Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01686/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
360 Networks Usa Inc.
Appellee
Cambrian Science Corporation
Appellant
Cox Communications, Inc.
Appellee
Electric Lightwave LLC
Appellee
Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc.
Appellee
IXC Holdings Inc
Appellee
Infinera
Appellee
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Appellee
Telekenex
Appellee
XO Communications Services LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION, A 

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION, 360 NETWORKS USA INC., A 

NEVADA CORPORATION, TELEKENEX, A 

DELAWARE CORPORATION, INFINERA, 

CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, 

XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES LLC, A 

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, 

INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, LEVEL 3 

COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY, ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE 

LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY, IXC HOLDINGS INC, DBA 

TELEKENEX, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1686

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 8:11-CV-01011 AG 

(JPRx), Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2015
 CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

2

______________________ 

Decided: June 29, 2015

______________________ 

C. DALE QUISENBERRY, Polasek, Quisenberry & Errington, LLP, Bellaire, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

RUFFIN B. CORDELL, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by JOSEPH V. COLAIANNI, JR., LINHONG ZHANG;

JOHN A. DRAGSETH, Minneapolis, MN; OLGA I. MAY, San 

Diego, CA; AUDRA A. DIAL, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge. 

This appeal arises from the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California 

following its entering of a final judgment in favor of Cox 

Communications, Inc. et al. (collectively “Cox”). Cambrian Science Corporation (“Cambrian”) asserted claims 57 

and 58 of United States Patent No. 6,775,312 (“’312

patent”) against Cox’s Generation 2 photonic integrated 

circuit (“Gen 2”).1 While Cox moved for summary judgment on several grounds, the district court reached only 

the issue of non-infringement based on the “active waveguide coupler” claim limitation. 

1 While Cambrian also accused two other chips, the 

Generation 1 photonic integrated circuit and the Generation 3 photonic integrated circuit, Cambrian appeals only 

the district court’s ruling as it relates to the Gen 2 chip. 

 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2015
CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

3

Because we agree with Cox that the district court did 

not err in either its claim construction or its summary 

judgment holdings, we affirm the district court’s final 

judgment. 

BACKGROUND

This case involves fiber optic data communication systems in which lasers are used to produce light beams that 

are then transmitted over fiber optic cables. Data is 

transmitted through the fiber optic cables by modulating 

the light that is produced by the laser. To increase the 

amount of data carried on a fiber optic cable, it is regular 

practice to combine multiple light beams, each light beam 

calibrated to a different wavelength. An optical component called a “coupler” is responsible for receiving and 

combining the multiple modulated light beams onto the 

single fiber optic cable. 

During the transmission of an optical signal across a 

fiber optic cable, the optical signal gradually loses intensity. To counteract this, components called amplifiers are 

attached to the system to boost the intensity of the optical 

signals. A component that boosts the power of an optical 

signal is said to produce “gain.” Furthermore, adding 

gain to the system is referred to as “pumping.”

Optical components can be made of either active materials or passive materials. Active material is capable of 

being pumped to provide gain, thus increasing the intensity of the light traveling through it. Conversely, passive 

material does not allow for the light traveling through it 

to increase intensity, even when pumped.2

2 The parties disagree as to the meaning of “active” 

and “passive.” However, as we find below, these terms 

are clearly defined in the specification.

 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2015
 CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

4

The patent at issue is directed to the physical interface between passive and active components. Specifically, 

the patent uses an active waveguide coupler to facilitate 

the coupling of multiple lasers into a single fiber optic 

cable. ’312 patent abstract. The patent explains that the 

use of the active coupler alleviates many of the problems 

surrounding the use of both active and passive components within the same integrated chip, i.e., the active to 

passive transition points. The patent states that by using 

an active coupler, it overcomes the prior art’s increased 

manufacturing complexity and the signal refraction

caused by misalignment between active and passive 

materials. Id. at col. 2 ll. 21-55. 

The only asserted independent claim is claim 57, 

which reads:

A photonic integrated circuit comprising:

a laser array formed in a crystalline lattice structure semiconductor material; 

an active waveguide coupler receiving outputs of 

the laser array; and 

wherein at least one portion of the photonic integrated circuit is formed at a non-orthogonal angle 

with respect to a cleavage plane of the semiconductor material.

Id. at col. 17 l. 25–col. 18 l. 3 (emphasis added). 

Following a Markman hearing the district court construed the phrase “active waveguide coupler” to mean “a 

component that forms a portion of the optical path, that 

combines light from multiple sources, and in which the 

absorption of an optical signal can be changed to gain by 

application of pumping.” J.A. 88. In construing the 

phrase, the district court held that only the word “active” 

was actually in dispute. 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/29/2015
CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

5

Thereafter, Cox moved for summary judgment on various grounds; however, the district court only reached the 

issue of non-infringement based on the “active waveguide 

coupler” requirement. Cambrian requested a Rule 56(d) 

continuance, which was denied on the ground that the 

district court found that Cambrian had not acted diligently in seeking the discovery of the information it now 

sought. The district court granted summary judgment of 

non-infringement as to both claims 57 and 58. 

Cambrian timely appealed to this court, arguing that 

the district court erred in its claim construction and 

summary judgment ruling. This court has jurisdiction 

over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

Claim Construction

The ultimate construction of a claim term is a legal 

question reviewed de novo by this court. Teva Pharm. 

USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). 

Underpinning the ultimate construction of the claims are 

both findings of fact and law. The Supreme Court has 

held that district court findings regarding the intrinsic 

record are solely a determination of law, while those 

findings relying on the extrinsic record are findings of fact 

to be reviewed for clear error. Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson 

Pharm., Inc., No. 13-1409, 2015 WL 3483245, at *4 (Fed. 

Cir. June 3, 2015) (quoting Teva, 135 S. Ct. 841-42). 

When determining the construction of a claim term, 

we look to how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands the term. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not 

only in the context of the particular claim in which the 

disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire 

patent, including the specification.” Id. 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/29/2015
 CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

6

Cambrian appeals only the last clause of the district 

court’s claim construction, “and in which the absorption of 

an optical signal can be changed to gain by application of 

pumping,” which correlates with the term “active.” Cambrian argues that the district court erred in its construction, as the claim language does not include any of the 

aforementioned limitations. For example, Cambrian 

points to the fact that the words, “absorption,” “optical,” 

“gain,” and “pumping” are not included in the claim. 

Furthermore, Cambrian contends that the district court’s 

inclusion of these terms violates both the rule against 

limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments 

disclosed in the specification, under Rexnord Corp. v. 

Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and 

the rule against importing limitations from the specification into the claim, under Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1320. 

Cox responds that the district court’s claim construction matches the plain claim language and aligns with the 

specification, as it makes clear that the waveguide coupler 

must be active. We agree. 

First, we look to the claim language, as “[t]he actual 

words of the claim are the controlling focus.” Digital 

Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998). The claims in question, by their plain language, require an “active waveguide coupler,” not simply 

a “waveguide coupler.” Therefore this case turns on the 

meaning of “active.”

Second, “claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315

(internal quotation marks omitted). The ’312 patent

specification clearly defines “active” and “passive.” An 

active region or component is one that is made of active 

material, which is capable of being pumped to produce 

gain to an optical signal. This description of the active 

region is found repeatedly throughout the specification. 

See ’312 patent col. 7 ll. 62-64, col. 8 ll. 9-12, 13-16. 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/29/2015
CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

7

Furthermore, the specification draws a distinction between active and passive material, by specifically defining 

passive material as material not capable of being pumped. 

See id. at col. 2 ll. 29-31, 20-23, col. 5 ll. 46-49. Cambrian 

points to nothing in the intrinsic record—and we cannot 

find anything—that indicates that passive material is 

capable of producing gain when pumped. Thus, the 

ability to provide gain when pumped is required for a 

material to be active, and therefore must be required of 

the “active waveguide coupler.”

Cambrian cites to various portions of the specification 

arguing that providing gain is an optional, but not required, characteristic of an active waveguide coupler. We 

disagree. Cambrian cites to the following sections of the 

specification:

The MMI coupler 100 of FIG. 6 is optionally

pumped substantially over the entire active region 

thereof. In this manner, maximum gain may be 

obtained. Alternatively, MMI coupler 100 or any 

other active region of the photonic integrated circuit of the present invention may be pumped only 

at selected portions thereof, as discussed below.

Id. at col. 7 ll. 62-67 (emphases added). 

Referring now to FIG. 7, another embodiment of 

the present invention has an MMI coupler 101, 

which is pumped only partially. That is, the electrodes of the MMI coupler 101 are configured so 

as to only pump the active material of the MMI 

coupler 101 at certain locations, e.g., at the locations therein of maximum light intensity. 

