On April 13, 2021, Rex Computing, Inc. (“Rex”) or (“Plaintiff”), represented by Brian P. Egan of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Cerebras Systems Inc. (“Cerebras”) or (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages with prejudgment and post-judgment interests among other reliefs, for alleged unlawful infringement of United States patents owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S District Court for the District of Delaware with Judge Maryellen Noreika presiding.
Rex asserted that the Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,355,975 titled “Latency Guaranteed Network on Chip,”(“the ’975 patent”), 10,700,968 titled “Optimized Function Assignment in a Multi-Core Processor,” (“the ’968 patent”), and 10,127,043 titled “Implementing Conflict-Free Instructions for Concurrent Operation on a Processor,” (“the ’043 patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) owned by them.
The Plaintiff alleged that Cerebras has infringed Asserted Patents by “(i) making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing in and into the United States certain computer systems and the Cerebras CS-1 which includes the Cerebras Wafer Scale Engine, Cerebras Swarm communication fabric, and Cerebras Graph Compiler; (ii) by instructing others to use certain computer systems, including the Cerebras CS-1. Cerebras’ active inducement includes, for example and without limitation, marketing, selling, and offering to sell the Cerebras CS-1, providing instructions on how to use the Cerebras CS-1, and promoting the use of the Cerebras CS-1. For example, Cerebras has promoted the use of the Cerebras CS-1 via its website,41 and via numerous presentations to customers and (iii) by selling the Cerebras CS-1, which is a component of a patented system and which constitutes a material part of the invention in claim of the Asserted Patents. Cerebras has sold the Cerebras CS-1 knowing the same to be specifically made or especially adapted for use in an infringement and that the Cerebras CS-1 is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.”
The Plaintiff further alleged that “Cerebras has had actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents prior to the filing of this Complaint. Cerebras has continued to infringe claims of the Asserted Patents. Therefore, Cerebras’ infringement is objectively reckless, knowing, deliberate, and willful.”
In the three claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, infringement of the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c) has been alleged, wherein it has been alleged that Cerebras has infringed, induced infringement, and contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the Asserted Patents by, among other things, and with specific intent or willful blindness.
In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to declare that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the Asserted Patents and declare that Cerebras’ actions would be acts of infringement of one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Plaintiff further requested the court to pass an order enjoining Defendant from future infringement of Asserted Patents, awarding Rex damages an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interests and costs, and that the damages be enhanced based on Cerebras’ willful infringement; and awarding costs of litigation.
This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.
Pending - Other Pending
Rex Computing, Inc.
Cerebras Systems Inc.
Brian P. Egan
Attorney at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
Civil Cover Sheet
Docket(#8) First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Cerebras Systems Inc.- filed by Rex Computing, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exs. 1-3)(Egan, Brian) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/7/2021: #2 Redline Comparison) (dlw). (Entered: 05/04/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSO ORDERED re #7 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend the deadline for Defendant Cerebras Systems Inc. to respond to Rex Computing, Inc.'s Complaint (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Cerebras Systems Inc. answer due 7/6/2021). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 4/19/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 04/19/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#7) UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend the deadline for Defendant Cerebras Systems Inc. to respond to Rex Computing, Inc.'s Complaint - filed by Rex Computing, Inc. (Egan, Brian) Modified on 4/19/2021 (dlw). (Entered: 04/16/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) (Entered: 04/14/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rex Computing, Inc.. Cerebras Systems Inc. served on 4/13/2021, answer due 5/4/2021. (Egan, Brian) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#5) Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (mal) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#4) Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by Rex Computing, Inc.. (mal) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#3) Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 10,355,975 B2 ;10,700,968 B2 ;10,127,043 B2. (mal) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#2) Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (mal) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#1) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - filed with Jury Demand against Cerebras Systems Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3591773.) - filed by Rex Computing, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Civil Cover Sheet)(mal) (Entered: 04/13/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases