Cisco anti-competitive practices lawsuits: Difference between revisions
m archives 1-18 |
m second half |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Cisco distributes its networking equipment primarily through what the ''Summit 360'' complaint describes as an "Authorized Channel" of contracted resellers and distributors, which the complaint states consists of more than 8,000 organizations in the United States.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> Alongside this authorized channel, an "Independent Channel" of resellers (sometimes referred to as the secondary or grey market) supplies new and used Cisco-branded equipment to end users, generally at lower prices and with shorter lead times than Cisco's authorized partners. Independent resellers also frequently sell equipment from Cisco's competitors, including Juniper Networks, Arista Networks, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.<ref name="computerworld-aftermarket">{{cite news |last=Cox |first=John |date=2007 |title=Cisco set to fight aftermarket sellers |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/1650570/cisco-set-to-fight-aftermarket-sellers.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430014150/https://www.computerworld.com/article/1650570/cisco-set-to-fight-aftermarket-sellers.html |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=2025-04-29 |work=Computerworld}}</ref><ref name="packetpushers-graymarket">{{cite web |last=Conran |first=Greg |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Aspects Of The Gray Market For IT Gear |url=https://packetpushers.net/blog/aspects-of-the-gray-market-for-it-gear/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241205001926/https://packetpushers.net/blog/aspects-of-the-gray-market-for-it-gear/ |archive-date=2024-12-05 |access-date=2026-04-29 |publisher=Packet Pushers}}</ref><ref name="register-cdw">{{cite news |last=Robinson |first=Dan |date=January 15, 2024 |title=CDW settles in lawsuit with rival reseller over Cisco sales |url=https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/15/cdw_settles_in_lawsuit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260117004228/https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/15/cdw_settles_in_lawsuit/ |archive-date=2026-01-17 |access-date=2026-04-29 |work=The Register}}</ref> | Cisco distributes its networking equipment primarily through what the ''Summit 360'' complaint describes as an "Authorized Channel" of contracted resellers and distributors, which the complaint states consists of more than 8,000 organizations in the United States.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> Alongside this authorized channel, an "Independent Channel" of resellers (sometimes referred to as the secondary or grey market) supplies new and used Cisco-branded equipment to end users, generally at lower prices and with shorter lead times than Cisco's authorized partners. Independent resellers also frequently sell equipment from Cisco's competitors, including Juniper Networks, Arista Networks, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.<ref name="computerworld-aftermarket">{{cite news |last=Cox |first=John |date=2007 |title=Cisco set to fight aftermarket sellers |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/1650570/cisco-set-to-fight-aftermarket-sellers.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430014150/https://www.computerworld.com/article/1650570/cisco-set-to-fight-aftermarket-sellers.html |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=2025-04-29 |work=Computerworld}}</ref><ref name="packetpushers-graymarket">{{cite web |last=Conran |first=Greg |date=January 26, 2024 |title=Aspects Of The Gray Market For IT Gear |url=https://packetpushers.net/blog/aspects-of-the-gray-market-for-it-gear/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241205001926/https://packetpushers.net/blog/aspects-of-the-gray-market-for-it-gear/ |archive-date=2024-12-05 |access-date=2026-04-29 |publisher=Packet Pushers}}</ref><ref name="register-cdw">{{cite news |last=Robinson |first=Dan |date=January 15, 2024 |title=CDW settles in lawsuit with rival reseller over Cisco sales |url=https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/15/cdw_settles_in_lawsuit/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260117004228/https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/15/cdw_settles_in_lawsuit/ |archive-date=2026-01-17 |access-date=2026-04-29 |work=The Register}}</ref> | ||