Id. at col. 8 ll. 1-6 (emphases added). Cambrian argues 

that these passages show that active material may be 

composed of regions that are both capable and not capable 

of being pumped. However, this is a misreading of the 

specification. The passages instead indicate that while 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/29/2015
 CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

8

active material must be capable of being pumped, the 

described invention does not require that every portion of 

the material capable of being pumped actually be 

pumped. 

Cambrian makes the additional argument that the 

district court should not have relied upon Mr. Koch’s 

expert testimony. We need not reach that issue here, as 

the intrinsic evidence fully determines the proper construction of the contested claim term. See Shire Dev., 

2015 WL 3483245, at *4.

Summary Judgment

We review the district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit, here 

the Ninth Circuit. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 

769 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit 

reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment de 

novo. Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040, 

1047 (9th Cir. 2010). 

For an accused product to literally infringe a patent 

claim, every limitation recited in the claim must be found 

in the accused device. Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer 

Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, it is clear 

that the accused device, Gen 2, does not contain an “active 

waveguide coupler” and thus cannot literally infringe the 

asserted claims. 

For Cox’s Gen 2 device to infringe it must contain an 

“active waveguide coupler,” which, by our construction, 

requires that a component of the system both (1) “combine[] light from multiple sources” and (2) be made of 

active material, i.e., material “in which the absorption of 

an optical signal can be changed to gain by application of 

pumping.” As the district court found, and as we agree, 

the evidence leads to only one possible conclusion—that 

there is no “active waveguide coupler” present in the Gen 

2 circuit. Instead, the waveguide coupler used in the Gen 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/29/2015
CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

9

2 device is passive.3 Cambrian’s argument that one 

should look to the combination of both the coupler and its 

attached amplifier is unavailing. The claim term requires

that the waveguide coupler be active, not that the waveguide coupler in combination with other components may 

be considered active. 

Further, Cambrian argues that because it is possible 

that the coupler found in the Gen 2 device contains some 

material that in some cases may be considered active, 

there is a genuine factual question as to whether the 

waveguide coupler is active or passive. We disagree. 

Even if the coupler contains some portions that are active, 

this does not satisfy the claim construction for an “active 

waveguide coupler,” as an active coupler must be capable 

of being pumped at any location. Furthermore, the undisputed testimony makes clear that the Gen 2 waveguide

coupler is incapable of being pumped, and thus cannot 

meet the claim construction of an “active waveguide 

coupler.” Appellees’ Br. 47 (citing the testimony of Cambrian’s expert, Dr. Dutta, at J.A. 9088 (104:7-16)).

Cambrian’s doctrine of equivalents argument is equally unavailing. Under the doctrine of equivalents, “a 

product or process that does not literally infringe upon the 

express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found 

to infringe if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements 

of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. 

v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997). However, “the range of equivalents cannot be divorced from 

the scope of the claims.” Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan 

3 The parties’ briefs are not consistent as to whether or not it is confidential that the Gen 2 coupler is passive. Nevertheless, as Cox’s attorney referred to it as 

passive during oral argument, any confidentiality that 

may apply to this fact has been waived.

 

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/29/2015
 CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. 

10

Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

The Supreme Court has held that the proper inquiry is: 

Whether “the accused product or process contain elements 

identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the 

patented invention?” Warner-Jenkinson Co., 520 U.S. at 

19. 

Cambrian fails to demonstrate that there is a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether the Gen 2 product 

satisfies the doctrine of equivalents. Cambrian’s factual 

support for its doctrine of equivalents claim is limited to 

two paragraphs from its expert report, both of which are 

conclusory. J.A. 9197 ¶ 163, 9206 ¶ 195. Both paragraphs simply conclude that if literal infringement is not 

met, then it is the expert’s opinion that the “active waveguide coupler” limitation is met under the doctrine of 

equivalents because any differences between the structure 

and the claim limitations are insubstantial. Id. The 

paragraphs are devoid of any particularized testimony or 

linking arguments. In fact, the paragraphs lack any 

factual statements. Thus, as with literal infringement, 

we affirm the district court’s ruling as to the doctrine of 

equivalents. 

We have reviewed Cambrian’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district 

court’s claim construction for the term “active waveguide 

coupler” and the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1686 Document: 66-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/29/2015