Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/206997192/Capella-Photonics-v-Tellabs
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 01:04:45
Document Index: 424050073

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§1331', '§1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285', 'art0', 'art1']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC., Plaintiff. vs TELLABS, INC., Defendant. __________________________________/ PLAINTIFF CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Capella Photonics, Inc. (“Capella”), by and through its counsel, files this complaint for patent infringement and demand for jury trial (“Complaint”) against Tellabs, Inc. (“Tellabs” or “Defendant”). Capella alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Capella is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 5390 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Hellyer Ave, San Jose, CA 95138. 2. On information and belief, Tellabs is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, IL 60563. On information and belief, Tellabs has a place of business at 1401 N.W. 136th Avenue, Suite 202, Sunrise, FL 33323. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a civil action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1138(a).
LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
This court has personal jurisdiction over Tellabs at least by virtue of Tellabs
having engaged in substantial and not isolated business activity in this state and also by having engaged in acts of infringement in this state and specifically in this District. 5. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction by this Court under Florida law,
including under Florida’s long-arm statute, F.S. 48.193 (1)(a)(1)-(2), and/or (2). 6. 1400(b). THE PATENTS IN SUIT 7. Founded in 2000, Capella is a pioneer of optical switching technologies for use in Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)-(d) and
optical transmission networks. Capella has designed, developed, produced and sold switching devices for optical transmission networks, including its CR50™ and CR100™ products. 8. As a result of many years of research and development, Capella has been granted
an extensive portfolio of patents, including but not limited to those in suit. 9. Capella is the owner of United States Patent No. RE42,368 (the “’368 patent”),
titled Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers with Servo Control and Dynamic Spectral Power Management Capabilities. The ‘368 patent was lawfully and duly issued on May 17, 2011. The ‘368 patent is a reissue of United States Patent No. 6,879,750. A true and correct copy of the ’368 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10. Capella is the owner of United States Patent No. RE42,678 (the “’678 patent”),
titled Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers with Servo Control and Dynamic Spectral Power Management Capabilities. The ‘678 patent was lawfully and duly issued on September 6, 2011. The ‘678 patent is a reissue of United States Patent No. RE39,397, which is a reissue of United States Patent No. 6,625,346. A true and correct copy of the ’678 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
Capella holds the right to sue and to recover damages for infringement, including
past infringement, of each of the ‘368 and ‘678 patents (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. Optical fiber is used by telecommunications companies to transmit telephone Optical fiber is a fast and
signals, Internet communications, and cable television signals.
efficient medium for conducting data in the form of light. Various wavelengths of light travel along optical fiber at the same time, with each wavelength carrying specific data intended for delivery to a specific location. An optical fiber is able to carry Internet traffic, cellular
communications, and digital television transmissions simultaneously by using different wavelengths of light to carry the data. 13. Networks using optical fiber cover Florida and span the United States. Networks
on a continent or within a country form a grid. Line segments of fiber optic cable intersect at hubs or nodes. At these hubs or nodes, there are switching devices. In modern networks, such as those traversing Florida and the United States, switching is accomplished in the optical domain by a reconfigurable optical add drop module (“ROADM”). 14. ROADMs are the backbone of advanced fiberoptic networks because they route,
or switch, signals traveling along fiber optic cables in the directions they need to go. The switching occurs on the wavelength level, which means that a ROADM can separate all the wavelengths of light entering the device and direct them to go in different directions depending on the ROADM’s configuration. ROADMs can drop certain wavelengths from a fiber
altogether, if so directed, and can also add new wavelengths onto fibers. ROADMs can also control flow across fiber optic cables. If traffic along one cable is particularly heavy at certain times, then a ROADM can manage that load by sending traffic along one fiber at certain times and another fiber at other times.
3 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
The development of ROADMS and their subsequent introduction into networks
enabled video to be sent over the Internet. Before ROADMs, service providers had to use Optical to Electrical to Optical switches (“OEO switches), which meant that data carried along optical cables had to be converted into electrical signals to be routed. In addition, OEO switches were very slow and expensive and took up space the size of a refrigerator. The service
providers’ introduction of ROADMs into their networks in about 2005 changed this, by allowing video to be transmitted at the speed of light through the ROADM instead of at the speed of electronics which is about 1000 times slower. The cost was also reduced significantly and the size changed from a refrigerator to a small book. 16. As their name suggests, ROADMs are reconfigurable, which means that they can
be adjusted to send traffic or wavelengths in different directions at different times. 17. To ensure network reliability, ROADMs are subjected to a lengthy approval
process before they are deployed. In addition, for most networks, more than one vendor is selected. As a result, the ROADMs that are selected for use in optical networks in the United States tend to be interchangeable on one or more levels. 18. On information and belief, Defendant supplies ROADMs for optical networks
deployed in Florida and specifically in this District. COUNT I (Infringement of the ’368 Patent) 19. 20. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Capella is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Tellabs has directly
infringed and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’368 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing optical ROADM products that incorporate a wavelength selective switch (“WSS”), including but not limited to Tellabs’s
4 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
www.tellabs.com/products/7000/tellabs7100.shtml) (“the Infringing Products”). 21. Capella has suffered and will continue to suffer damage as a result of Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘368 patent in an amount to be proven at trial. 22. Upon information and belief, any manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or
importation by Defendant of the Infringing Products reflects a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe the ‘368 patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of Capella’s patent rights. Defendant’s infringement after that date has been willful and Capella is entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285. 23. Defendant will continue to infringe the ‘368 patent unless and until it is
preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. 24. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause
irreparable harm to Capella unless and until Defendant is enjoined by this Court. COUNT II (Infringement of the ’678 Patent) 25. 26. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Capella is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has directly
infringed and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘678 patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing optical ROADM products that incorporate a wavelength selective switch (“WSS”), including but not limited to the Infringing Products. 27. Capella has suffered and will continue to suffer damage as a result of Defendant’s
infringement of the ‘678 patent in an amount to be proven at trial.