Cisco has consistently held a dominant share of the U.S. and global markets for [[wikipedia:Network switch|Ethernet switches]] and [[wikipedia:Router (computing)|routers]] over the period at issue. According to International Data Corporation (IDC), Cisco's share of the worldwide Ethernet switch market exceeded 57% at the end of 2016<ref name="tadviser-idc-2016">{{cite web |title=Ethernet LAN Switches (Global Market) |url=https://tadviser.com/index.php/Article:Ethernet_LAN_Switches_(Global_Market) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430014713/https://tadviser.com/index.php/Article:Ethernet_LAN_Switches_(Global_Market) |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=TAdviser}}</ref> and stood at 47.1% in the second quarter of 2023, before declining as the market expanded with new entrants serving AI-driven demand for datacenter hardware.<ref name="idc-2q24">{{cite web |title=IDC Finds Mixed Results for Q2 2024 in the Worldwide Ethernet Switch and Router Markets |url=https:// | Cisco has consistently held a dominant share of the U.S. and global markets for [[wikipedia:Network switch|Ethernet switches]] and [[wikipedia:Router (computing)|routers]] over the period at issue. According to International Data Corporation (IDC), Cisco's share of the worldwide Ethernet switch market exceeded 57% at the end of 2016<ref name="tadviser-idc-2016">{{cite web |title=Ethernet LAN Switches (Global Market) |url=https://tadviser.com/index.php/Article:Ethernet_LAN_Switches_(Global_Market) |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430014713/https://tadviser.com/index.php/Article:Ethernet_LAN_Switches_(Global_Market) |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=TAdviser}}</ref> and stood at 47.1% in the second quarter of 2023, before declining as the market expanded with new entrants serving AI-driven demand for datacenter hardware.<ref name="idc-2q24">{{cite web |title=IDC Finds Mixed Results for Q2 2024 in the Worldwide Ethernet Switch and Router Markets |url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240912150246/en/IDC-Finds-Mixed-Results-for-Q2-2024-in-the-Worldwide-Ethernet-Switch-and-Router-Markets |publisher=International Data Corporation |website=Business Wire |date=September 12, 2024 |access-date=April 30, 2026}}</ref> | ||
Cisco's principal service contract for end users is marketed as "SmartNet." A SmartNet contract typically provides software updates, technical support, and hardware replacement for covered equipment.<ref name="cisco-smartnet-qa">{{cite web |title=Cisco SMARTnet Service Q&A |url=https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/das.ohio.gov/technology-strategy/next-generation-telephony-service/technical-implementation/service-details/Cisco%20Smartnet%20Service.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430015918/https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/das.ohio.gov/technology-strategy/next-generation-telephony-service/technical-implementation/service-details/Cisco%20Smartnet%20Service.pdf |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Cisco Systems, Inc.}}</ref> The complaints state that customers without an active SmartNet contract may lose access to security and operational updates necessary for their equipment to continue functioning properly, leaving most enterprise customers effectively dependent on the contract.<ref name="law360-filing">{{cite news |last=Atkins |first=Dorothy |date=April 28, 2022 |title=Cisco Accused Of Using Coercion To Maintain Monopoly |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1488140/cisco-accused-of-using-coercion-to-maintain-monopoly |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250722162939/https://www.law360.com/articles/1488140/cisco-accused-of-using-coercion-to-maintain-monopoly |archive-date=2025-07-22 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Law360}}</ref><ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | Cisco's principal service contract for end users is marketed as "SmartNet." A SmartNet contract typically provides software updates, technical support, and hardware replacement for covered equipment.<ref name="cisco-smartnet-qa">{{cite web |title=Cisco SMARTnet Service Q&A |url=https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/das.ohio.gov/technology-strategy/next-generation-telephony-service/technical-implementation/service-details/Cisco%20Smartnet%20Service.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430015918/https://dam.assets.ohio.gov/image/upload/das.ohio.gov/technology-strategy/next-generation-telephony-service/technical-implementation/service-details/Cisco%20Smartnet%20Service.pdf |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Cisco Systems, Inc.}}</ref> The complaints state that customers without an active SmartNet contract may lose access to security and operational updates necessary for their equipment to continue functioning properly, leaving most enterprise customers effectively dependent on the contract.<ref name="law360-filing">{{cite news |last=Atkins |first=Dorothy |date=April 28, 2022 |title=Cisco Accused Of Using Coercion To Maintain Monopoly |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1488140/cisco-accused-of-using-coercion-to-maintain-monopoly |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250722162939/https://www.law360.com/articles/1488140/cisco-accused-of-using-coercion-to-maintain-monopoly |archive-date=2025-07-22 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Law360}}</ref><ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.=== | ===Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.=== | ||
