Is that stated as a fact in the case? I didn't find anything that makes that suggestion.
Reading the abstract of brief, it looks like "built" is being used to me "specifically sold and configured hardware." So it's not necessarily some special asic, but rather machines configured specifically to target and identify Falun Gong members. Anyway, in the 21st century, the line between hardware and software that runs on dedicated hardware is pretty ill defined.
When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas.
Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually.
Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.
the only thing I responded to.
Second, if you're selling something to a known person, and you have a good reason to know what they're going to do with it. And let's be clear, Cisco totally knew what they were going to be used for in this case. Then you're an accessory.