They're entitled to ask for all profits. However, the most likely outcome is that Cisco settles for an "undisclosed sum" (probably substantial, but still much less than all profit for the products in question), agrees to comply, and appoints a compliance officer. It should be similar to the BusyBox cases.

The courts have increased intolerance for excessive copyright damage calculations. Unless the allegedly misused code is central to the Lyksys product (which it seemingly is not because the code is merely a portion of software used to run the hardware, and the hardware is the product in this case) then the amount of profits attributable to misuse of the code would likely be very small.