Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant Am. Inc., CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG

• Decision Date: 05 December 2017
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG
• Parties: OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, v. CORIANT AMERICA INC., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, v. CORIANT AMERICA INC., et al.

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-1302-JRG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

December 5, 2017

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Oyster Optics LLC's ("Plaintiff's or "Oyster's") Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 157). Also before the Court are Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., Infinera Corporation, Coriant (USA) Inc., Coriant North America, LLC, Coriant Operations, Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.'s ("Defendants'") Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 165) and Plaintiffs' reply (Dkt. No. 167).

The Court held a claim construction hearing on November 20, 2017.

Table of Contents

I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 3

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4

III. AGREED TERMS ................................................................................................................. 8

IV. DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................................ 10

A. "phase modulate" ................................................................................................................ 10

B. "output for altering the phase of the phase modulator" ...................................................... 18

C. "energy level detector" ........................................................................................................ 21

D. "tap" / "tapping" / "tapped" ................................................................................................ 26

E. "receiver" ............................................................................................................................. 30

F. "the optical signals" ............................................................................................................. 36

G. "line card" ........................................................................................................................... 41

H. "OTDR" .............................................................................................................................. 44

I. "arm" and "path" .................................................................................................................. 47

J. "path length difference" ....................................................................................................... 48

K. "the second arm being longer than the first arm" ............................................................... 51

L. "phase compensation circuit" .............................................................................................. 52

M. "means for phase modulating as a function of an input electronic data stream and a second electronic data stream having a delay, thus creating a phase modulated optical signal with encoded information for recovery" .................................................................. 56

N. "means for receiving the optical signal from the transporting means" ............................... 61

V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 66

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 6,469,816 ("the '816 Patent"), 6,476,952 ("the '952 Patent"), 6,594,055 ("the '055 Patent"), 7,099,592 ("the '592 Patent"), 7,620,327 ("the '327 Patent"), 8,374,511 ("the '511 Patent"), 8,913,898 ("the '898 Patent"), and 9,363,012 ("the '012 Patent") (collectively, "the patents-in-suit"). (See Dkt. No. 157, Exs. 1-8.) Plaintiff submits that the patents-in-suit are "generally directed towards systems and methods for transporting information by modulating light waves transmitted and received across transparent optical fibers." (Dkt. No. 157, at 2.)

The parties have submitted that the patents-in-suit can be classified into two groups: the "Group 1 Patents" (United States Patents No. 6,469,816, 6,476,952, 6,594,055, and 7,099,592); and the "Group 2 Patents" (United States Patents No. 7,620,327, 8,374,511, 8,913,898, and 9,363,012). (Dkt. No. 157, at 2; Dkt. No. 165, at 1 n.1.)

The '816 Patent of Group 1, for example, titled "Phase-Modulated Fiber Optic Telecommunications System," issued on October 22, 2002, and bears a filing date of May 24, 2001. The Abstract of the '816 Patent states:

A fiber optic data transmission system has a transmitter having a laser emitting a continuous wave light, a phase modulator phase modulating the continuous wave light so as to create an optical signal bearing information in phase-modulated form, and a telecommunications optical fiber connected to at least one receiver, the phase-modulator being connected to the telecommunications fiber so that the phase-modulated information optical signal is transmitted over the telecommunications fiber without recombining with the continuous wave light.

The '327 Patent of Group 2, for example, titled "Fiber Optic Telecommunications Card With Energy Level Monitoring," issued on November 17, 2009, and bears a filing date of July 3, 2002. The Abstract of the '327 Patent states:

A transceiver card for a telecommunications box for transmitting data over a first optical fiber and receiving data over a second optical fiber. The card hastransmitter for transmitting data over the first optical fiber, the transmitter having a laser and a modulator, a fiber output optically connected to the laser for connecting the first optical fiber to the card, a fiber input for connecting the second optical fiber to the card, a receiver optically connected to the fiber input for receiving data from the second optical fiber, and an OTDR optically connected between the transmitter and the fiber output or between the receiver and the fiber input. An energy level detector is also provided between the receiver and the fiber input.

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

It is understood that "[a] claim in a patent provides the metes and bounds of the right which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using or selling the protected invention." Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

"In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period." Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (citation omitted). "In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the 'evidentiary underpinnings' of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal." Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).

To ascertain the meaning of claims, courts look to three primary sources: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The specification must contain a written description of the invention that enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Id. A patent's claims must be read in view of the specification, of whichthey are a part. Id. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims. Id. "One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims." Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Nonetheless, it is the function of the claims, not the specification, to set forth the limits of the patentee's invention. Otherwise, there would be no need for claims. SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). The patentee is free to be his own lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly set forth in the specification. Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Although the specification may indicate that certain embodiments are preferred, particular embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims when the claim language is broader than the embodiments. Electro Med. Sys., S.A. v. Cooper Life Sciences, Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

This Court's claim construction analysis is substantially guided by the Federal Circuit's decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In Phillips, the court set forth several guideposts that courts should follow when construing claims. In particular, the court reiterated that "the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To that end, the words used in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term "is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313. This principle of patent law flows naturally from therecognition that inventors are usually persons who are skilled in the field of the invention and that patents are addressed to, and intended to be read by,...