Lambda Optical Solutions LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent United States, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-487-RGA-CJB |
| Parties | LAMBDA OPTICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC. and ALCATEL-LUCENT HOLDINGS INC., Defendants. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC. and ALCATEL-LUCENT HOLDINGS INC., Counter-Claimants, v. LAMBDA OPTICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, LAMBDA OPTICAL SYSTEMS CORP., and ANASTASIOS TZATHAS, Counter-Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
In this patent case filed by Plaintiff Lambda Optical Solutions, LLC ("Lambda" or "Plaintiff") against Defendants Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. and Alcatel-Lucent Holdings Inc. (collectively, "Alcatel" or "Defendants"), Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,973,229 ("the '229 patent"). Alcatel timely answered Plaintiff's Complaint, and asserted counterclaims against Lambda, Lambda Optical Systems Corporation ("LOS"), and Anastasios Tzathas (collectively, "Counter-Defendants"), one of the named inventors of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity regarding anticipation (the "Motion"). (D.I. 363)1 For the reasons set out below, the Court recommends that Defendants' Motion be DENIED.
The '229 patent is entitled "Node Architecture for Modularized and Reconfigurable Optical Networks, and Methods and Apparatus Therefor," and was issued on December 6, 2005. 2 The '229 patent lists three inventors: Mr. Tzathas, Moon W. Kim and Abdella Battou. (Id.) Counter-Defendant LOS is the sole assignee of the '229 patent, and Plaintiff is its exclusive licensee. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 32, 33) The '229 patent is based on U.S. Application No. 09/795,950, which was filed on February 28, 2001. The '229 patent contains 30 claims, four of which are independent (i.e., claims 1, 25, 26 and 27), and 49 figures.
The '229 patent relates to the field of optical networking, which involves transmitting voice, Internet traffic, and other digital data over fiber-optic cables. Systems that operate in this field convert electrical signals from one endpoint into optical signals (or light pulses) for transmission along fiber-optic cables. After transmission, the light pulses are converted back to electrical signals at another endpoint, so that they can be received by a network user.
Optical signals are often physically combined, or "multiplexed," for fiber-optictransmission over a single, high-speed "long-haul" fiber—a fiber cable that can transmit those signals over long distances. In wavelength division multiplexing ("WDM"), a fiber is shared by dividing the spectrum of light (or "wavelengths" of light). These "wavelength divisions" must be sufficiently spaced apart to prevent the multiple wavelengths from interfering with each other. The International Telecommunications Union ("ITU") has adopted standard wavelength spacing that should be used for such multiplexing, which is reflected in the "ITU grid." (See '229 patent, col. 18:9-11 ("The ITU grid specifies the minimum spacing and the actual wavelengths of the individual wavelengths in a WDM system.")) A wavelength that conforms to the ITU grid is considered "compliant." (See, e.g., id., col. 5:63-64)
The '229 patent is directed to one aspect of optical networking: an optical transport switching system.3 In both of the asserted independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 25) of the '229 patent, the claimed optical transport switching system has five subsystems, as highlighted below in claim 1:
('229 patent, col. 54:22-37 (emphasis added)) Asserted independent claim 25 closely tracks the language of claim 1, except that instead of focusing on the two ingress subsystems, it has a greater description of the two egress subsystems:
(Id., col. 56:28-42 (emphasis added))
On November 26, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion, in which they moved for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the '229 patent are invalid as anticipated and/or rendered obvious by four published articles that describe various aspects of the MONET project (the "MONET articles" or the "MONET references"). (D.I. 363) On July 24, 2015, the Courtissued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion be denied (the "First Invalidity R&R"). (D.I. 442) More specifically, with respect to Alcatel's anticipation defense, the Court recommended that summary judgment be denied upon finding a genuine issue of material fact as to the "threshold dispute" of whether the allegedly anticipatory references were enabled. (Id. at 8, 13-14) With respect to Alcatel's obviousness defense, the Court recommended that summary judgment be denied because Alcatel's Motion failed to satisfy its high burden of proving that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention. (Id. at 21)
On September 30, 2015, Judge Richard G. Andrews issued a Memorandum Order adopting the Court's recommended disposition with respect to obviousness, but returning the matter of summary judgment on the issue of anticipation to the Court for resolution. (D.I. 464) Judge Andrews explained that, under the particular circumstances of this case, expert testimony would be required to "raise the issue" of enablement. (Id. at 5) On return to the Court, Judge Andrews suggested that the Court either (1) consider the enablement challenge resolved, and proceed to the merits of the anticipation arguments; or (2) allow the parties to amend their expert reports to address the enablement issue. (Id.)4
The Court chose the latter course, and permitted supplemental expert discovery with respect to enablement, followed by supplemental briefing addressing "enablement, and that also addresses anticipation more generally[.]" (D.I. 467 at 4; see also D.I. 478 at 3) Supplemental briefing was completed on July 8, 2016. (D.I. 502)
A grant of summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585 n.10 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 587 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). During this process, the Court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
However, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87; see also Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) () (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v.Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). Facts that could alter the outcome are "material," and a factual dispute is genuine only where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. "If the evidence is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly probative, . . . summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted). A party asserting that a fact cannot be—or, alternatively, is—genuinely disputed must support the assertion either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials"; or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial