`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. _____________________
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CIRREX SYSTEMS LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.;
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.;
`ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC.; ALCATEL-
`LUCENT USA, INC.; TELLABS, INC.;
`TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC.;
`TELLABS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Cirrex Systems LLC (“Cirrex”) alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Cirrex is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
`
`business located at 4425 Mariners Ridge, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 140 West Street, New York, New York
`
`10007. Verizon has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust
`
`Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of
`
`process.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Motorola”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 1303 East Algonquin Road,
`
`Schaumburg, Illinois 60196. Motorola has appointed The Corporation Trust Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent
`
`for service of process.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“Alcatel-Lucent USA”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 600 Mountain Avenue,
`
`Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974. Alcatel-Lucent USA has appointed Corporation Service
`
`Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808, as its agent
`
`for service of process.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Alcatel-Lucent, Inc. (“Alcatel-Lucent France”) is a French
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 3 av. Octave Greard, 75007 Paris,
`
`France.
`
`6.
`
`Alcatel-Lucent France and Alcatel-Lucent USA shall be referred to
`
`collectively as “Alcatel-Lucent.”
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Tellabs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`
`of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563.
`
`Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center,
`
`1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Tellabs Operations, Inc. (“Tellabs Operations”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415 West Diehl
`
`Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The Corporation Trust
`
`Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
`
`as its agent for service of process.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Tellabs North America, Inc. (“Tellabs North America”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The
`
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.
`
`10.
`
`Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, and Tellabs North America shall be
`
`referred to collectively as “Tellabs.”
`
`11.
`
`Hereinafter, Verizon, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, and Tellabs are
`
`collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`13.
`
`Defendants are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware or have established minimum contacts with the forum state of
`
`Delaware. Thus, Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of the
`
`state of Delaware and the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)-(d) and
`
`1400(b) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`15.
`
`Joinder of the Defendants in the present action is proper pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 299 because the claims against all Defendants arise out of the same transaction,
`
`occurrence, or series of transactions, or occurrences relating to the making, using,
`
`importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling Optical Network Terminals
`
`used to provide Verizon customers access to Verizon’s fiber-optic communications
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`network FiOS. More specifically, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent and Tellabs each provide the
`
`accused Optical Network Terminals used by Verizon to provide Verizon customers
`
`access to FiOS. Furthermore, questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise in
`
`the present action.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`16.
`
`Optical technologies empower telecommunications, photonic
`
`instrumentation, and biomedical devices. For the past two decades, Cirrex has pioneered
`
`the development of optics, optical systems, and optical fabrication related to process
`
`control and the chemistry of fiber optics. The main objective has been to find solutions
`
`that photonic technologies can provide that will benefit instrumentation, communications,
`
`and healthcare. To date, Cirrex’s innovation process has provided various novel
`
`technologies that combine the effects of multiple conventional optical elements such as
`
`filters, mirrors, prisms, and lenses; these are fashioned into highly complex designs on a
`
`microscopic scale, enabling fiber optics and lasers to attain uses at a fraction of the size
`
`and cost previously thought possible.
`
`17.
`
`Fiber optics has been recognized as an idyllic solution for
`
`telecommunications and has been implemented for the transmission of telephone signals,
`
`cable television signals, and Internet communication. Fiber optics communications
`
`distribute the information by sending pulses of light through the fiber. Advantageously,
`
`fiber optics differs from prior technologies as it provides lower interference, remarkably
`
`low loss and attenuation, which ultimately leads to higher bandwidth and better
`
`transmission to end users. All of these advantages work under the premise that light is
`
`diffused fittingly and this is particularly challenging when light has to be controlled in
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`various stages with very small optical assemblies to prevent unwanted photon entrance,
`
`reflection, departure, or appearance in or from the assembly.
`
`18.
`
`Cirrex’s innovations provide an effective solution to control light and
`
`reduce optical noise with specific configurations of elements in optical assemblies. The
`
`arrangement and properties of the elements are critical to control light. Cirrex’s objective
`
`with their inventions has been to provide optical assemblies for precisely controlling light
`
`through particular filters and masks. In telecommunications, it is critically important to
`
`be able to achieve the transmission envisioned and ultimately provide end users with
`
`reliable, stable, and high-bandwidth signals.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953)
`
`Cirrex references and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18
`
`19.
`
`of this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Cirrex is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953 (the “‘953
`
`patent”). The ‘953 patent is entitled “Optical Assembly With High Performance Filter.”
`
`The ‘953 patent issued on June 11, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ‘953 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`21.
`
`Verizon has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,
`
`literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or
`
`importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including,
`
`but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies..
`
`22.
`
`By way of example only, with reference to Claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,
`
`the ONTs distributed by Verizon contain an optical assembly with a waveguide with an
`
`end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter (deposited on top
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`of the substrate) in optical communication with the waveguide. The lens puts the thin-
`
`film filter in optical communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first
`
`face surface that is optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface
`
`opposed to the first face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is
`
`substantially opaque in at least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one
`
`of the surfaces of the thin-film filter.
`
`23. Motorola has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953
`
`patent, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or
`
`importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including,
`
`but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies..
`
`24.
`
`By way of example only, Motorola has been and still is making, using,
`
`selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide with an
`
`end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical
`
`communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is
`
`optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first
`
`face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at
`
`least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-
`
`film filter.
`
`25.
`
`Alcatel-Lucent has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953
`
`patent, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or
`
`importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including,
`
`but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`26.
`
`By way of example only, Alcatel-Lucent has been and still is making,
`
`using, selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide
`
`with an end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical
`
`communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is
`
`optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first
`
`face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at
`
`least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-
`
`film filter.
`
`27.
`
`Tellabs has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,
`
`literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or
`
`importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including,
`
`but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies.
`
`28.
`
`By way of example only, Tellabs has been and still is making, using,
`
`selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide with an
`
`end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical
`
`communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is
`
`optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first
`
`face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at
`
`least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-
`
`film filter.
`
`29.
`
`To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been
`
`met with respect to the ‘953 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`30.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ‘953 patent, Cirrex has
`
`suffered monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, and
`
`Cirrex will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing
`
`activities are enjoined by this Court.
`
`31.
`
`Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Defendants and their
`
`agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting or in active
`
`concert therewith from infringing the ‘953 patent, Cirrex will be greatly and irreparably
`
`harmed.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Cirrex prays for the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`A judgment that Verizon has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953
`
`patent;
`
`patent;
`
`2.
`
`A judgment that Motorola has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953
`
`3.
`
`A judgment that Alcatel-Lucent has infringed one or more claims of the
`
`‘953 patent;
`
`4.
`
`A judgment that Tellabs has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953
`
`patent;
`
`5.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all
`
`others acting in active concert or participation with them, from infringing the ‘953 patent;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00921-GMS Document 1 Filed 05/22/13 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`6.
`
`An award of damages resulting from Defendants’ acts of infringement in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`7.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide accountings and to
`
`pay supplemental damages to Cirrex, including, without limitation, prejudgment and
`
`post-judgment interest; and
`
`8.
`
`Any and all other relief to which Cirrex may show itself to be entitled.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Cirrex hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`
`May 22, 2013
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Daniel P. Hipskind
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`mfenster@rawklaw.com
`dhipskind@raklaw.com
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
` /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Cirrex Systems LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9