
Please try another search
By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Thursday threw out a more than $2.75 billion award against Cisco Systems Inc (NASDAQ:CSCO), saying the trial judge should have disqualified himself after learning that his wife owned Cisco stock.
The 3-0 decision by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was also a defeat for Centripetal Networks Inc, a Virginia company that had sued Cisco for damages and royalties for allegedly copying five cybersecurity patents.
The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Henry Morgan in Norfolk, Virginia, found Cisco liable for patent infringement in October 2020, two months after learning that his wife owned 100 Cisco shares worth $4,688.
Morgan later put the shares in a blind trust, and told the parties that the shares "did not and could not have influenced" his handling of the case.
But the Washington, D.C.-based appeals court said a blind trust was not the same as selling the shares, and it did not matter that San Jose, California-based Cisco had lost.
The court ordered the case reassigned to another judge, because letting Morgan stay on risked undermining public confidence in the judicial process.
"It is seriously inimical to the credibility of the judiciary for a judge to preside over a case in which he has a known financial interest in one of the parties and for courts to allow those rulings to stand," Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk wrote.
Jonathan Rogers (NYSE:ROG), Centripetal's chief operating officer, in a statement said the Herndon, Virginia-based company "will continue to fight to protect its rights."
Cisco and its lawyers declined to comment.
Morgan had ruled for Centripetal after a non-jury trial in May and June 2020.
Judicial independence attracted renewed attention last year after the Wall Street Journal said 131 federal judges violated federal law by hearing 685 lawsuits since 2010 involving companies where they or their families owned stock.
"The judiciary takes this matter seriously," U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his 2021 year-end report. "We expect judges to adhere to the highest standards, and those judges violated an ethics rule."
Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?
By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.
%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List
Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.
I feel that this comment is:
Thank You!
Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Add a Comment
We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:
Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.
Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.