 (em- phasis added). The parties stipulated that Cisco is a “Cov- ered Third Party.” J.A. 3 ¶ 8. Accordingly, the accused products are covered by the Agreement.

Lionra’s argument that the asserted claims’ require- ment of a “processor,” and in particular the use of Intel pro- cessors in the accused products, does not satisfy an “element” under the Agreement is unpersuasive. The plain language of the Agreement does not support Lionra’s inter- pretation. The Agreement does not require, as Lionra sug- gests, that the processor must be operable to perform a number of specific functions set forth in the asserted claims to meet the “element” requirement of the Agreement. That Case: 24-2153 Document: 56 Page: 6 Filed: 01/21/2026

6 LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. would be a skewed reading of the Agreement. Thus, be- cause (1) the accused products contain Intel processors, (2) all asserted claims undisputedly require “a processor,” and (3) Lionra alleges that the Intel processors satisfy the claimed processor element, we conclude that Lionra’s alle- gations against Cisco are barred by the Agreement.

CONCLUSION We have considered Lionra’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af- firm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED