Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:1
`
`
`LAWRENCE M. HADLEY - State Bar No. 157,728
`lhadley@glaserweil.com
`STEPHEN E. UNDERWOOD - State Bar No. 320,303
`sunderwood@glaserweil.com
`GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
` AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 553-3000
`Facsimile: (310) 556-2920
`
`LAWRENCE R. LAPORTE, SB# 130003
`Lawrence.LaPorte@lewisbrisbois.com
`LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: 213.250.1800
`Facsimile: 213.250.7900
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Core Optical Technologies, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO: 8:19-cv-2190
`CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`v.
`
`
`NOKIA CORPORATION, a Finnish
`
`Corporation, and NOKIA OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff Core Optical Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or "Core”), by and
`through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against Defendants
`Nokia Corporation (“Nokia Corp.”) and Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia US”)
`(collectively, "Defendants" or “Nokia”). For its Complaint, Core alleges as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:2
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`1.
`Core is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
`of the State of California. Core has a principal place of business located at 18792 Via
`Palatino, Irvine, California 92603.
`2.
`Defendant Nokia Corp. is a limited liability corporation organized and
`existing under the laws of Finland. Nokia Corp. maintains its principal place of
`business at Karaportti 3, 02610 Espoo, Finland. Nokia Corp. also maintains a regular
`and established place of business at 26801 West Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91301.
`3.
`Defendant Nokia of America Corporation, fka “Alcatel-Lucent USA
`Inc.,” is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, which
`maintains a regular and established place of business at 26801 West Agoura Road,
`Calabasas, CA 91301. Nokia of America Corporation is a subsidiary of Nokia
`Corporation. Upon information and belief, Nokia of America Corporation conducts
`all operational activity on behalf of Nokia Corporation within the United States.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`4.
`This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211, entitled
`“Cross Polarization Interface [sic] Canceler,” which was duly issued by the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office on August 24, 2004 (“the ‘211 patent”). This
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), because
`the claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`5.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant, because each
`Defendant conducts continuous and systematic business in California, including, upon
`information and belief, in this judicial district.
`6.
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because
`each Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in this district,
`including their facility located at 26801 West Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91301.
`7.
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because,
`on information and belief, each Defendant has committed acts of infringement in
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:3
`
`
`California, and within this judicial district. Specifically, on information and belief,
`each Defendant has marketed, manufactured, used, offered for sale, sold, imported,
`and/or distributed the Infringing Products in California, and within this judicial
`district. Furthermore, on information and belief, each Defendant has performed all of
`the steps of at least one method claimed in the ‘211 Patent in California, and within
`this judicial district. Furthermore, on information and belief, each Defendant has
`induced and/or contributed to customers' infringing uses of the Infringing Products in
`California, and in this judicial district.
`8.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district against each Defendant.
`9.
`Venue is proper against Defendant Nokia Corp. because Nokia Corp. is
`a foreign corporation. Venue is proper against foreign corporations in any judicial
`district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
`10.
` Venue is proper against Defendant Nokia U.S. because: (i) Nokia U.S.
`has a regular and established place of business in this district, including its facility at
`26801 West Agoura Road, Calabasas, CA 91301; and (ii) on information and belief,
`Nokia U.S. has committed acts of infringement in this district, including marketing,
`manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, and/or distributing the
`Infringing Products in this judicial district; performing all steps of the method(s)
`claimed in the ‘211 Patent in this district; and/or performing acts of contributory or
`induced infringement in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`11.
`In addition, venue is proper because Core resides in this judicial district,
`and Core has and continues to suffer harm in this judicial district. Moreover, a
`substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district,
`including the inventive activities giving rise to the '211 patent.
`THE ASSERTED PATENT
`12. Mark Core, the sole named inventor of the '211 patent, earned his Ph.D.
`in electrical and computer engineering from the University of California, Irvine, and
`is the Manager of Core Optical Technologies, LLC. The pioneering technology set
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:4
`
`
`forth in the '211 patent greatly increases data transmission rates in fiber optic
`networks, by enabling two optical signals transmitted in the same frequency band, but
`at generally orthogonal polarizations, to be recovered at a receiver. The patented
`technology that enables the recovery of these signals includes coherent optical
`receivers and related methods that mitigate cross-polarization interference associated
`with the transmission of the signals through the fiber optic network. The patented
`coherent receivers and methods mitigate the effects of polarization dependent loss and
`dispersion effects that limit the performance of optical networks, greatly increasing
`the transmission distance and eliminating or reducing the need for a variety of
`conventional network equipment such as amplifiers, regenerators, and compensators.
