Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: April 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`CIENA CORPORATION, CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC.,
`and CORIANT (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: April 1, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`CIENA CORPORATION, CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC.,
`and CORIANT (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc., and Coriant
`(USA) Inc., filed a corrected Petition (Paper 7, “Pet.”) requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–6, 9–12, and 15–22 of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`E (“the ’368 patent”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder, pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), seeking to join
`this proceeding with Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. v. Capella
`Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00726 (“IPR-726”). Paper 5 (“Motion” or
`“Mot.”). In IPR-726, inter partes review of the ’368 patent was instituted on
`August 24, 2015, on the same grounds asserted against the same claims
`challenged in this proceeding. See IPR-726, Paper 11, 20.
`Patent Owner, Capella Photonics, Inc., did not file either a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition or an Opposition to the Motion for
`Joinder. Petitioner represents that the petitioner in IPR-726, Fujitsu
`Network Communications, Inc., does not oppose the Motion. Mot. 2.
`For the reasons described below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–6, 9–12, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent and grant Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`II. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`The ’368 patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’368 patent, titled “Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop
`Multiplexers with Servo Control and Dynamic Spectral Power Management
`Capabilities,” reissued May 17, 2011, from U.S. Patent No. 6,879,750 (“the
`’750 patent”). Ex. 1001. The ’750 patent issued April 12, 2005, from U.S.
`Patent Application No. 10/745,364, filed December 22, 2003. Petitioner
`contends the earliest facial priority date for the ’368 patent is a provisional
`application filed on March 19, 2001. Pet. 17.
`According to the ’368 patent, “fiber-optic communications networks
`commonly employ wavelength division multiplexing (WDM), for it allows
`multiple information (or data) channels to be simultaneously transmitted on
`a single optical fiber by using different wavelengths and thereby
`significantly enhances the information bandwidth of the fiber.” Ex. 1001,
`1:37–42. An optical add-drop multiplexer (OADM) is used both to remove
`wavelengths selectively from a multiplicity of wavelengths on an optical
`fiber (taking away one or more data channels from the traffic stream on the
`fiber), and to add wavelengths back onto the fiber (inserting new data
`channels in the same stream of traffic). Id. at 1:45–51.
`The ’368 patent describes a “wavelength-separating-routing (WSR)
`apparatus that uses a diffraction grating to separate a multi-wavelength
`optical signal by wavelength into multiple spectral channels, which are then
`focused onto an array of corresponding channel micromirrors.” Id. at
`Abstract. “The channel micromirrors are individually controllable and
`continuously pivotable to reflect the spectral channels into selected output
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`ports.” Id. According to Petitioner, the small, tilting mirrors are sometimes
`called Micro ElectroMechanical Systems or “MEMS.” Pet. 8.
`The WSR described in the ’368 patent may be used to construct
`dynamically reconfigurable OADMs for WDM optical networking
`applications. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`Figure 1A of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1A depicts wavelength-separating-routing (WSR) apparatus
`100, in accordance with the ’368 patent. WSR apparatus 100 is comprised
`of an array of fiber collimators 110 (multiple input/output ports, including
`input port 110-1 and output ports 110-2 through 110-N), diffraction grating
`101 (a wavelength separator), quarter wave plate 104, focusing lens 102 (a
`beam-focuser), and array of channel micromirrors 103. Ex. 1001, 6:57–63,
`7:55–56.
`
`A multi-wavelength optical signal emerges from input port 110-1 and
`is separated into multiple spectral channels by diffraction grating 101, which
`are then focused by focusing lens 102 into a spatial array of distinct spectral
`spots (not shown). Id. at 6:64–7:2. Channel micromirrors 103 are
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`positioned such that each channel micromirror receives one of the spectral
`channels. Id. at 7:2–5.
`Figure 1B of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1B depicts a close-up view of the array of channel
`micromirrors 103 shown above in Figure 1A. Ex. 1001, 8:6–7. The channel
`micromirrors “are individually controllable and movable, e.g., pivotable (or
`rotatable) under analog (or continuous) control, such that, upon reflection,
`the spectral channels are directed” into selected output ports by way of
`focusing lens 102 and diffraction grating 101. Id. at 7:6–11. According to
`the ’368 patent:
`each micromirror may be pivoted about one or two axes. What
`is important is that the pivoting (or rotational) motion of each
`channel micromirror be individually controllable in an analog
`manner, whereby the pivoting angle can be continuously
`adjusted so as to enable the channel micromirror to scan a
`spectral channel across all possible output ports.
`Id. at 9:8–14.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Similar to Figure 1A, above, Figure 3 also shows a WSR apparatus as
`described by the ’368 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:25–26. In this embodiment, two
`dimensional array of fiber collimators 350 provides an input port and
`plurality of output ports. Id. at 10:31–32. First and second two-dimensional
`arrays of imaging lenses 360, 370 are placed in a telecentric arrangement
`between two-dimensional collimator-alignment mirror array 320 and two-
`dimensional fiber collimator array 350. Id. at 10:37–43. “The channel
`micromirrors 103 must be pivotable biaxially in this case (in order to direct
`its corresponding spectral channel to any one of the output ports).” Id. at
`10:43–46.
`The WSR may also incorporate a servo-control assembly (together
`termed a “WSR-S apparatus.”) Id. at 4:65–67. According to the ’368
`patent:
`The servo-control assembly serves to monitor the power levels
`of the spectral channels coupled into the output ports and further
`provide control of the channel micromirrors on an individual
`basis, so as to maintain a predetermined coupling efficiency of
`each spectral channel in one of the output ports. As such, the
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`servo-control assembly provides dynamic control of the coupling
`of the spectral channels into the respective output ports and
`actively manages the power levels of the spectral channels
`coupled into the output ports.
`Ex. 1001, 4:47–56.
`Figure 5 of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts OADM 500 in accordance with the ’368 patent
`comprised of WSR-S (or WSR) apparatus 510 and optical combiner 550.
`Ex. 1001, 12:40–44. Input port 520 transmits a multi-wavelength optical
`signal, which is separated and routed into a plurality of output ports,
`including pass-through port 530 and one or more drop ports 540-1 through
`540-N. Id. at 12:44–48. Pass-through port 530 is optically coupled to
`optical combiner 550, which combines the pass-through spectral channels
`with one or more add spectral channels provided by one or more add ports
`560-1 through 560-M. Id. at 12:52–56. The combined optical signal is then
`routed into existing port 570, providing an output multi-wavelength optical
`signal. Id. at 12:56–58.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`B.
`Claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 of the ’368 patent are independent. Claims
`2–6 and 9–13 ultimately depend from claim 1 and claims 18–22 ultimately
`depend from claim 17. Claims 1 and 17 of the ’368 patent are illustrative of
`the claims at issue:
`1. An optical add-drop apparatus comprising
`an input port for an input multi-wavelength optical signal
`having first spectral channels;
`one or more other ports for second spectral channels; an
`output port for an output multi-wavelength optical signal;
`a wavelength-selective device for spatially separating said
`spectral channels; [and]
`a spatial array of beam-deflecting elements positioned such
`that each element receives a corresponding one of said
`spectral channels, each of said elements being individually
`and continuously controllable in two dimensions to reflect
`its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said
`ports and to control the power of the spectral channel
`reflected to said selected port.
`Ex. 1001, 14:6–20.
`
`
`17. A method of performing dynamic add and drop in a
`WDM optical network, comprising
`separating an input multi-wavelength optical signal into
`spectral channels;
`imaging each of said spectral channels onto a corresponding
`beam-deflecting element; and
`controlling dynamically and continuously said beam-
`deflecting elements in two dimensions so as to combine
`selected ones of said spectral channels into an output
`multi-wavelength optical signal and to control the power
`of the spectral channels combined into said output multi-
`wavelength optical signal.
`Id. at 16:3–14.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`According to the parties, the ’368 patent is a subject of the following
`civil actions: Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-03348
`(N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Fujitsu Network Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-03349 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs Ops., Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-03350 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Ciena Corp.,
`No. 3:14-cv-03351 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Columbus
`Networks USA, Inc., No. 0:14-cv-61629 (S.D. Fla.), and Capella Photonics,
`Inc. v. Telefonica Int’l Wholesale Servs. USA, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-22701 (S.D.
`Fla.). Pet. 3; Paper 9, 2–4.
`In addition to IPR-726, the ’368 patent is also the subject of the
`following inter partes review proceedings: Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella
`Photonics, Inc., IPR2014-01166 (to which Ciena Corporation, Coriant
`Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications,
`Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00816 was joined), and Lumentum
`Holdings, Inc., Lumentum, Inc., and Lumentum Operations LLC, v. Capella
`Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00731 (to which Coriant Operations, Inc., Coriant
`(USA) Inc., Ciena Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., and Fujitsu Network
`Communications, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-01969 was
`joined). On January 28, 2016, a Final Written Decision in IPR2014-01166
`held claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent unpatentable.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds, mirroring those instituted in
`IPR-726. See Pet. 16; see also IPR-726, Paper 11, 20.
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Bouevitch1 and Carr2
`§ 103
`1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12 and 15–21
`
`Bouevitch and Sparks3
`
`§ 103
`
`1–4, 17 and 22
`
`Analysis
`E.
`Petitioner sets forth how it contends claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12 and 15–21
`
`would have been obvious over Bouevitch and Carr, as well as how claims 1–
`4, 17, and 22 would have been obvious over Bouevitch and Sparks. Pet. 16–
`57. Petitioner submits arguments and evidence which mirror what was
`submitted in IPR-726, including the same claim construction and rationale of
`unpatentability. See Ex. 1040 (comparing the Petition to the petition filed as
`paper 1 in IPR-726). In support of the Petition, Petitioner relies on a
`Declaration of Timothy J. Drabik, Ph.D. (Ex. 1039) which is substantively
`identical to the Declaration of Timothy J. Drabik, Ph.D. filed in IPR-726.
`See Ex. 1038.4
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 B2, issued December 24, 2002 (Ex. 1002,
`“Bouevitch”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,442,307 B1, issued August 27, 2002 (Ex. 1005, “Carr”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,340 B1, issued September 23, 2003 (Ex. 1006,
`“Sparks”). Petitioner contends Sparks is § 102(e) prior art as of its filing
`date of December 29, 1999. Pet. 44.
`4 Petitioner originally filed a signed declaration from Dr. Drabik as Exhibit
`1016. Petitioner explains that it filed a corrected, unsigned declaration from
`Dr. Drabik as Exhibit 1039 which contained no substantive changes to
`address issues with the use of internal cross-citations in the claim charts
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`In IPR-726, we determined that Fujitsu demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–6, 9–
`12, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent. IPR-726, Paper 11. We granted the
`petition in IPR-726 and instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–
`12 and 15–21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Bouevitch and Carr, as well as claims 1–4, 17, and 22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bouevitch and Sparks. Id. at 20.
`We have reviewed the Petition and the evidence cited therein.
`Petitioner states, and Patent Owner has not disputed, that the grounds
`asserted in the Petition are substantively identical to the grounds of
`unpatentability instituted in IPR-726, and those grounds are supported by a
`declaration from Dr. Drabik containing the same information provided in a
`declaration from Dr. Drabik in IPR-726. See Pet. 1, n.1; Exs. 1037–1039.
`Accordingly, in view of the identity of the challenges to the ’368
`patent in the Petition and in the petition in IPR-726, we incorporate our
`previous analysis from our institution decision in IPR-726, and we determine
`that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`unpatentability of claims 1–6, 9–12, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent. See IPR-
`726, Paper 11.
`
`
`flagged in the Notice of Filing Date Accorded Petition and Time for Filing
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 6, 1–2). See Pet. 1, n.1.
`Dr. Drabik was hospitalized and unable to review the corrected declaration
`when it was filed. Id. Petitioner also provides Exhibit 1038, comparing
`Dr. Drabik’s declaration in IPR-726 to his original declaration in this case.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`III. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`284 (2011) (“AIA”) permits joinder of like review proceedings. The Board,
`acting on behalf of the Director, has the discretion to join an inter partes
`review with another inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).5 Joinder
`may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is
`discretionary.
`As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder
`should: (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new
`ground(s) of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what
`impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing
`review. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op.
`at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`To be considered timely, a motion for joinder must be filed no later
`than one month after the institution date of the inter partes review for which
`joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The Petition in this proceeding
`has been accorded a filing date of September 24, 2015. Paper 6, 1. This
`date is within one month after the date of institution in IPR-726, which was
`
`
`5 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) reads:
`Joinder.–If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under
`section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`instituted on August 24, 2015. IPR-726, Paper 11. The Petition, therefore,
`is timely.
`Petitioner states that that the Petition copies the petition in IPR-726
`for “simplicity and efficiency,” and “presents no new substantive issues
`relative to [IPR-726] and does not seek to broaden the scope of [IPR-726] or
`request additional discovery.” Mot. 4–5. Petitioner further states that “the
`current schedule in [IPR-726] can stay unchanged,” and further agrees that
`Fujitsu’s counsel will act as lead counsel as long as Fujitsu remains in the
`proceeding. Id. at 5.
`We are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`joinder of this case to IPR-726 is warranted. Although the decision to
`institute review in both this case and in IPR-726 has been based on petitions
`supported by declarations from Dr. Drabik, we are aware from the
`proceedings in IPR-726 that Dr. Drabik died prior to being deposed by
`Patent Owner. IPR-726, Paper 19, 2. In IPR-726 we granted a motion to
`file a declaration from Dr. Joseph E. Ford as supplemental information to
`substitute for the declaration from Dr. Drabik. See id. We further explained
`in IPR-726 that, although Dr. Drabik’s declaration remains in the record as
`the evidentiary basis on which we instituted trial, going forward, we will not
`consider the content of Dr. Drabik’s declaration as a part of any Final
`Written Decision. Id. at 4–5. The joined proceedings shall continue based
`on the record developed in IPR-726, including the declaration from
`Dr. Joseph E. Ford. As a joined proceeding, no declaration from Dr. Drabik
`filed in this case or in IPR-726 will be considered or relied upon as a part of
`any Final Written Decision.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the record before us, we institute an inter partes review in
`IPR2015-01958 and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-
`00726.
`
`V. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 E is
`instituted in IPR2015-01958 with respect to the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`(1) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12 and 15–21 as obvious over Bouevitch and
`Carr under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
`(2) claims 1–4, 17, and 22 as obvious over Bouevitch and Sparks
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 E is hereby instituted in
`IPR2015-01958, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the
`institution of a trial;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2015-00726 is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is joined with
`IPR2015-00726;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds of unpatentability on which
`trial was instituted in IPR2015-00726 are unchanged, and trial will proceed
`on those grounds based on the record in IPR2015-00726;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will file all papers in
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`IPR2015-00726, and that IPR2015-01958 is hereby terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joined proceeding will follow the
`schedule effective in IPR2015-00726 as of the date of this Decision;
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2015-00726, Fujitsu Network
`Communications, Inc. (“Fujitsu”), and Ciena Corporation, Coriant
`Operations, Inc., and Coriant (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Ciena”), will file
`papers, except for motions that do not involve the other party, as
`consolidated filings. Fujitsu will identify each such filing as a consolidated
`filing and will be responsible for completing all consolidated filings. Ciena
`may file an additional paper, not to exceed five pages, which may address
`only points of disagreement with contentions in Fujitsu’s consolidated filing.
`Any such filing by Ciena must identify specifically and explain each point of
`disagreement. Ciena may not file separate arguments in support of points
`made in Fujitsu’s consolidated filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to responding to any
`consolidated filing, Patent Owner may respond separately to any separate
`Ciena filing. Any such response by Patent Owner to a Ciena filing may not
`exceed the number of pages in the Ciena filing, and is limited to issues
`raised in the Ciena filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Fujitsu and Ciena will designate
`attorneys to conduct cross-examination of any witnesses produced by Patent
`Owner and redirect examination of any witnesses produced by Fujitsu and
`Ciena within the timeframe normally allotted by the rules to one party.
`Fujitsu and Ciena will not receive any separate cross-examination or redirect
`time. Fujitsu is permitted to ask questions before Ciena at depositions if it
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`so chooses;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Fujitsu is permitted to present argument
`before Ciena at any oral argument if it so chooses;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the file of Case IPR2015-00726; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-00726 shall
`be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew J. Moore
`Robert Steinberg
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`
`J. Pieter van Es
`Thomas K. Pratt
`Jordan N. Bodner
`Michael S. Cuviello
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`
`Christopher E. Chalsen
`Lawrence T. Kass
`Nathaniel T. Browand
`Suraj K. Balusu
`Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
`
`Matthew.Moore@lw.com
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com
`TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com
`JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com
`MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com
`cchalsen@milbank.com
`lkass@milbank.com;
`nbrowand@milbank.com
`sbalusu@milbank.com
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01958
`Patent RE42,368 E
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jon E. Wright
`Jonathan Tuminaro
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`jtuminar-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., CORIANT (USA) INC.,
`CIENA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-007261
`Patent RE42,678 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01958 has been joined with this proceeding.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
