ZILKR CLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION]

ZILKR CLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. REMANDED conclusion that "request to provision" and "activate" are so broad as to encompass the management of existing applications and services to which a client has already subscribed. Claim 1 recites a "server . . . configured to[] receive a request to provision a second service" and "responsive to receiving the request . . . activate the second service." '254 patent at 15:49–59. Although this language, by itself, is not dispositive of the scope of the disputed terms, it does identify the activation of a service as a direct response to the request to provision and thus requires us to consider [Page 5] Case: 25-1207 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 08/26/2026 ZILKR CLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 5 how the terms jointly operate to define the scope of the claim. Looking to the rest of the patent, and considering the disputed terms jointly, it is evident that claim 1's recitation of "ac remand non-precedential remand non-precedential