The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a stipulated final judgment of non-infringement in favor of Cisco Systems Inc. in a patent dispute with Lionra Technologies Ltd., according to a nonprecedential decision issued January 21, 2026.
The case, *Lionra Technologies Ltd. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.* (Fed. Cir. 2026), originated from litigation filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. Lionra had brought patent infringement claims against Cisco under case numbers 2:23-cv-00206-JRG and 2:23-cv-00207-JRG.
The Federal Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark, issued a brief opinion authored by Circuit Judge Prost affirming the lower court's judgment. The court noted that Lionra appealed from "the parties' stipulated final judgment of noninfringement," indicating that both parties had agreed to the district court's resolution before the appeal was filed.
At the center of the dispute was a patent license agreement that Lionra had entered into with RPX Corporation on June 30, 2022. According to court documents, this agreement was governed by Delaware law and contained significant licensing provisions that ultimately proved dispositive in the case.
The RPX agreement granted "an exclusive and irrevocable 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," the court noted in its opinion.
A critical stipulation in the case established that Intel Corporation qualified as an "enumerated 'Initial Licensee'" under the RPX agreement. This designation became crucial because the parties also stipulated that "each of the accused products includes an Intel processor," according to the Federal Circuit opinion.
The implications of these stipulations appeared to create a licensing pathway that protected Cisco from infringement liability. Under the terms of the RPX agreement, Intel's status as an Initial Licensee would have provided protections that extended to products incorporating Intel components, which included the Cisco products accused of infringement.
Lionra was represented on appeal by Jonathan Randy Yim of BC Law Group PC in New York, along with Brett E. Cooper and Robert Auchter of Auchter PLLC in Washington, D.C. Cisco's appellate team was led by Mark Christopher Fleming of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in Boston, with additional representation from Jeffrey Soller and Heath Brooks in Washington, D.C., and Brian Rosenthal of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in New York.
The Eastern District of Texas, where the original litigation was filed, has historically been a popular venue for patent cases due to its experienced judges and procedures that often favor patent holders. Judge Gilstrap, who presided over the district court proceedings, is among the most active patent judges in the country and has handled thousands of patent cases.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance represents the conclusion of what appears to have been a multi-year patent dispute. The court's decision was marked as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, though it may be cited for its persuasive value.
Patent licensing agreements like the one between Lionra and RPX have become increasingly complex in the modern technology landscape, often involving multiple parties and sophisticated licensing structures. The RPX agreement's provisions for "Initial Licensees" and the broad scope of releases it provided demonstrate how such agreements can significantly impact subsequent litigation.
For Cisco, the affirmance represents a complete victory in defending against Lionra's patent claims. The company avoided what could have been substantial damages had the infringement claims succeeded. The decision also validates Cisco's strategy of relying on the licensing protections that flowed through its use of Intel components.
The case highlights the importance of understanding complex licensing arrangements in patent litigation. Companies facing patent infringement claims increasingly rely on sophisticated licensing strategies and supply chain protections to defend against such accusations.
The Federal Circuit's brief treatment of the appeal suggests that the licensing issues were relatively straightforward once the key stipulations were established. The court's affirmance indicates that the district court correctly applied the terms of the RPX agreement to resolve the infringement dispute.
This decision adds to the body of Federal Circuit law addressing how patent licensing agreements interact with infringement claims, particularly in cases involving component suppliers and downstream manufacturers. While nonprecedential, the ruling may provide guidance for similar disputes involving complex licensing arrangements and supply chain relationships in the technology sector.