Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04582/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04582-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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 

 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT - CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ 

HEIDI L. KEEFE (SBN: 178960) 

email: hkeefe@whitecase.com 

MARK WEINSTEIN (SBN: 193043) 

email: mweinstein@whitecase.com 

SAM O’ROURKE (SBN: 205233) 

email: sorourke@whitecase.com 

WHITE & CASE LLP 

3000 El Camino Real 

5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: (650) 213-0300 

Facsimile: (650) 213-8158 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant Oplink Communications, Inc. 

DARRYL M. WOO (SBN: 100513) 

email: dwoo@fenwick.com 

HEATHER MEWES (SBN: 203690) 

email: hmewes@fenwick.com 

CAROLYN CHANG (SBN: 217933) 

email: cchang@fenwick.com 

JULIE NOKLEBERG (SBN: 247837) 

email: jnokleberg@fenwick.com 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

555 California Street, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-2300 

Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants 

O-Net Communications (Shenzhen) Limited, 

Multiwave Digital Solutions, Inc., and 

Chunmeng Wu, an individual 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

O-NET COMMUNICATIONS 

(SHENZHEN) LIMITED, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 07-4582 MJJ 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

PRETRIAL ORDER

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 10
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 

 - 1 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

Pursuant to the Case Management Conference on January 22, 2008, plaintiff and 

counterclaim defendant Oplink Communications, Inc. (“Oplink”) and defendants and 

counterclaimants O-Net Communications (Shenzhen) Limited (“O-Net Shenzhen”), Multiwave 

Digital Solutions, Inc. (“Multiwave”) and Chunmeng Wu (“Wu”) (collectively, “O-Net”) submit 

this Joint Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order. 

I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE 

No dispute exists regarding personal jurisdiction or venue. All parties have been served. 

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Oplink’s patent infringement claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and over Oplink’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

The Court has jurisdiction over O-Net Shenzhen’s and Multiwave’s counterclaims for declaratory 

judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1338, 2001 and 2202. 

II. FACTS AND THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE 

Plaintiff Oplink is a leading designer, manufacturer and supplier of fiber optic products. 

Defendant O-Net Shenzhen is a leading Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Original 

Design Manufacturer (ODM), which supplies products to the global optical networking industry. 

Defendant Multiwave is an exclusive sales representative for O-Net Shenzhen products sold in 

the U.S. Defendant Wu is a former employee of Oplink and a current employee of Multiwave. 

Oplink originally filed suit on June 6, 2007. Oplink asserts that it is the assignee of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,661,829, 6,215,919 and 6,895,129 (“patents-in-suit”). Oplink’s November 19, 

2007 Second Amended Complaint claims infringement of the patents-in-suit against O-Net 

Shenzhen and Multiwave. Oplink also alleges that defendants Wu and Multiwave 

misappropriated Oplink’s trade secret information when Wu left Oplink to join Multiwave, the 

exclusive sales representative for O-Net in the U.S. Oplink also alleges that defendant Wu 

breached his duty of loyalty to Oplink, that Multiwave is liable for unfair competition under the 

common law of California and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., that 

Wu materially breached the “Employee Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement” and 

the “Separation Agreement” he entered into with Oplink, and that Multiwave intentionally 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 10
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 

 - 2 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

interfered with Wu’s contractual relations with Oplink. O-Net’s Amended Answer denies 

liability, and asserts various affirmative defenses. Defendants O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave 

also counterclaim for a declaration that the patents-in-suit are invalid and not infringed.

The parties dispute the following factual issues: 

Whether defendants O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave have infringed or are infringing 

Oplink’s patents-in-suit; 

Whether Oplink’s patents-in-suit are invalid; 

Whether Oplink has protectable trade secrets; 

Whether Wu and Multiwave misappropriated Oplink’s alleged trade secret information; 

Whether Wu breached his duty of loyalty to Oplink; 

Whether Multiwave is liable for unfair competition under the common law of California 

and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

Whether Wu materially breached the “Employee Confidential Information and Inventions 

Agreement” and the “Separation Agreement” he entered into with Oplink; 

Whether Multiwave intentionally interfered with Wu’s contractual relations with Oplink; 

Whether Oplink is entitled to damages from O-Net for its actions, and if so, in what 

amount; and 

III. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE 

The principal legal issues that the parties dispute are: 

The meaning of various claim terms of the asserted claims of Oplink’s patents-in-suit; 

Whether injunctive relief is proper; 

Whether Oplink’s patents-in-suit are invalid; 

Whether any party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

Whether Oplink’s non-patent claims are barred by unclean hands, waiver, or equitable 

estoppel; 

Whether Oplink’s patent claims are barred by laches; 

Whether as a result of Wu and Multiwave’s alleged trade secret misappropriation, Oplink 

has been injured and is entitled to damages, unjust enrichment and/or a reasonable royalty, and if 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 10
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 

 - 3 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

so, in what amount; 

Whether the alleged misappropriation by Wu and Multiwave was and is willful and 

malicious, entitling Oplink to an award of exemplary damages and reasonable attorney’s fees 

pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 3426.3(c), 3426.4, and if so, in what amount; 

Whether Oplink is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Wu and Multiwave from any 

continued use and/or disclosure of Oplink’s alleged trade secrets and confidential information, 

and compelling Wu and Multiwave to return to Oplink all materials that constitute, disclose, 

incorporate or were derived from Oplink’s alleged trade secrets; 

Whether as a direct and proximate result of Wu’s alleged breach of the duty of loyalty to 

Oplink, Oplink has suffered damages, and if so, in what amount; 

Whether Wu, in allegedly breaching his duty of loyalty to Oplink, acted with oppression, 

fraud, and/or malice as defined in California Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling Oplink to 

punitive damages, and if so, in what amount; 

Whether Multiwave participated in and benefited from Wu’s alleged breach of his duty of 

loyalty to Oplink, and is therefore liable for unfair competition under the common law of 

California and California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; 

Whether as a direct and proximate result of Multiwave’s alleged conduct of unfairly 

competing against Oplink, Oplink has suffered damages, and if so, in what amount (O-Net, 

however, disputes that damages are recoverable for unfair competition under § 17200); 

Whether Multiwave, in allegedly unfairly competing with Oplink, acted with oppression, 

fraud, and/or malice as defined in California Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling Oplink to 

punitive damages, and if so, in what amount (O-Net, however, disputes that damages are 

recoverable for unfair competition under § 17200); 

Whether as a direct and proximate result of Wu’s alleged breach of contracts with Oplink, 

Oplink suffered damages, and if so, in what amount; 

Whether, as a result of Multiwave’s alleged intentional interference with the contractual 

relations between Oplink and Wu, Oplink suffered damages, and if so, in what amount; and 

Whether Multiwave, in allegedly intentionally interfering with the contractual relations 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 10
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 

 - 4 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

between Oplink and Wu, acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice as defined in California 

Civil Code section 3294, thereby entitling Oplink to punitive damages, and if so, in what amount; 

IV. MOTIONS AND HEARINGS 

Prior Motions: The parties have resolved all prior motions (related to the parties’ 

pleadings) by a stipulation. 

Pending Motions: There are currently no pending motions before the Court. 

Anticipated Motions: Oplink anticipates filing one or more motions regarding summary 

judgment and/or discovery. O-Net also anticipates filing one or more motions as necessitated by 

the case, including possible discovery motions, Rule 11 motions, and motions for summary 

judgment. 

V. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS 

The deadline for the filing of any motions to amend pleadings has passed. 

VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION 

All parties have taken appropriate steps to preserve any and all evidence that may be of 

relevance to the issues in the present action. On August 1, 2007, Oplink sent a letter to 

Defendants regarding Defendants’ obligations to preserve evidence. 

VII. DISCLOSURES 

During the Rule 26(f) Conference of Parties held on December 28, 2007, the parties 

agreed to exchange their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures on January 25, 2008. 

VIII. DISCOVERY 

No discovery has been served thus far. The parties conducted their Rule 26(f) Conference 

of Parties on December 28, 2007. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the parties submit the 

following discovery plan: 

(1) Changes to disclosures. The parties do not expect that any changes will be made in 

form or requirement of the parties’ Rule 26(a) disclosures. 

(2) Subjects on which discovery may be needed. Essential information for Oplink to 

prove its claims will be the accused products and their development and manufacturing, as well as 

financial information concerning development, manufacturing and sale of the accused products. 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 5 of 10
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 

 - 5 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

Oplink asserts that it will also need information from O-Net concerning the alleged 

misappropriation of trade secrets, including information, documents and things, such as electronic 

media, to establish the alleged misappropriation. 

As to Oplink’s claims of trade secret misappropriation, defendants Multiwave and Wu 

assert they are entitled to information pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210, 

which they assert requires Oplink to identify its alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity 

as a condition to obtaining discovery from defendants. O-Net also anticipates obtaining 

discovery essential to prove its affirmative defenses, as well as discovery regarding O-Net 

Shenzhen’s counterclaims of patent non-infringement and invalidity. Such discovery will include 

Oplink’s employment policies and relationship with defendant Wu, information regarding 

Oplink’s manufacture and design of fiber optic technology, Oplink’s development and protection 

of any alleged trade secrets, prior art relating to the patents-in-suit (including that from third 

parties), the prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit, and Oplink’s financial and sales 

information. 

(3) Issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. The 

parties anticipate that certain discovery may be produced in electronic form and have agreed to 

meet and confer, as necessary, to resolve any issues concerning electronic discovery as they arise. 

Oplink asserts it will need discovery information from Multiwave and Wu in native form due to 

the nature of Oplink’s trade secret claims. The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the 

production format for electronic material. 

(4) Issues relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation 

material. The parties will meet and confer as necessary to discuss this when the issue arises. 

(5) Changes in limitations on discovery. The parties do not foresee changes that should 

be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal rules or by the Civil Local 

Rules. If changes need to be made, the parties agreed to meet and confer. 

(6) Orders that should be entered by the court. The parties contemplate that a 

protective order governing the treatment of confidential information will be required. 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 6 of 10
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 

 - 6 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

IX. CLASS ACTIONS 

This action is not a class action. 

X. RELATED CASES 

There are no related cases that are currently pending. A previous case, O-Net 

Communications (Shenzhen) Limited et al v. Oplink Communications, Inc., No. 07-CV-3964 MJJ 

(N.D. Cal. filed August 1, 2007), was previously pending before this Court. That action involved 

the same parties and substantially the same claims as the present action. In the interests of 

judicial economy, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of that action without prejudice so all 

claims could be asserted in the present action. This Court signed the dismissal order on October 

3, 2007. 

XI. RELIEF 

Oplink seeks injunctive relief against O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave regarding the patent 

causes of action, and seeks injunctive relief against Wu and Multiwave regarding the 

misappropriation causes of action. Oplink also seeks damages against Multiwave and O-Net 

Shenzhen for its infringement of Oplink’s patents, against Wu and Multiwave for 

misappropriation of Oplink’s trade secret information, against Wu for breach of the duty of 

loyalty, against Multiwave for unfair competition, against Wu for breach of contract, and against 

Multiwave for intentional interference with contractual relations. Oplink also seeks enhanced 

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Cal. Civil Code § 3426.3(c) and Cal. Civil Code § 3294. 

Oplink also seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 3426.4, and 35 U.S.C §§ 284 and 

285. Oplink also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest and any other relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave seek a declaration that the patents-in-suit are invalid, and 

that they do not infringe the patents-in-suit. O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave deny that Oplink is 

entitled to any award of damages. O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave cannot determine an exact 

method of calculating damages should liability be established until Oplink identifies what specific 

claims of the patents-in-suit it is asserting, and what products of O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave 

Oplink is accusing of infringement. Multiwave and Wu deny that Oplink is entitled to any award 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 7 of 10
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 

 - 7 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

of damages on its state law claims, and cannot determine an exact method of calculating damages 

should liability be established until Oplink identifies its alleged trade secrets with particularity, 

and until Oplink identifies its claimed damages. Calculation of any reasonable royalty for patent 

infringement will depend on discovery regarding Oplink’s financial and sales information. In any 

event, O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave contend that even assuming arguendo validity and 

infringement, Oplink is entitled to no damages with respect to the ’919 patent directed to optical 

switches, and with respect to the ’129 patent directed to optical circulators, as O-Net Shenzhen 

and Multiwave have negligible sales of any optical switches and/or optical circulators in the 

United States. O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave also seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. § 285. 

XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR 

A Stipulation and Order Selecting ADR Process has been filed with the Court. The 

parties agreed to engage in mediation after the Claim Construction Ruling is issued. See Docket 

No. 42. 

