Core Optical Technologies v. Ciena Coporation

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1
Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
Plaintiff Core Optical Technologies, LLC. ("Plaintiff or "Core Optical Technologies") by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Ciena Corporation (hereinafter "Ciena" or "Defendant"), and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211 B
entitled "Cross Polarization Interface [sic] Canceler" which was duly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 24, 2004 ("the 211 patent"). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) because the claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1, et seq. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ciena, which conducts
continuous and systematic business in the United States, including, upon information and belief, in this judicial district. Ciena markets, manufactures, uses, offers for sale, sells, imports, and/or distributes the infringing products at issue in this case throughout the United States including, upon information and belief, within this judicial district. Ciena also uses, induces its customers use of, and/or contributes to its customers use of the infringing products at issue in this case to perform one or more patented methods of the 211 patent throughout the United States, including upon information and belief, in this judicial district. 3. Venue is proper within this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)
and (c) because Ciena transacts business within this district, offers for sale in this district products that infringe the 211 patent, and, on information and belief, induces its customers to commit infringing acts in this district. In addition, venue is proper because Core Optical Technologies resides in this judicial district and Core Optical Technologies suffered harm in this district. Moreover, a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district, including the inventive activities giving rise to the 211 patent.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
DOCSLA-102652v1
1 2 3 4
5
THE. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Core Optical Technologies, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of California, and having a principal place of business at 18792 Via Palatino, Irvine, CA 92603. 5. Defendant Ciena Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15
place of business located at 1201 Winterson Road, Linthicum, Maryland 21090, and, on information and belief, does business in this judicial district and elsewhere throughout the United States. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Ciena Corporation, made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported and/or distributed infringing products throughout the United States, and used, induced its customers use of, or contributed to its customers use of the infringing products within the United States to perform one or more of the patented methods set forth in the 211 patent. THE ASSERTED PATENT 6. Mark Core, the sole named inventor of the 211 patent, earned his Ph.D in electrical and computer engineering from the University of California, Irvine, and is the CEO and president of Plaintiff, Core Optical Technologies. The pioneering technology set forth in the 211 patent greatly increases data transmission rates in fiber optic networks by enabling two optical signals transmitted in the same frequency band, but at generally orthogonal polarizations, to be recovered at a receiver. The patented technology that enables the recovery of these signals includes coherent optical receivers and related methods that mitigate cross-polarization interference associated with the transmission of the signals through the fiber optic network. The patented coherent receivers and methods also mitigate the effects of chromatic dispersion, polarization mode dispersion, and polarization dependent loss that limit the performance of optical networks, thereby greatly increasing the transmission distance and eliminating or reducing the need for a variety of conventional network equipment such as amplifiers, regenerators, and compensators. The patented technology set forth in the 211 patent has been adopted by Ciena in at least its packetCOMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DOCSLA-102652v1
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
optical transport products and systems described below. 7. On November 5, 1998, Mark Core filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Provisional Patent Application No. 60/107,123 ("the 123 application") directed to his pioneering inventions. On November 4, 1999, Mark Core filed with the USPTO a non-provisional patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/434,213 ("the 213 application"), claiming priority to the 123 application. On August 24, 2004, the USPTO issued the 211 patent from the 213 application. The entire right, title and interest in and to the 211 patent, including all rights to past damages, has been assigned to Plaintiff in an assignment recorded with the USPTO. A copy of the 211 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Ciena and/or Cienas respective divisions, subsidiaries and/or agents are engaged in the business of making, using, distributing, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling 40G and 1000 solutions that embody the patented inventions disclosed and claimed in the 211 patent ("the Infringing Products"). The Infringing Products include, without limitation, Cienas eDC40G line card, eDC1000 line card, 6500 Packet-Optical Platform, and 4200 Advanced Service Platform and modules that include Ciena s 40G or 1 OOG dual polarization coherent optical receivers, as well as any of Cienas other products that incorporate Cienas dual polarization coherent optical receivers. 9. Additionally, the only use of certain components of the Infringing Products, such as the eDC40G and eDC 1 OOG line cards, is to perform one or more of the claimed methods in the 211 patent. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-9, inclusive, of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. 11. Ciena has been and continues to infringe the 211 patent by making,
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DOCSLA-102652v1
1 having made, using, offering for sale and/or selling directly or through intermediaries, 2 in this district or elsewhere in the United States, the Infringing Products, and/or by 3 importing into the United States the Infringing Products. 4 5 6 12. Ciena has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the 211 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) by knowingly and actively inducing infringement of one or more of the claims of the 211 patent. Ciena had knowledge of
7 the 211 patent from a time prior to the filing of this complaint. Ciena has actively 8 and knowingly encouraged and induced infringement of one or more claims of the 9 211 patent, for example, by instructing, aiding, assisting, and encouraging the use of 10 its Infringing Products in an infringing manner, and by selling Infringing Products that 11 have no non-infringing uses to customers who in turn use them to perform one or 12 more of the patented methods disclosed and claimed in the 211 patent. The direct 13 infringers of the 211 patent that are being induced by Ciena include Cienas 14 customers that use the Infringing Products. 15 13. Ciena has also indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe
16 one or more of the claims of the 211 patent under 35 U.S.C. 27 1(c) through, among 17 other things, unlawfully selling or offering to sell within the United States, or 18 importing into the United States, the Infringing Products, which products constitute a 19 material part of the claimed inventions of the 211 patent, which Ciena knows to be 20 especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the 211 patent, and 21 which are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non22 infringing use. The direct infringers for Cienas contributory infringement under 35 23 U.S.C. 271 (c) include, without limitation, its customers and users of the Infringing 24 Products. 25 14. Cienas infringement of the 211 patent has caused and will continue to 26 cause significant damage to Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an 27 award of damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement in an amount that is 28 in no event less than a reasonable royalty pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284. Plaintiff is also
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LIP
DOCSLA-102652v1
1 entitled to recover prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, and enhanced 2 damages under 35 U.S.C. 284. 3 15. Although ciena had knowledge of the 211 patent before the filing of this 4 complaint, on information and belief, ciena has nevertheless continued to directly and 5 6 indirectly infringe the 211 patent, despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement of the 211 patent. Accordingly, Cienas infringement
7 has been and continues to be willful. 8 16. As a result of Cienas infringement of the 211 patent, Plaintiff has 9 suffered irreparable harm and impairment of the value of its patent rights, and is now 10 suffering, and will continue to suffer, the violation of its patent rights unless and until 11 Defendant is permanently enjoined by this Court from infringing the 211 patent under 12 35 U.S.C. 283. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is entitled to a 17. This case is an "exceptional" case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285
13 permanent injunction against Ciena and its Infringing Products. 14
15 and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees. 16 17 18 19 Ciena; 20 21 2. 3. 4. Core Optical Technologies be awarded costs of the suit; Core Optical Technologies be awarded compensatory and special PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Core Optical Technologies prays for relief as follows: 1. Judgment be entered in favor of Core Optical Technologies against
22 damages for the infringement of the 211 patent in an amount to be determined at trial; 23 Ciena be preliminary and permanently enjoined from infringing or The Court determines that Cienas infringement is willful and that Core
24 inducing others to infringe the 211 patent; 25 5. 26 Optical Technologies is entitled to collect enhanced damages up to three times the 27 actual damages found or assessed; 28
6.
The Court declare this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and
6
DOCSLA-102652v1
1 2 3
award Core Optical Technologies its attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with this action; 7. 8. The Court otherwise award Core Optical Technologies its attorneys fees;
4 Em 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LIP
The Court grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Core Optical Technologies, LLC demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. DATED: October 29, 2012 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP Robert W. Dickerson Lawrence R. LaPorte David A. Randall 2049 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109 Telephone: (310) 772-8300 Facsimile: (310) 772-8301
By:4awrence.LaPorte Attorneys for Plaintiff Core Optical Technologies, LLC
DOCSLA-102652v1
EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL COVER SHEET VHI(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed? If yes, list case number(s): IPNo U Yes
VIIt(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? eNo U Yes If yes, list case number(s): Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) U A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or U B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or DC. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or OD. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, bore also is present. IX. VENUE: (When completing the following information, use an additional sheet if necessary.) (a) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintiff resides. Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named plaintiff. If this box is checked, go to item (b). County in this Di strict : * CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC - Orange County, CA California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
(b) List the County in this District; Califomia County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. I Check here if the government, its agencies or employees is a named defendant. If this box is checked, go to item (c). County in this Di strict : * California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country CIENA CORPORATION - Delaware
(c) List the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved. County in this Di strict : * Orange County, CA California County outside of this District; State, if other than California; or Foreign Country
* Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara or San Luis Obispo Counties
X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO PER):
bVi7JJ
Date
Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.) Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases: Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action
861
HIA
All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b)) All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923) All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for childs insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended. All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. (g))
862
BL
863
DIWC
863
DIWW
864
SSID
865
RSI
CV-71 (05/08)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
Page 2 of 2

Core Optical Technologies v. Ciena Coporation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Core Optical Technologies v. Ciena Coporation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:1

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:2

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:3

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:4

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:5

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:6

13 permanent injunction against Ciena and its Infringing Products. 14

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:7

By:4awrence.LaPorte Attorneys for Plaintiff Core Optical Technologies, LLC

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:8

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:9

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:10

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:11

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:12

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:13

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:14

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:15

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:16

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:17

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:18

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:19

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:20

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:21

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:22

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:23

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:24

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 25 of 36 Page ID #:25

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:26

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:27

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:28

Case 8:12-cv-01872-AG-MLG Document 1

Filed 10/29/12 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:29