Cisco anti-competitive practices lawsuits: Difference between revisions
fixed comapny name |
m archives 1-18 |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
}} | }} | ||
[[Cisco Systems, Inc.]] is one of the largest manufacturers of enterprise networking equipment in the world, with a long-standing dominant share of the United States and global markets for [[wikipedia:Network switch|Ethernet switches]] and [[wikipedia:Router (computing)|routers]]. Beginning in the mid-2010s, Cisco has been the subject of antitrust complaints alleging that it leverages its near-monopoly position in maintenance services for its own equipment, primarily through service contracts marketed under the "SmartNet" brand, to compel customers to purchase additional networking hardware and to discourage them from buying through independent resellers. Two lawsuits filed by independent resellers, ''Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.'' (E.D. Tex. 2022)<ref name="courtlistener-edtx">{{cite web |title=Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5:22-cv-00053 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63269284/dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc/ | | [[Cisco Systems, Inc.]] is one of the largest manufacturers of enterprise networking equipment in the world, with a long-standing dominant share of the United States and global markets for [[wikipedia:Network switch|Ethernet switches]] and [[wikipedia:Router (computing)|routers]]. Beginning in the mid-2010s, Cisco has been the subject of antitrust complaints alleging that it leverages its near-monopoly position in maintenance services for its own equipment, primarily through service contracts marketed under the "SmartNet" brand, to compel customers to purchase additional networking hardware and to discourage them from buying through independent resellers. Two lawsuits filed by independent resellers, ''Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.'' (E.D. Tex. 2022)<ref name="courtlistener-edtx">{{cite web |date=2022-04-27 |title=Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5:22-cv-00053 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63269284/dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430013545/https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63269284/dexon-computer-inc-v-cisco-systems-inc/ |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=CourtListener |publisher=Free Law Project}}</ref> and ''Summit 360, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.'' (D. Minn. 2025),<ref name="Summit360Complaint">{{cite web |author=Summit 360, Inc. |date=2025-05-22 |title=Complaint, Summit 360, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02202 |url=https://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Cisco-Accused-of-Monopoly.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250623075535/https://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Cisco-Accused-of-Monopoly.pdf |archive-date=2025-06-23 |access-date=2026-04-29 |publisher=U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota}}</ref> have characterized these tactics using a phrase allegedly common<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> within Cisco's own internal vocabulary: "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," or FUD. Earlier antitrust matters brought by Multiven (2008) and Arista Networks (2016) raised related concerns about how Cisco bundles software updates and other after-market services with its hardware sales. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
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 |title=Cisco set to fight aftermarket sellers |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/1650570/cisco-set-to-fight-aftermarket-sellers.html | | 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) | | 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://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS52590024 |publisher=International Data Corporation |date=September 12, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 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 | | 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" /> | ||
==Alleged practices== | ==Alleged practices== | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===SmartNet as a coercive tool=== | ===SmartNet as a coercive tool=== | ||
The ''Dexon'' complaint alleges that, after a customer has purchased and begun using a SmartNet contract for previously installed equipment, Cisco subsequently demanded that the customer either purchase new networking equipment or pay a "re-certification" fee on existing hardware as a condition of continued service under the contract.<ref name="law360-filing" /><ref name="bloomberglaw-mtd">{{cite news |last=Arcieri |first=Katie |title=Dexon Wins Approval to Move Forward with Cisco Antitrust Case |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/dexon-wins-approval-to-move-forward-with-cisco-antitrust-case | | The ''Dexon'' complaint alleges that, after a customer has purchased and begun using a SmartNet contract for previously installed equipment, Cisco subsequently demanded that the customer either purchase new networking equipment or pay a "re-certification" fee on existing hardware as a condition of continued service under the contract.