Federal Circuit Affirms Without Opinion Under Rule 36 in Corrigent v. Cisco, an Appeal From the Western District of Texas.

The judgment

In Corrigent Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2025-2036 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2026) (nonprecedential), the judgment reads: "PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36." Corrigent Corp. is the plaintiff-appellant and Cisco Systems, Inc. the defendant-appellee, and the judgment lists counsel as having argued for each side. It states that the appeal is from the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-cv-00396-ADA, Judge Alan D Albright.

The district court opinion and judgment

Corrigent's original complaint asserted the '369 and '485 patents, among others. In a July 16, 2025 memorandum opinion and order (ECF No. 362), Judge Albright granted Cisco's motion for judgment on the amended pleadings and dismissed with prejudice Counts I and II of Corrigent's first amended complaint, which asserted U.S. Patent 6,957,369, titled "Hidden Failure Detection," and U.S. Patent 7,113,485, titled "Latency Evaluation in a Ring Network." The opinion explains that the court had orally granted Cisco's earlier motion on these two patents at a June 24, 2024 pretrial conference with leave to amend, and orally granted the renewed motion at a November 15, 2024 pretrial conference. The case was tried to a jury in January 2025, and the docket shows that on January 16, 2025 the court granted Cisco's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. A judgment was entered the same day as the written opinion, and Corrigent filed a notice of appeal on August 15, 2025.

Affirmance without opinion

Federal Circuit Rule 36(a) provides that the court may enter a judgment of affirmance without opinion, citing the rule, when it determines that one of the conditions the rule lists exists and an opinion would have no precedential value. The listed conditions are that the judgment, decision, or order appealed from is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous; that the evidence supporting the jury's verdict is sufficient; that the record supports summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment on the pleadings; that an agency decision warrants affirmance under the governing standard of review; or that a judgment or decision has been entered without an error of law.