Dexon Computer, Inc., a Minnesota-based independent reseller, filed an antitrust complaint against Cisco and CDW in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 27, 2022.<ref name="courtlistener-edtx" /><ref name="law360-filing" /> The complaint asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, and a per se tying theory based on the alleged use of SmartNet contracts as a tying product for new equipment purchases.<ref name="unicourt">{{cite web |title=Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. |url=https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-et-al-1187348 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430022602/https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-et-al-1187348 |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=UniCourt}}</ref> The dispute followed a 2020 lawsuit filed by Cisco against Dexon in the Northern District of California, in which Cisco alleged trademark infringement and counterfeit trafficking.<ref name="courtlistener-ndca">{{cite web |title=Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dexon Computer, Inc., 3:20-cv-04926 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17373190/cisco-systems-inc-v-dexon-computer-inc/ | | Dexon Computer, Inc., a Minnesota-based independent reseller, filed an antitrust complaint against Cisco and CDW in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 27, 2022.<ref name="courtlistener-edtx" /><ref name="law360-filing" /> The complaint asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, and a per se tying theory based on the alleged use of SmartNet contracts as a tying product for new equipment purchases.<ref name="unicourt">{{cite web |title=Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. |url=https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-et-al-1187348 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430022602/https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc-et-al-1187348 |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=UniCourt}}</ref> The dispute followed a 2020 lawsuit filed by Cisco against Dexon in the Northern District of California, in which Cisco alleged trademark infringement and counterfeit trafficking.<ref name="courtlistener-ndca">{{cite web |title=Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Dexon Computer, Inc., 3:20-cv-04926 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17373190/cisco-systems-inc-v-dexon-computer-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430022953/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17373190/cisco-systems-inc-v-dexon-computer-inc/ |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=CourtListener |publisher=Free Law Project}}</ref> | ||
In a January 17, 2024 summary judgment ruling, the court dismissed Dexon's Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy and per se tying claims while allowing the monopolization claims under Section 2 to proceed to trial.<ref name="dexon-msj-order">{{cite web |title=Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00053-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2024) |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/65a9fae2f5042d01406bd1da | | In a January 17, 2024 summary judgment ruling, the court dismissed Dexon's Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy and per se tying claims while allowing the monopolization claims under Section 2 to proceed to trial.<ref name="dexon-msj-order">{{cite web |date=January 17, 2024 |title=Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00053-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2024) |url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/65a9fae2f5042d01406bd1da |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430023219/https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/65a9fae2f5042d01406bd1da |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=Casemine}}</ref><ref name="law360-teedup">{{cite news |last=Koenig |first=Bryan |date=January 17, 2024 |title=Reseller's Antitrust Claims Against Cisco Teed Up For Trial |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1787028/reseller-s-antitrust-claims-against-cisco-teed-up-for-trial |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240118032852/https://www.law360.com/articles/1787028/reseller-s-antitrust-claims-against-cisco-teed-up-for-trial |archive-date=2024-01-18 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Law360}}</ref> CDW reached a separate settlement with Dexon shortly before trial.<ref name="register-cdw" /> Trial began in Texarkana, Texas on January 22, 2024.<ref name="reuters-trial-mirror">{{cite news |last=Scarcella |first=Mike |date=January 23, 2024 |title=Cisco battles reseller's antitrust lawsuit over network equipment |url=https://www.ciplawyer.com/articles/152656.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250316185752/https://www.ciplawyer.com/articles/152656.html |archive-date=2025-03-16 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Reuters |publisher=Republished by China Intellectual Property Lawyers Network}}</ref> | ||