5 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
Upon information and belief, any manufacturing, sales, offers for sale, uses, or
importation by Defendant of the Infringing Products reflects a deliberate and conscious decision to infringe the ‘678 patent or, at the very least, a reckless disregard of Capella’s patent rights. Defendant’s infringement after that date has been willful and Capella is entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285. 29. Defendant will continue to infringe the ‘678 patent unless and until it is
preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court. 30. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause
irreparable harm to Capella unless and until Defendant is enjoined by this Court. EXCEPTIONAL CASE 31. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-30 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 32. Based on, among other things, the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-30, including
Defendant’s intentional use of the Patents-in-Suit, Defendant’s knowledge of its infringement, and Defendant’s continued direct and/or indirect infringement, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Capella is entitled to its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Capella respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment: (a) (b) (c) Declaring that Tellabs has infringed the ’368 patent; Declaring that Tellabs has infringed the ’678 patent; Awarding Capella damages adequate to compensate it for Tellabs’s past
infringement and any continuing or future infringement of the Patents-in-Suit up until the date such judgment is entered, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and
6 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and, if necessary to compensate Capella for Tellabs’s infringement adequately, an accounting; (d) An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Tellabs and its affiliates,
subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, licensees, successors, assigns, and all those acting for them and on their behalf, or acting in concert with them directly or indirectly, from further acts of infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. (e) Declaring that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding
Capella its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and (f) Awarding Capella such equitable, other, different, and additional relief as this
Court deems equitable and proper under the circumstances. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Capella hereby demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. Date: February 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted, LOTT & FISCHER, PL s/ Ury Fischer Ury Fischer Florida Bar No. 048534 E-mail: ufischer@lottfischer.com Leslie J. Lott Florida Bar No. 182196 E-mail: ljlott@lottfischer.com Adam Diamond Florida Bar No. 091008 E-mail: adiamond@lottfischer.com 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 Facsimile: (305) 446-6191 and
7 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
Robert D. Becker* California Bar No. 160648 E-mail: rbecker@manatt.com Susanna L. Chenette* California Bar No. 257914 E-mail: schenette@manatt.com MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 812-1300 Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 * pro hac admission to be sought Attorneys for Plaintiff Capella Photonics, Inc.
8 LOTT & FISCHER, PL • 355 Alhambra Circle • Suite 1100 • Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-7089 • Facsimile: (305) 446-6191
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulCapella Photonics v. Tellabs by PriorSmart0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-60350-JEM: Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon...Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 0:14-cv-60350-JEM: Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Hon. Jose E. Martinez presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Uc for more info.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCapella Photonics v. Tellabsby PriorSmartHealy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U.S. 479 (1915)by Scribd Government DocsSteuben Foods v. Nestleby PatentBlastWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Bell'O Internationalby PriorSmartWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Walker Edison Furnitureby PriorSmartBelden v. Nexansby PriorSmartBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Googleby PatentBlastBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Research in Motionby PatentBlastOdorstar Technology et. al. v. CLO2 Systems et. al.by PriorSmartTejas Research v. J. C. Penney Company.pdfby PatentBlastAdair v. Boat Dock Innovations et. al.by PriorSmartElia Data of Texas v. Microsoftby PriorSmartM. Rothschild Holding v. Angels Baseball Et. Al.by PatentBlastArrivalStar et. al. v. Genescoby PriorSmartMemory Integrity v. Archos et. al.by PriorSmartJrl Enterprises v. Pearson Educationby PriorSmart1st Technology v. Facebookby PriorSmartMy Health et. al. v. Philips Medical Systems North Americaby PriorSmartBlue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et. al.by PatentBlastBlue Spike v. Precise Biometrics et. al.by PriorSmartBlue Spike v. DERMALOG Identification Systems et. al.by PriorSmartSmartPhone Technologies v. Apple et. al.by PriorSmartTravelClick v. Variant Holdings et. al.by PriorSmartMsa Products v. Target et. al.by PriorSmartPalo Alto Networks v. Juniper Networksby PriorSmartWag Acquistion v. Friendfinder Networks Et. Al.by PatentBlastPATENT Basicsby D Geetha DuraiAdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC - Document No. 286by Justia.comSimilar To Capella Photonics v. TellabsSkip carouselCapella Photonics v. TellabsHealy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U.S. 479 (1915)Steuben Foods v. NestleWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Bell'O InternationalWhalen Furniture Mfg. v. Walker Edison FurnitureBelden v. NexansBluebonnet Telecommunications v. GoogleBluebonnet Telecommunications v. Research in MotionOdorstar Technology et. al. v. CLO2 Systems et. al.Tejas Research v. J. C. Penney Company.pdfAdair v. Boat Dock Innovations et. al.Elia Data of Texas v. MicrosoftM. Rothschild Holding v. Angels Baseball Et. Al.ArrivalStar et. al. v. GenescoMemory Integrity v. Archos et. al.Jrl Enterprises v. Pearson Education1st Technology v. FacebookMy Health et. al. v. Philips Medical Systems North AmericaBlue Spike v. Smart Media Innovations et. al.Blue Spike v. Precise Biometrics et. al.Blue Spike v. DERMALOG Identification Systems et. al.SmartPhone Technologies v. Apple et. al.TravelClick v. Variant Holdings et. al.Msa Products v. Target et. al.Palo Alto Networks v. Juniper NetworksWag Acquistion v. Friendfinder Networks Et. Al.PATENT BasicsAdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC - Document No. 286Patent InfringementRobinson v. ExiscanCapella Photonics v. Tellabs