Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corp.
United States District Court, D. Colorado
September 13, 2018
FIBER, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
CIENA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CIENA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, FIBER, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
VIAVI SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a JDS Uniphase Corporation, LUMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC., LUMENTUM INC., and LUMENTUM OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, FIBER, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
ALCATEL LUCENT USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and FINISAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP
A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion
for Entry of Final Judgment of Invalidity and
Non-Infringement of the '917 and '332 Patents and to
Dismiss All Counterclaims [Docket No. 198]. This case
involves consolidated patent infringement actions brought by
plaintiff Fiber, LLC against defendants Ciena Communications,
Inc., Ciena Corporation, Viavi Solutions Inc. f/k/a JDS
Uniphase Corporation, Lumentum Holdings Inc., Lumentum Inc.,
Lumentum Operations LLC, Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., and Finisar
Corporation.[1] The parties move for the entry of a final
judgment of invalidity and non-infringement as to all
asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Having reviewed the
parties' stipulations and being fully advised in the
premises, the Court FINDS as follows:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
2. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent No. 6, 430, 332 B1
(the “'332 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,
095, 917 B2 (the “'917 Patent”)
(collectively, “the Patents”). Plaintiff asserts
that it is the exclusive assignee of the Patents and thus
possesses ownership rights to the inventions disclosed and
claimed in the Patents.
3. Plaintiff alleges that defendants infringe claims 27, 32,
and 39 of the '917 Patent; claims 67, 68, and 70 of the
'917 Patent, which all depend from claim 53 and certain
of its dependent claims; and claims 125, 126, 130, and 132 of
the '332 Patent, which all depend from independent claim
123 and certain of its dependent claims. These claims are
referred to collectively in this order as the “asserted
claims.”
4. In an order dated September 6, 2017 [Docket No. 191] (the
“Claim Construction Order”), the Court construed
numerous disputed terms found in the asserted claims of the
Patents.
5. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court determined that
the term “control” is “means plus
function” and that the specification does not disclose
any corresponding structure. Accordingly, the Court concluded
that the term “control” is indefinite. The
parties stipulate and agree that the Court's finding of
indefiniteness invalidates all asserted claims of the
'917 Patent.
6. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court determined that
the “data gathering and transmission element” is
limited to the structure disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5, 177,
348. The parties stipulate and agree that the Court's
determination precludes a finding of infringement, either
literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of any of the
asserted claims of the '917 Patent because none of
defendants' products include the “data gathering
and transmission element” as construed by the Court.
7. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court construed the
term “positioning” to mean “changing the
physical orientation of a beam directing device.” The
parties stipulate and agree that the Court's construction
precludes a finding of infringement, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, of any of the asserted
claims of the '917 Patent because none of defendants'
products that use liquid crystal on silicon include a beam
directing device that can be “positioned” as the
term is construed by the Court.
8. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court determined that
the term “substantially” as used in the '332
Patent is indefinite. The parties stipulate and agree that
the Court's finding of indefiniteness invalidates all
asserted claims of the '332 Patent.
9. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court determined that
the term “control” is “means plus
function” and that the specification does not disclose
any corresponding structure. Accordingly, the Court concluded
that the term “control” is indefinite. The
parties stipulate and agree that the Court's finding of
indefiniteness invalidates all asserted claims of the
'332 Patent.
10. In the Claim Construction Order, the Court determined
that the “data gathering and transmission
element” is limited to the structure disclosed in U.S.
Patent No. 5, 177, 348. The parties stipulate and agree that
the Court's determination precludes a finding of
infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, of any of the asserted claims of the'332
Patent because none of defendants' products include the
“data gathering and transmission element” as
construed by the Court.
11. Based on the Claim Construction Order, the parties
stipulate and agree to the entry of final judgment of
invalidity and non-infringement of the asserted claims of the
'917 and '332 Patents with respect to all accused
products.
12. Defendants stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice
of their counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of
non-infringement and invalidity of the '917 and '332
Patents. Defendants further stipulate to the dismissal
without prejudice of their defenses. In the event of a remand
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
defendants shall have the right to revive their counterclaims
and defenses. Nothing in defendants' stipulations ...