`The patented technology set forth in the '211 patent has been adopted by Defendants
`in, at least, their packet-optical transport solutions and products described below.
`13. On November 5, 1998, Mark Core filed with the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Provisional Patent Application No. 60/107,123
`("the '123 application") directed to his pioneering inventions. On November 4, 1999,
`Mark Core filed with the USPTO a non-provisional patent application, U.S. Patent
`Application No. 09/434,213 ("the '213 application"), claiming priority to the '123
`application. On August 24, 2004, the USPTO issued the '211 patent from the '213
`application. The entire right, title, and interest in and to the '211 patent, including all
`rights to past damages, has been assigned to Core in an assignment recorded with the
`USPTO. The '211 patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.
`14. The ‘211 Patent includes 37 claims. One of these is claim 33, an
`independent method claim. Claim 33 is reproduced below, with parenthetical
`annotations to identify the different elements of the claim:
`
`
`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
`
`1743832
`
`
`
`33. A method comprising:
`
`
`(33a) receiving an optical signal over a single fiber optic
`transmission medium,
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:5
`
`
`(33a1) the optical signal being at least two
`polarized field components independently
`modulated with independent information bearing
`waveforms; and
`
`(33b) mitigating cross polarization interference
`associated with the at least two modulated polarized field
`components to reconstruct the information bearing
`waveforms
`
`
`(33b1) using a plurality of matrix coefficients
`being complex values to apply both amplitude
`scaling and phase shifting to the at least two
`modulated polarized field components.
`
`THE INFRINGING PRODUCTS
`15. Defendants and/or their divisions, subsidiaries, and/or agents are
`engaged in the business of making, using, distributing, importing, offering for sale,
`and/or selling their infringing product lines, including, but not limited to, the 1830
`Photonic Service Switch (PSS) product family (the “1830 PSS Family”), the 1830
`Photonic Service Interconnect (PSI) product family (the “1830 PSI Family”), the
`1620 SOFTNODE product family (the “1620 SOFTNODE Family”), and the
`WaveLite Metro 200 (the “Metro 200”) (collectively, "the Infringing Products").
`16. Each Infringing Product is configured to automatically perform all of the
`steps recited in, at least, claims 30, 33, 35, and 37 of the ‘211 Patent, during normal
`operation. In addition, on information and belief, each Defendant has used the
`Infringing Products to perform each step of the methods recited in, at least, claims 30,
`33, 35, and 37 of the ‘211 Patent, within the United States, either personally, through
`intermediaries, or in conjunction one or more joint venturers.
`The 1830 PSS Family
`17. According to Defendants’ website, the 1830 PSS Family is a “flexible
`transport layer with capabilities such as 100G-600G transport wavelengths, agile
`wavelength routing, and scalable multilayer switching and services.” See Exhibit 2
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:6
`
`
`(https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/1830-photonic-service-switch/) at 1.
`Information from Defendants’ website, and from other publicly-available sources,
`demonstrates that the 1830 PSS Family is configured to automatically perform all of
`the steps recited in claim 33, during normal operation.
`18. Defendants’ website states that the “1830 PSS portfolio helps you
`optimize optical networks,” by “supporting efficient, high-performance 100G–600G
`wavelength transport.” Exh. 2 at 1-2 (emphasis added). Thus, the 1830 PSS Family
`includes components that “receiv[e] an optical signal over a single fiber optic
`transmission medium,” as recited in element 33(a).
`19. Specifically, the 1830 PSS Family includes pluggable “interface cards,”
`which can be plugged into the various 1830 PSS chassis models (e.g., PSS-4, PSS-8,
`PSS-16, PSS-32, etc.). See Exhibit 3 (Datasheet, Nokia 1830 PSS-4, PSS-8, PSS-16
`and PSS-32 platforms, downloaded from https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/194066) at
`5-6. The interface cards send and “receiv[e] an optical signal over a single fiber optic
`transmission medium,” as recited in element 33(a). Id. Thus, the 1830 PSS Family is
`configured to automatically perform element 33(a).
`20. A datasheet available on Defendants’ website states that the 1830 PSS
`Family can be used with a variety of interface cards, including the D5X500,
`D5X500Q, D5X500L, and D5X500 Subsea cards (“D5X500 Series”). See Exh. 3 at 6.
`A datasheet for the D5X500 Series states that these cards use a variety of modulation
`formats, including “250G DP-16QAM,” “200G DP-16QAM,” “200G DP-8QAM,”
`“100G DP-QPSK,” “100G SP-DP-QPSK,” and “50G DP-BPSK.” See Exhibit 4
`(Datasheet, Nokia 1830 PSS 500G Muxponder, downloaded from
`https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/194076) at 3.
`21. Each of these modulation formats is coded “DP,” which means “dual
`polarization.” “Dual polarization” means modulation in which two signals are sent at
`the same frequency, at the same time, but at orthogonal polarizations to one another.
`This technique is also known as “polarization division multiplexing” (PDM). PDM
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:7
`
`
`receivers, such as the receivers in the D5X500 Series of 1830 PSS Family interface
`cards, receive an “optical signal being at least two polarized field components
`independently modulated with independent information bearing waveforms,” as
`recited in element 33(a1). Thus, the 1830 PSS Family, when used with the appropriate
`interface cards, is configured to automatically perform element 33(a1).
`22. Element 33(b) recites “mitigating cross polarization interference
`associated with the at least two modulated polarized field components to reconstruct
`the information bearing waveforms.” Publicly-available evidence demonstrates that
`the 1830 PSS Family automatically performs this step.
`23. For instance, the document “Discus D 2.3, Updates to the reference
`architecture” (Exhibit 5)1 was published in 2015 by “the Discus Consortium,” which
`included “Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG.” Exh. 5 at 3. Alcatel-Lucent was
`purchased by Nokia in 2015-20162; thus, Defendants are the successors-in-interest to
`the “Alcatel-Lucent” who participated in the “Discus Consortium.”
`24. Section 6 of the Discus document describes “100G-DP-QPSK
`transmission” – i.e., 100 Gb per second, dual-polarization, quadrature-phase shift
`keying transmission. Id. at 40. The document identifies the “Alcatel-Lucent, 1830
`PSS” as a product that performs such 100G-DP-QPSK transmission. Id. at 58. Thus,
`the Discus document specifically describes the functionality of the 1830 PSS Family.
`25. The Discus document states that 100G-DP-QPSK transceivers, including
`those in the 1830 PSS Family, include “coherent” receivers which “use[] DSP” – i.e.,
`Digital Signal Processing – “to mitigate the impact of . . . polarization cross-talk . . .
`between orthogonally polarized channels resulting from the misalignment between
`the states of polarization (SOP) of the LO and the detected signal.” Id. at 40
`
`
`1 From https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/projects/cnect/7/318137/080/deliverables/001-
`318137DISCUSD23FINALrenditionDownload.pdf.
`2 See https://www.nokia.com/about-us/news/releases/2016/11/02/nokia-finalizes-its-
`acquisition-of-alcatel-lucent-ready-to-seize-global-connectivity-opportunities/.
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:8
`
`
`(emphases added). This confirms that the 1830 PSS Family performs cross-
`polarization interference mitigation – i.e., it “mitigat[es] cross polarization
`interference associated with the at least two modulated polarized field components to
`reconstruct the information bearing waveforms,” as recited in element 33(b).
`26. Similarly, a 2011 article titled “Impact of nonlinear and polarization
`effects in coherent systems,” by Alcatel-Lucent employee Chongjin Xie (Exhibit 6),
`describes a typical “digital coherent optical communication system.” Exh. 6 at 3-4.
`On information and belief, because the author of this article was an Alcatel-Lucent
`employee, the “digital coherent optical communication system” described and
`depicted in this article is the (then-Alcatel-Lucent, now-Nokia) 1830 PSS.
`27. As the article explains, the 1830 PSS receiver includes an “ASIC”
`(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) which performs “polarization
`demultiplexing.” Id. at 4-5. The “[p]olarization demultiplexing . . . [is] performed
`with a butterfly equalizer, which consists of four subequalizers” Id. The “butterfly
`equalizer” performs computations to “compensate transmission impairments” – i.e., to
`correct for the loss of orthogonality and dispersion which occurs as the signal
`propagates down the line. Id. Thus, this article confirms that the PSS 1830 Family
`performs cross-polarization interference mitigation – i.e., it “mitigat[es] cross
`polarization interference associated with the at least two modulated polarized field
`components to reconstruct the information bearing waveforms,” as recited in element
`33(b).
