Partner Agreements At Heart Of Cisco, Infra-Comm Court Case

Chippey then laid out Cisco's case to show Cisco was the victim in the partnership, rather than Infra-Comm. He introduced some of the Cisco team, including Chris Schlereth, operations director of Cisco's west commercial channels and the executive responsible for informing Infra-Comm that Cisco canceled its ICPA.

Chippey then told the jury that Cisco did not breach its deal registration agreement and that it had the right to cancel Infra-Comm's deal registration with the Irvine Company. He also said that neither Cisco nor Infra-Comm entered into a mutually-exclusive relationship.

Chippey then said Cisco "bent over backward" to help Infra-Comm establish a relationship with the customer, but that Infra-Comm never had the size or resources to handle such a project, nor the ability to handle it on its own, and worked with Cisco Capital on the deal.

Chippey countered Infra-Comm's accusations that Cisco pushed the customer to work with AT&T with documents showing the customer actually wanted to do business with AT&T, that Infra-Comm never had the ability to close the deal, and that the customer dropped its CROS contract because of Infra-Comm's inability to deliver on promises the solution provider made.

Instead, Infra-Comm replaced CROS with its own services for which it received a fee of $35,000 per month instead of the $3,500 per month it received with CROS, Chippey said.

Chippey also showed a list of 12 domain names registered by Infra-Comm which included the Cisco name, such as ciscoipt.com and ciscohelp.com.

The trial is expected to last up to 15 days.