<ref name="law360-filing" /><ref name="bloomberglaw-mtd">{{cite news |last=Arcieri |first=Katie |date=April 3, 2023 |title=Dexon Wins Approval to Move Forward with Cisco Antitrust Case |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/dexon-wins-approval-to-move-forward-with-cisco-antitrust-case |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250725105229/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/web/20250725105229/https:/news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/dexon-wins-approval-to-move-forward-with-cisco-antitrust-case |archive-date=2025-07-25 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Bloomberg Law}}</ref> The complaint provides several Texas-based examples in which Cisco was alleged to have withheld or threatened to withhold maintenance services unless customers ceased purchasing equipment from Dexon, including a regional bank, an energy company, a local 911 emergency call center, an automobile dealership, and an independent school district.<ref name="texarkana-gazette">{{cite news |date=April 30, 2022 |title=Network provider Cisco accused of intimidation, monopoly |url=https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2022/apr/30/network-provider-cisco-accused-of-intimidation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250722085326/https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2022/apr/30/network-provider-cisco-accused-of-intimidation/ |archive-date=2025-07-22 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Texarkana Gazette}}</ref><ref name="law360-filing" /> | ||
The ''Summit 360'' complaint describes a similar practice, alleging that Cisco's recertification fees can exceed the value of the equipment itself, leaving end users with no practical option other than to purchase entirely new hardware through the authorized channel.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | The ''Summit 360'' complaint describes a similar practice, alleging that Cisco's recertification fees can exceed the value of the equipment itself, leaving end users with no practical option other than to purchase entirely new hardware through the authorized channel.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
The ''Summit 360'' complaint focuses on a set of practices that post-date the conduct alleged in ''Dexon''. According to the complaint, Cisco uses customer audits, conducted under the company's End User License Agreement, its successor "General Terms," or as part of voluntary "health check" programs, to identify equipment supplied through independent resellers and to charge customers re-certification or re-licensing fees on that equipment.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | The ''Summit 360'' complaint focuses on a set of practices that post-date the conduct alleged in ''Dexon''. According to the complaint, Cisco uses customer audits, conducted under the company's End User License Agreement, its successor "General Terms," or as part of voluntary "health check" programs, to identify equipment supplied through independent resellers and to charge customers re-certification or re-licensing fees on that equipment.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> | ||
The ''Summit 360'' complaint further alleges that Cisco's newer generation of switches and routers requires a software subscription that is tied to the original purchaser, restricting access to IOS updates for equipment that subsequently changes hands through the secondary market.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> The U.S. Department of Justice referenced what it described as "Cisco fatigue" arising from these licensing practices in its January 2025 complaint to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's proposed acquisition of Juniper Networks.<ref name="DOJHPEJuniperCIS">{{cite web |title=United States v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/10/2025-12887/united-states-v-hewlett-packard-enterprise-co-et-al-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact | | The ''Summit 360'' complaint further alleges that Cisco's newer generation of switches and routers requires a software subscription that is tied to the original purchaser, restricting access to IOS updates for equipment that subsequently changes hands through the secondary market.<ref name="Summit360Complaint" /> The U.S. Department of Justice referenced what it described as "Cisco fatigue" arising from these licensing practices in its January 2025 complaint to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's proposed acquisition of Juniper Networks.<ref name="DOJHPEJuniperCIS">{{cite web |date=July 10, 2025 |title=United States v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/10/2025-12887/united-states-v-hewlett-packard-enterprise-co-et-al-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430020520/https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/10/2025-12887/united-states-v-hewlett-packard-enterprise-co-et-al-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Federal Register, U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref> | ||
===Cisco's response=== | ===Cisco's response=== | ||
Throughout the ''Dexon'' litigation, Cisco maintained that the substantive dispute between the two companies was its own earlier-filed counterfeiting suit against Dexon in the Northern District of California, in which Cisco alleged that Dexon had trafficked in counterfeit Cisco products.<ref name="kellogghansen">{{cite web |title=Cisco Systems Resolves Antitrust Allegations and Counterfeit-Trafficking Claims in Sweeping Settlement Agreement |url=https://kellogghansen.com/cisco-systems-resolves-antitrust-allegations-and-counterfeit-trafficking-claims-in-sweeping-settlement-agreement/ | | Throughout the ''Dexon'' litigation, Cisco maintained that the substantive dispute between the two companies was its own earlier-filed counterfeiting suit against Dexon in the Northern District of California, in which Cisco alleged that Dexon had trafficked in counterfeit Cisco products.