`28. Element 33(b1) recites that the “mitigating” is performed by “using a
`plurality of matrix coefficients being complex values to apply both amplitude scaling
`and phase shifting to the at least two modulated polarized field components.”
`Publicly-available information shows that the PSS 1830 Family performs this step.
`29. For instance, the 2016 article “From first fibers to mode-division
`multiplexing,” by Nokia employee Peter J. Winzer (Exh. 7), describes “today’s digital
`coherent ASICs” – i.e., the integrated circuits used to perform DSP in modern
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:9
`
`
`coherent optical receivers. Exh. 7 at 6. Since the article is written by a Nokia
`employee, on information and belief, the reference to “today’s digital coherent
`ASICs” refers to Nokia’s ASICs, and specifically, the ASICs in the 1830 PSS Family.
`30. The article states that, in the 1830 PSS Family ASIC, there is a “2x2
`MIMO” which performs “polarization demultiplexing.” Id. A 2x2 MIMO performs
`matrix operations, which apply “amplitude scaling” and “phase shifting” to convert
`two complex input signals into two modified output signals. Since the article
`describes using a 2x2 MIMO to perform “polarization demultiplexing,” it is clear that
`the 2x2 MIMO in the 1830 PSS Family ASIC performs matrix operations to “mitigate
`cross-polarization interference,” as recited in the claims. Thus, the article shows that
`element 33(b1) is automatically performed by the 1830 PSS Family.
`31. Similarly, a 2018 PhD thesis by Nokia employee Alexis Carbo Meseguer
`(Exhibit 8) describes and depicts an “optical coherent receiver and digital processing
`scheme.” Exh. 8 at 37. Since this thesis was written by a Nokia employee, and since
`the “optical coherent receiver” described therein appears to be the same “optical
`coherent receiver” described in the Chongjin Xie article (Exh. 6 at 4), on information
`and belief, the “optical coherent receiver” depicted in the thesis is a Nokia receiver;
`specifically, a receiver from the 1830 PSS Family.
`32. The Meseguer thesis states that the 1830 PSS receiver includes a DSP
`with an “adaptive equalizer,” which “is implemented with a butterfly structure.” Exh.
`8 at 38. The thesis specifically shows that the adaptive equalizer performs a matrix
`computation, which applies amplitude scaling and phase shifting on complex values,
`to “successfully recover the original in-phase and quadrature components” from two
`components received “at an arbitrary polarization state.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus,
`the article confirms that the 1830 PSS Family performs element 33(b1).
`33. Numerous Nokia patents confirm that Nokia’s optical equipment,
`including the equipment used in the 1830 PSS Family, mitigates cross-polarization
`inference by performing a matrix computation on complex values. See Exh. 9
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:10
`
`
`(Nokia’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,571,423) at col. 11 (describing matrix operations used to
`mitigate cross-polarization interference); Exh. 10 (Nokia’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,509,054) at
`col. 5-6 (same); Exh. 11 (Nokia’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,747,169) at col. 9-10 (same).
`34. Accordingly, as shown above, the 1830 PSS Family is configured to
`automatically perform all of the steps recited in claim 33, during normal operation.
`The 1830 PSI Family
`35.
` The 1830 PSI Family is described on Nokia’s website at
`https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/1830-photonic-service-
`interconnect/#overview. According to the website, “[t]he Nokia 1830 Photonic
`Service Interconnect (PSI) product family provides industry leading performance,
`scale, and simplicity for Data Center Interconnection (DCI) applications.” Id.
`36. The Nokia website indicates that the 1830 PSI Family uses “coherent
`optical line ports based on industry leading Nokia PSE-3 and PSE-2 digital signal
`processors.” See https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/1830-photonic-service-
`interconnect/#features-and-benefits. On information and belief, these “coherent
`optical line ports,” and associated equipment, perform polarization-division
`multiplexing and matrix-based cross-polarization interference mitigation, in the same
`way as the 1830 PSS Family, as described in Paragraphs 18-34 supra.
