Last updated: May 11, 2026
What does the litigation between Telcordia Tech Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. (1:04-cv-00876) cover, and what is the patent-case outcome?
What is the case and where is it docketed?
Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
- Case number: 1:04-cv-00876
- Caption (as provided): Litigation summary and analysis for Telcordia Tech Inc. v. CISCO Systems Inc.
- Jurisdiction: Federal district court docket (exact district and judge not provided in the prompt)
What patents and claims are at issue?
No patent numbers, asserted claims, claim construction positions, or infringement theories are provided in the prompt. Without the specific asserted patent set and the case’s litigated claim set, a complete litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis cannot be produced.
What procedural posture exists?
No procedural milestones are provided (e.g., scheduling order dates, Markman hearing date, summary judgment rulings, jury verdict dates, claim construction order, stipulations, or appellate activity). Without those events and dates, a litigation chronology is not supportable.
What is the outcome (trial, settlement, or dismissal)?
No disposition is provided (verdict, judgment, settlement amount, consent decree, dismissal basis, or appeal outcome). Without a verified outcome, any “analysis” would be speculative.
What does Telcordia typically litigate in this technology area (high-level context)?
The prompt provides no technology domain (VoIP, networking protocols, signaling, optical transport, OSS/BSS, billing, E911, etc.). Without knowing the technological field, mapping the case to the relevant Telcordia patent families is not possible.
What is needed for a Bloomberg-style patent litigation analysis?
A proper, decision-grade analysis requires, at minimum, the following docket-grounded facts:
- Asserted patents and their publication/grant details
- Claim chart scope (independent and asserted dependent claims)
- Markman constructions and which terms were dispositive
- Invalidity theories (prior art references, anticipation/obviousness framework, motivation-to-combine findings)
- Infringement theories (how accused Cisco products/practices map to claim limitations)
- Final disposition (judgment vs settlement) and the basis (non-infringement, invalidity, estoppel, or procedural dismissal)
None of these elements are included in the provided material. Under the operating constraints, an incomplete or unverifiable summary must not be generated.
Key Takeaways
- The provided prompt includes only the case caption and number (1:04-cv-00876); it does not include asserted patents, claim scope, procedural rulings, or disposition.
- A complete patent litigation summary and outcome analysis cannot be produced from the supplied information.
FAQs
-
What is 1:04-cv-00876?
A federal district court docket entry for Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., as identified by the case number provided.
-
Which patents did Telcordia assert?
Not provided in the prompt.
-
Did the court hold any claims invalid or find infringement?
Not provided in the prompt.
-
Was the case resolved by trial or settlement?
Not provided in the prompt.
-
What products did Cisco face allegations over?
Not provided in the prompt.
References
[1] No sources were provided in the prompt to cite.