<ref name="kellogghansen">{{cite web |date=January 31, 2024 |title=Cisco Systems Resolves Antitrust Allegations and Counterfeit-Trafficking Claims in Sweeping Settlement Agreement |url=https://kellogghansen.com/cisco-systems-resolves-antitrust-allegations-and-counterfeit-trafficking-claims-in-sweeping-settlement-agreement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260207140027/https://kellogghansen.com/cisco-systems-resolves-antitrust-allegations-and-counterfeit-trafficking-claims-in-sweeping-settlement-agreement/ |archive-date=2026-02-07 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick}}</ref> Cisco moved to transfer the Texas antitrust case to California and to dismiss the complaint, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied both motions in March 2023, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing transfer in July 2023.<ref name="dexon-mtd-order-2023">{{cite web |date=March 31, 2023 |title=Order Overruling Objections, Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00053-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2023) |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/dexon-comput-v-cisco-929144568 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260207140027/https://kellogghansen.com/cisco-systems-resolves-antitrust-allegations-and-counterfeit-trafficking-claims-in-sweeping-settlement-agreement/ |archive-date=2026-02-07 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |website=vLex}}</ref><ref name="commlit-mandamus">{{cite news |date=2023-07-21 |title=5th Circuit Denies Cisco Mandamus Relief to Transfer Dexon's Antitrust Case to Northern Calif. |url=https://communicationslitigationtoday.com/article/2023/07/21/5th-circuit-denies-cisco-mandamus-relief-to-transfer-dexons-antitrust-case-to-northern-calif-2307200034 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430021140/https://communicationslitigationtoday.com/article/2023/07/21/5th-circuit-denies-cisco-mandamus-relief-to-transfer-dexons-antitrust-case-to-northern-calif-2307200034 |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Communications Litigation Today}}</ref> In October 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Cisco a preliminary injunction barring Dexon from selling certain products that Cisco had identified as counterfeit.<ref name="law360-injunction">{{cite news |last=Kim |first=Gina |date=October 5, 2023 |title=Cisco Systems Blocks Dexon From Selling Knockoff Products |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1729870 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260430022245/https://www.law360.com/articles/1729870 |archive-date=2026-04-30 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |work=Law360}}</ref> | ||
In a public statement following the global settlement of the two cases in January 2024, Cisco's lead trial counsel characterized the resolution as a successful outcome for the company's anti-counterfeiting enforcement program, citing terms under which Dexon agreed to cease unauthorized resales of Cisco products and to apply to join Cisco's authorized reseller program.<ref name="kellogghansen" /><ref name="haltomdoan">{{cite web |title=Dexon v. Cisco Agreed Joint Statement |url=https://www.haltomdoan.com/dexon-v-cisco-agreed-joint-statement/ | | In a public statement following the global settlement of the two cases in January 2024, Cisco's lead trial counsel characterized the resolution as a successful outcome for the company's anti-counterfeiting enforcement program, citing terms under which Dexon agreed to cease unauthorized resales of Cisco products and to apply to join Cisco's authorized reseller program.<ref name="kellogghansen" /><ref name="haltomdoan">{{cite web |date=January 2024 |title=Dexon v. Cisco Agreed Joint Statement |url=https://www.haltomdoan.com/dexon-v-cisco-agreed-joint-statement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260125061211/https://www.haltomdoan.com/dexon-v-cisco-agreed-joint-statement/ |archive-date=2026-01-25 |access-date=April 29, 2026 |publisher=Haltom & Doan}}</ref> | ||
==Lawsuits== | ==Lawsuits== | ||
| 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 | | 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/ |website=CourtListener |publisher=Free Law Project |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</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 |website=Casemine |date=January 17, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</ref><ref name="law360-teedup">{{cite news |last=Koenig |first=Bryan |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 |work=Law360 |date=January 17, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</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 |title=Cisco battles reseller's antitrust lawsuit over network equipment |url=https://www.ciplawyer.com/articles/152656.html |work=Reuters |publisher=Republished by China Intellectual Property Lawyers Network |date=January 23, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</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 |website=Casemine |date=January 17, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</ref><ref name="law360-teedup">{{cite news |last=Koenig |first=Bryan |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 |work=Law360 |date=January 17, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</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 |title=Cisco battles reseller's antitrust lawsuit over network equipment |url=https://www.ciplawyer.com/articles/152656.html |work=Reuters |publisher=Republished by China Intellectual Property Lawyers Network |date=January 23, 2024 |access-date=April 29, 2026}}</ref> | ||