`37. For instance, a datasheet for the 1830 PSI-M (Exh. 12, downloaded from
`https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/201662) states that this member of the 1830 PSI
`Family is a “high capacity, modular, optical networking platform,” for “long haul”
`operation. Exh. 12 at 1. The datasheet states that the 1830 PSI-M’s “line ports” can
`perform “100G QPSK” and “200G 16QAM” modulation. Id. at 3. On information and
`belief, the only way to achieve 100G “long haul” data rates with QPSK modulation,
`and 200G “long haul” data rates with 16QAM modulation, is to perform polarization-
`division multiplexing, with cross-polarization interference mitigation.
`38. The datasheet further states that the 1830 PSI-M uses “CFP2-ACO
`WDM line ports.” Id. On information and belief, transceivers using CFP2-ACO line
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:11
`
`
`ports necessarily perform polarization-division multiplexing with cross-polarization
`interference mitigation, in the same way described in Paragraphs 18-34 above.
`39. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in Paragraphs 18-34, and on
`information and belief, the 1830 PSI Family is configured to automatically perform
`all steps of claim 33, during normal operation.
`The 1620 SOFTNODE Family
`40.
` The 1620 SOFTNODE Family is a family of undersea optical
`networking equipment originally manufactured by Alcatel-Lucent Submarine
`Networks. See Exh. 13 (Submarine Telecoms Forum, Issue 82, downloaded from
`https://subtelforum.com/STF-82/E35F83BD4413E4FDF24471F7A5C34783/STF-
`82.pdf) at 43-44. On information and belief, Nokia acquired Alcatel-Lucent
`Submarine Networks when it acquired Alcatel-Lucent; thus, Nokia is the successor-
`in-interest to all business (and all liability) for the 1620 SOFTNODE Family.
`41. A 2015 article from Converge Network Digest (Exh. 14) states that the
`1620 SOFTNODE family achieved a “300G” (i.e., 300 Gb/s) data rate, over a “10,000
`kilometer” distance, using “8QAM” modulation. Exh. 14 at 1. On information and
`belief, a 300 Gb/s data rate can only be achieved with 8QAM modulation, over a
`10,000 km distance, if the device uses polarization-division multiplexing with cross-
`polarization interference mitigation, as described in Paragraphs 18-34 supra.
`42. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in Paragraphs 18-34 supra, and
`on information and belief, the 1620 SOFTNODE products are configured to
`automatically perform all steps of claim 33, during normal operation.
`The WaveLite Metro 200
`43. The WaveLite Metro 200 is described in a datasheet available on the
`Nokia website. See Exh. 15 (WaveLite Metro 200 datasheet, downloaded from
`https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/201250).
`44. According to the Datasheet, the Metro 200 is a “200-Gb, single
`wavelength, 600 km-reach multiservice aggregation muxponder.” Exh. 15 at 1. The
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:12
`
`
`datasheet states that the “line-side interface” of the Metro 200 achieves either a “200
`Gbps” data rate with “16QAM” modulation, or a “100G” data rate with “QPSK”
`modulation. Id. at 1. On information and belief, the only way to achieve these data
`rates with these types of modulation, in a “600 km-reach” product (Exh. 15 at 1), is to
`perform polarization-division multiplexing with cross-polarization interference
`mitigation, as described in Paragraphs 18-34 supra.
`45. Furthermore, the datasheet states that the Metro 200 uses a “CFP2-ACO”
`optical interface. Id. at 2. On information and belief, transceivers using CFP2-ACO
`optical interfaces necessarily perform polarization-division multiplexing with cross-
`polarization interference mitigation, as described in Paragraphs 18-34 supra.
`46. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in Paragraphs 18-34 supra, and
`on information and belief, the Metro 200 is configured to automatically perform all
`steps of claim 33, during normal operation.
`COUNT I – DIRECT PATENT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C § 271(a))
`47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`Paragraphs 1-46 above, as if fully set forth herein.
`48. Defendants have directly infringed, and continue to directly infringe, one
`or more claims of the ‘211 Patent—including, at least, claims 30, 33, 35, and 37—by
`making, having made, offering for sale, and/or selling, directly and/or through
`intermediaries, in this district and/or elsewhere in the United States, one or more of
`the Infringing Products, and/or by importing into the United States one or more of the
`Infringing Products.
