Equinix, Inc. filed Equinix, Inc. v. NovaCloud Licensing, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-10585 (N.D. Cal. San Francisco), on September 16, 2026. The complaint is a declaratory-judgment action for noninfringement of five U.S. patents NovaCloud acquired from Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Equinix demands a jury trial.

Patents and accused products

The patents in the case are U.S. Patents 8,401,028 (Selection of an Edge Node in a Fixed Access Communication Network); 8,606,738 (Policy-Based Management in Communication Network); 7,869,447 (Method and System for Multi-Domain Virtual Private Network Configuration); 8,407,348 (Monitoring Network Usage); and 9,847,903 (Method and Apparatus for Configuring a Communication System). NovaCloud's July 2026 letter to Equinix's CEO identified claim 1 of each patent as relevant to specific Equinix offerings: the '028 and '738 patents to Network Edge; the '447 patent to Fabric, Fabric Router, and Fabric Cloud Router; the '348 patent to SmartView; and the '903 patent to Network Edge, Fabric, and Fabric Cloud Router. Equinix seeks declarations that those products and services do not infringe.

What the patents cover

U.S. Patent 8,401,028 covers selecting an edge node in a fixed-access network by receiving a host's service request at a selection node, reading status and capability data from a dynamically updated database, choosing an edge node that can path the host to the service, and returning identifying information for that node. Asserted for this DJ: at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers that selection-node method with the dynamic database lookup and response that identifies the selected edge node.

U.S. Patent 8,606,738 covers policy-based management in which a policy enforcement point asks multiple policy decision points for decisions through a policy strategy point that applies a decision strategy, including an algorithm. Asserted for this DJ: at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers that enforcement / decision / strategy flow when an event triggers the request for decisions.

U.S. Patent 7,869,447 covers configuring a multi-domain virtual private network by sharing domain VPN information across interconnected VPN provider domains and matching a configuration request so VPNs can be set up across domains. Asserted for this DJ: at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers multi-domain VPN configuration that uses provided domain VPN information between edge nodes where customers connect.

U.S. Patent 8,407,348 covers monitoring a user's network-service usage and comparing usage data to a service-level agreement, including saturation relative to a predefined threshold. Asserted for this DJ: at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers monitoring a user's usage of a network service with usage indicators used to assess compliance or overload conditions.

U.S. Patent 9,847,903 covers a configuration server that configures nodes in a first cluster and nodes in a second cluster so the same server acts as a common configuration server for both clusters, with nodes storing the server's configuration-service address. Asserted for this DJ: at least claim 1. Claim 1 covers that common-configuration-server method across at least two clusters.

What the lawsuit is about

Equinix frames this as a defensive DJ after NovaCloud's licensing outreach escalated from an NDA draft to a CEO letter naming five patents and claim 1 mappings to Equinix products. The complaint says NovaCloud has sued peers such as Meta, IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Charter, Cox, and Akamai on overlapping Ericsson-origin patents, and that Equinix needs clarity that Network Edge, Fabric, Fabric Router, Fabric Cloud Router, and SmartView do not practice the claims.

What it means

This is an operating-company DJ against a NovaCloud licensing campaign built on Ericsson network patents. Early practice will likely focus on whether an actual controversy exists and on claim scope for edge selection, policy enforcement, multi-domain VPN configuration, usage monitoring, and multi-cluster configuration.

What to watch next

Watch for NovaCloud's response or a motion to dismiss for lack of DJ jurisdiction. Also watch claim-construction themes on the five patents and whether related NovaCloud suits against other operators affect this case.