Fiber, LLC v. Ciena Corp.

          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 ...