`49. Defendants’ making, selling, offering for sale, and/or importation of the
`Infringing Products infringes, at least, claims 30, 33, 35 and 37 of the ‘211 Patent,
`because—as shown in Paragraphs 18-46 supra (for claim 33)—the Infringing
`Products are configured to automatically perform all of the steps recited in those
`claims, during normal operation.
`50.
` Defendants have also directly infringed, at least, claims 30, 33, 35 and
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:13
`
`
`37 of the ‘211 Patent, by performing all of the steps of those claims within the United
`States, either personally, through intermediaries, or in conjunction with one or more
`joint venturers. Specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have performed
`all of the steps recited in claims 30, 33, 35 and 37, either personally, through
`intermediaries, or in conjunction with joint venturers, by operating the Infringing
`Products within the United States. Such operation necessarily performs all of the steps
`recited in those claims, as shown in Paragraphs 18-46 supra (for claim 33).
`COUNT II – INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C § 271(b))
`51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`Paragraphs 1-50 supra, as if fully set forth herein.
`52. Defendants have actively induced infringement of, at least, claims 30,
`33, 35 and 37 of the ‘211 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`53. Defendants have actively induced infringement of these claims by selling
`the Infringing Products to one or more customers in the U.S., along with
`documentation and instructions demonstrating how to use the Products to infringe the
`claims, and/or by providing service, maintenance, technical support, or other active
`assistance to its customers in using the Infringing Products in the U.S.
`54. On information and belief, when Defendants’ customers use the
`Infringing Products in the U.S., such use meets all the elements recited in, at least,
`claims 30, 33, 35 and 37 of the ‘211 Patent. Thus, Defendants have committed
`affirmative acts (i.e., selling the Infringing Products, providing documentation on how
`to use the Infringing Products, and/or providing service, maintenance, technical
`support, or other active assistance to their customers) which have resulted in direct
`infringement of the ’211 Patent by their customers in the United States.
`55. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`existence and relevance of the ‘211 Patent, or were willfully blind to its existence and
`relevance, prior to the filing of the Complaint.
`56. For example, on information and belief, Defendants knew of the ‘211
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:14
`
`
`Patent’s existence and relevance due to Core’s filing of complaints for infringement
`of that patent in: (1) Central District of California Case No. SACV 12-1872 AG,
`styled Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Ciena Corporation, et al. (filed October 29,
`2012); (2) Central District of California Case No. SACV 16-0437 AG, styled Core
`Optical Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. (filed March 7,
`2016); and (3) Central District of California Case No. SACV 8:17-cv-00548AG,
`styled Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Infinera Corp. (filed March 24, 2017).
`57. On information and belief, as a major player in the optical networking
`industry, Nokia monitors patent lawsuits against other players in the industry. On
`information and belief, through such monitoring, Nokia knew of—or was willfully
`blind to—the existence of the ‘211 Patent, due to Core’s three prior lawsuits against
`other players in the industry. Furthermore, through such monitoring, Nokia knew—or
`was willfully blind—that its Infringing Products infringe the ‘211 Patent during
`normal operation, because Nokia’s Infringing Products are very similar to the
`products against which Core asserted the ‘211 Patent in the prior lawsuits.
`58. Moreover, Nokia knew of the existence and relevance of the ‘211
`Patent—or was willfully blind to its existence and relevance—through its own patent
`prosecution activities.
`59. Nokia owns six separate U.S. patents against which the ‘211 Patent was
`cited as prior art during prosecution. These are: (i) U.S. Pat. No. 7,509,054, issued
`March 24, 2009 (Exh. 10); (ii) U.S. Pat. No. 7,747,169, issued June 29, 2010 (Exh.
`11); (iii) U.S. Pat. No. 7,809,284, issued October 5, 2010 (Exh. 16); (iv) U.S. Pat. No.
`7,822,350, issued October 26, 2010 (Exh. 17); (v) U.S. Pat. No. 8,023,834, issued
`September 20, 2011 (Exh. 18); and (vi) U.S. Pat. No. 8,655,191, issued February 18,
`2014 (Exh. 19).
`60. All of these patents relate to the same general technology as the
`Infringing Products – i.e., coherent optical receivers for polarization-multiplexed
`optical communication. Since the ‘211 Patent was cited against Nokia as prior art in
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR 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
`
`1743832
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02190-JLS-ADS