On January 29, 2024, before the case reached the jury, Dexon and Cisco reached a global settlement that resolved both the Texas antitrust case and the parallel California counterfeit case without a verdict.<ref name="law360-drop">{{cite news |last=Foretek |first=Jared |title=Reseller Drops Antitrust Countersuit Against Cisco Midtrial |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1791064/reseller-drops-antitrust-countersuit-against-cisco-midtrial | | On January 29, 2024, before the case reached the jury, Dexon and Cisco reached a global settlement that resolved both the Texas antitrust case and the parallel California counterfeit case without a verdict.<ref name="law360-drop">{{cite news |last=Foretek |first=Jared |date=January 29, 2024 |title=Reseller Drops Antitrust Countersuit Against Cisco Midtrial |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1791064/reseller-drops-antitrust-countersuit-against-cisco-midtrial |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240205223802/https://www.law360.com/articles/1791064/reseller-drops-antitrust-countersuit-against-cisco-midtrial |archive-date=2024-02-05 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Law360}}</ref><ref name="kellogghansen" /> A related insurance-coverage matter, ''Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America'', was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May 2024.<ref name="dexon-travelers-8th">{{cite web |title=Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, No. 23-1328 (8th Cir. May 20, 2024) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/23-1328/23-1328-2024-05-20.html |website=Justia |date=May 20, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</ref> | ||
===Summit 360, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.=== | ===Summit 360, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.=== | ||
On May 22, 2025, Summit 360, Inc., another Minnesota-based independent reseller, filed an antitrust complaint against Cisco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /><ref name="PYMNTS_CPI">{{cite news |title=Cisco Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Alleged Monopoly Tactics in Networking Market |url=https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/cisco-faces-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-monopoly-tactics-in-networking-market/ | | On May 22, 2025, Summit 360, Inc., another Minnesota-based independent reseller, filed an antitrust complaint against Cisco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /><ref name="PYMNTS_CPI">{{cite news |date=May 25, 2025 |title=Cisco Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Alleged Monopoly Tactics in Networking Market |url=https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/cisco-faces-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-monopoly-tactics-in-networking-market/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250723114210/https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/cisco-faces-antitrust-lawsuit-over-alleged-monopoly-tactics-in-networking-market/ |archive-date=2025-07-23 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=PYMNTS / Competition Policy International}}</ref> The complaint asserts claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the Minnesota Antitrust Law, and a state-law claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> The complaint cites the January 2024 ''Dexon'' summary judgment ruling as authority that Cisco's FUD tactics may form part of an anticompetitive scheme.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | ||
The Summit 360 complaint expands on the allegations made in ''Dexon'' by describing additional practices that the complaint characterizes as anticompetitive, including customer audits conducted under EULA and licensing terms, technological restrictions on IOS updates for newer Cisco hardware, and the use of counterfeit allegations against independent resellers.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> As of the date of this article, the case is pending.<ref name="MLex2025">{{cite web |title=Antitrust – Cisco – Summit 360 litigation over alleged monopolization of computer networking market (US) |url=https://www.mlex.com/mlex/case_files/683096ff7b5702e0a9486f86 | | The Summit 360 complaint expands on the allegations made in ''Dexon'' by describing additional practices that the complaint characterizes as anticompetitive, including customer audits conducted under EULA and licensing terms, technological restrictions on IOS updates for newer Cisco hardware, and the use of counterfeit allegations against independent resellers.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> As of the date of this article, the case is pending.<ref name="MLex2025">{{cite web |date=May 2025 |title=Antitrust – Cisco – Summit 360 litigation over alleged monopolization of computer networking market (US) |url=https://www.mlex.com/mlex/case_files/683096ff7b5702e0a9486f86 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430023824/https://www.mlex.com/mlex/case_files/683096ff7b5702e0a9486f86 |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=MLex}}</ref> | ||
===Earlier antitrust litigation=== | ===Earlier antitrust litigation=== | ||
Both the ''Dexon'' and ''Summit 360'' complaints reference earlier antitrust matters involving Cisco. In 2008, Multiven, Inc., a third-party network maintenance provider, filed an antitrust suit against Cisco alleging that Cisco's bundling of software bug fixes with its SmartNet maintenance contracts excluded competition in the after-market for service on Cisco equipment.<ref name="networkworld-multiven">{{cite news |last=McNamara |first=Paul |title=Net maintenance provider sues Cisco over allegedly monopolistic SMARTnet |url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/2233318/net-maintenance-provider-sues-cisco-over-allegedly-monopolistic-smartnet.html | | Both the ''Dexon'' and ''Summit 360'' complaints reference earlier antitrust matters involving Cisco. In 2008, Multiven, Inc., a third-party network maintenance provider, filed an antitrust suit against Cisco alleging that Cisco's bundling of software bug fixes with its SmartNet maintenance contracts excluded competition in the after-market for service on Cisco equipment.<ref name="networkworld-multiven">{{cite news |last=McNamara |first=Paul |date=2008 |title=Net maintenance provider sues Cisco over allegedly monopolistic SMARTnet |url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/2233318/net-maintenance-provider-sues-cisco-over-allegedly-monopolistic-smartnet.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924130247/https://www.networkworld.com/article/2233318/net-maintenance-provider-sues-cisco-over-allegedly-monopolistic-smartnet.html |archive-date=2023-09-24 |access-date=2026-04-29 |work=Network World}}</ref> The case settled in August 2010.<ref name="computerworld-multiven">{{cite news |last=Lawson |first=Stephen |title=Cisco settles antitrust suit over software updates |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2519776/cisco-settles-antitrust-suit-over-software-updates.html |work=Computerworld |date=August 2010 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</ref> | ||
In 2015, [[wikipedia:Arista Networks|Arista Networks, Inc.]] brought antitrust counterclaims against Cisco in the context of long-running patent litigation between the two companies, alleging that Cisco's pricing of SmartNet functioned as a charge on multivendor networks.<ref name="networkworld-arista">{{cite news |last=Duffy |first=Jim |title=Arista Countersues Cisco, Claiming Antitrust Violations |url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/947364/arista-countersues-cisco-for-antitrust.html | | In 2015, [[wikipedia:Arista Networks|Arista Networks, Inc.]] brought antitrust counterclaims against Cisco in the context of long-running patent litigation between the two companies, alleging that Cisco's pricing of SmartNet functioned as a charge on multivendor networks.<ref name="networkworld-arista">{{cite news |last=Duffy |first=Jim |date=2015 |title=Arista Countersues Cisco, Claiming Antitrust Violations |url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/947364/arista-countersues-cisco-for-antitrust.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430024558/https://www.networkworld.com/article/947364/arista-countersues-cisco-for-antitrust.html |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=2026-04-29 |work=Network World}}</ref> The court denied Cisco's motion for summary judgment on the antitrust claims, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to proceed to trial.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> The two companies reached a comprehensive settlement in August 2018, under which Arista paid Cisco $400 million.<ref name="ReutersAristaSettle">{{cite news |author=Jan Wolfe |date=August 6, 2018 |title=Arista to pay $400 million to Cisco to resolve court fight |url=https://www.aol.com/arista-pay-400-million-cisco-resolve-court-fight-154704053--finance.html |url-status= |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Reuters (via AOL)}}</ref><ref name="BloombergLawArista">{{cite news |date=2018-08-06 |title=Arista to Pay Cisco $400M to Settle Patent, Antitrust Lawsuits |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/arista-to-pay-cisco-400m-to-settle-patent-antitrust-lawsuits/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430025344/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/arista-to-pay-cisco-400m-to-settle-patent-antitrust-lawsuits/ |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=2026-04-29 |publisher=Bloomberg Law}}</ref> | ||