XIII. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES 

The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings 

including trial and entry of judgment. On September 10, 2007, Oplink filed a declination to 

proceed before a Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See Docket No. 4.

XIV. OTHER REFERENCES 

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

XV. NARROWING OF ISSUES 

The parties will most likely file one or more dispositive motions seeking to narrow the 

issues in this case. Both parties anticipate filing one or more motions for summary judgment. 

XVI. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE 

Oplink and Defendants agree that this case is not suitable for expedited handling. 

XVII. SCHEDULING 

The parties propose that the Court adopt the following schedule based on the Federal 

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 8 of 10
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 

 - 8 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, Patent Local Rules, and the Case Management Conference 

held on January 22, 2008. The Court will hold a Status Conference after the Markman Ruling to 

set dates regarding the close of fact discovery, expert disclosures, close of expert discovery, 

deadline to file dispositive motions, mediation and all other pre-trial dates. See Docket No. 41. 

EVENT DATE/RULE (if applicable) 

Rule 26(f) conference December 28, 2007 

Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures January 25, 2008

Last Day to Serve Initial Disclosure of 

Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement 

Contentions (and related documents) 

February 5, 2008 (P.L.R. 3-1: 10 days after 

CMC) 

Last Day to Serve Preliminary Invalidity 

Contentions (and related documents) 

March 21, 2008 (P.L.R. 3-3: 45 days after 

infringement contentions) 

Last Day to Exchange List of “Proposed 

Terms and Claim Elements for Construction” 

April 4, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-1: 10 days after 

invalidity contentions) 

Last Day to Exchange “Preliminary Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence” 

April 24, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-2: 20 days after 

exchange of proposed terms) 

Last Day to File Joint Claim Construction and 

Prehearing Statement 

May 20, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-3: 60 days after 

invalidity contentions) 

Claim Construction Discovery Closes June 19, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-4: 30 days after joint 

claim construction statement) 

Opening Claim Construction Brief July 7, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-5a: 45 days after joint 

claim construction statement) 

Responsive Claim Construction Brief July 21, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-5b: 14 days after 

opening brief) 

Reply Claim Construction Brief July 28, 2008 (P.L.R. 4-5c: 7 days after 

responsive brief) 

Patent Technology Tutorial August 20, 2008 

Claim Construction Hearing August 27, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (see Docket No. 

41)

Status Conference September 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. (see Docket 

No. 41) 

Final Infringement Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (30 days after claim construction 

ruling) 

Final Invalidity Contentions Per P.L.R. 3-6 (50 days after claim construction 

ruling) 

at 2:30 pm

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 9 of 10
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 

 - 9 - 

PALOALTO 85937 v2 (2K) 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CASE NO. C 07-4582 MJJ

EVENT DATE/RULE (if applicable) 

Oplink to serve willfulness documents; 

opinion of counsel 

Per P.L.R. 3-8 (50 days after claim construction 

ruling) 

Trial Court set date (tentative) April 20, 2009 (see

Docket No. 41) 

XVIII.TRIAL 

The Court has tentatively set trial to commence on April 20, 2009. The case will be tried 

to a jury. Oplink expects trial will last ten days. O-Net expects trial will last fifteen days. 

XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 

Oplink filed its “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” on June 7, 2007 and 

restates that aside from the named parties, there is no such interest to report. See United States 

Dist. Court, Central Dist. of California, Civil Docket for Case #: 8:07-cv-00673-AHS-MLG, 

No. 2. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, O-Net Shenzhen and Multiwave filed their “Certification of 

Interested Entities or Persons” on September 17, 2007 and restates that aside from the named 

parties, there is no such interest to report. See Docket No. 13. 

Dated: January 25, 2008 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Heidi L. Keefe 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and 

 Counterclaim Defendant 

 Oplink Communications, Inc. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Darryl M. Woo 

 Attorneys for Defendants and 

 Counterclaimants 

 O-Net Communications (Shenzhen) 

 Limited, Multiwave Digital Solutions, 

 Inc., and Chunmeng Wu, an individual 

Pursuant to the above Joint Case Management Statement, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________, 2008 

 Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

 United States District Judge 

January 28

Case 4:07-cv-04582-SBA Document 44 Filed 01/28/08 Page 10 of 10