DCT

8:21-cv-01473

Core Optical Tech LLC v. Acacia Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:21-cv-01473, C.D. Cal., 09/08/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district, having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and because Plaintiff resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s coherent optical communication modules, digital signal processors, and related products infringe a patent directed to methods for mitigating cross-polarization interference in fiber optic networks.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns coherent optical communication, a key technology for increasing the data-carrying capacity and transmission distance of long-haul fiber optic networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211, has been the subject of three separate Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed by other companies at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In all three instances, the PTAB denied institution, finding the petitioners had not established a reasonable likelihood of invalidity. The complaint also references prior infringement lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against Ciena, Fujitsu, and Infinera asserting the same patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-05 Priority Date for '211 Patent (Provisional App. Filing)
2004-08-24 '211 Patent Issued
2011-03-08 Date of Strategic Partnering Agreement between Acacia and ADVA
2012-09-16 Date of article regarding Acacia's "First 100G Coherent Module"
2012-10-29 Plaintiff files suit against Ciena Corp. on the '211 Patent
2013-10-18 Date of Master Supply Agreement between Acacia and Fujitsu
2016-03-07 Plaintiff files suit against Fujitsu on the '211 Patent
2016-11-11 Date of Master Purchase Agreement between Acacia and Cisco
2017-03-24 Plaintiff files suit against Infinera Corp. on the '211 Patent
2017-12-18 Plaintiff sends notice letter regarding '211 Patent to ADVA
2021-09-08 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211 - "Cross Polarization Interface Canceler"

  • Issued: August 24, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In high-speed fiber optic communication, one way to increase bandwidth is to send two distinct data streams simultaneously over the same fiber in the same frequency band, but on two different, orthogonal polarizations. However, during transmission, these signals can become distorted and interfere with each other, a problem known as cross-polarization interference (XPI), which is exacerbated by other issues like chromatic and polarization mode dispersion (’211 Patent, col. 1:56-2:10). This interference limits the reliability and distance of high-capacity optical links.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a receiver system with a "cross polarization interference canceler" (XPIC) that electronically or optically processes the received, distorted signal to undo the interference (’211 Patent, Abstract). The system receives the combined optical signal, splits it back into its original polarization components, and then applies a series of complex mathematical operations—represented as a matrix of coefficients or filters—to each component to cancel out the interference from the other, thereby reconstructing the two original, independent data streams (’211 Patent, col. 4:20-30; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the doubling of a fiber's data capacity without requiring a corresponding increase in frequency bandwidth, a critical advancement for scaling network performance (’211 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 33 and dependent claims 30, 32, 35, and 37 (Compl. ¶3). The analysis focuses on independent claim 33, which comprises the following essential elements:
    • A method comprising:
    • (a) receiving an optical signal over a single fiber optic transmission medium,
    • (a1) the optical signal being at least two polarized field components independently modulated with independent information bearing waveforms; and
    • (b) mitigating cross polarization interference associated with the at least two modulated polarized field components to reconstruct the information bearing waveforms
    • (b1) 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a wide range of Acacia products, including pluggable optical modules (CFP-DCO, CFP2-ACO, CFP2-DCO, OSFP, QSFP-DD), embedded modules (AC100, AC200, AC400, AC1200), and the underlying components within them, specifically "DSP ASIC Products" (Digital Signal Processor Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) and "Silicon PICs" (Photonic Integrated Circuits) (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to be components of coherent optical receivers designed for high-speed data transmission (e.g., 100Gb/s and higher) (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that the DSP ASICs, described as being "at the heart" of the accused modules, perform the critical function of processing the received optical signals to compensate for transmission impairments (Compl. ¶18.g). This processing allegedly includes correcting for polarization-related effects to enable the use of dual-polarization communication, a technique for increasing data throughput (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The complaint asserts that Acacia's "entire business is to sell products designed for use in optical receiver systems that practice the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'211 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 33) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method comprising: receiving an optical signal over a single fiber optic transmission medium, The accused modules are optical transceivers that incorporate receiver optics (e.g., "RX optics" or "Rx Input") designed to receive optical signals from a fiber optic medium. ¶17 col. 3:5-8
the optical signal being at least two polarized field components independently modulated with independent information bearing waveforms; and The accused systems are configured to perform Dual-Polarization (DP) or Polarization-Division-Multiplexing (PDM) communication, which involves receiving signals composed of two independently modulated orthogonal polarizations. ¶18 col. 4:55-65
mitigating cross polarization interference associated with the at least two modulated polarized field components to reconstruct the information bearing waveforms The DSP ASICs within the accused products (e.g., "Everest," "Sky") are alleged to perform "[f]ast and extensive Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) compensation," which the complaint alleges on information and belief mitigates cross-polarization interference. ¶19 col. 1:13-19
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 DSP ASICs allegedly contain a "Pol DMUX / PMD" block with a "2x2 butterfly structure" that performs a matrix computation using complex "tap" coefficients ("aij") to correct for both amplitude and phase distortions. The complaint provides a block diagram of this alleged function (Compl. ¶19.b, p. 12). ¶20 col. 9:1-6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A central technical question will be whether the function described in Acacia's product literature as "Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) compensation" is the same as, or inherently performs, the claimed step of "mitigating cross polarization interference." The complaint makes this connection "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶19.a), suggesting this is a key inferential leap that will require evidentiary support.
    • Scope Question: The claim requires mitigation using "a plurality of matrix coefficients." The complaint alleges the accused DSPs use a "2x2 butterfly structure" where "tap updates are based on the constant modulus algorithm" (Compl. ¶19.b). The case may turn on whether this specific, algorithm-based implementation falls within the scope of the more general "matrix coefficients" language of the claim, as interpreted in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "mitigating cross polarization interference"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core purpose of the claimed method. Infringement will depend on whether the actions performed by the accused DSPs, such as PMD compensation, meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint equates it with a different technical term (PMD compensation), creating a potential area of dispute over the term's boundaries.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the invention "could correct for dispersion effects or any loss of optical field orthogonality" in addition to recovering signals with orthogonal polarization (’211 Patent, col. 3:5-8). A plaintiff might argue this supports a construction where "mitigating cross polarization interference" is a broad concept that includes compensating for related channel impairments like PMD.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Cross Polarization Interface Canceler" and the abstract focuses on reconstructing "two optical signals transmitted with generally orthogonal polarization states" (’211 Patent, Abstract). A defendant could argue this context limits the term to the specific task of canceling interference between two orthogonally polarized signals, as distinct from compensating for signal distortion (dispersion) that can occur even with a single signal.

The Term: "matrix coefficients"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism for mitigation. The technical comparison between the accused "butterfly structure" and the claimed method hinges on the meaning of "matrix coefficients."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 33 itself qualifies the term only by stating the coefficients are "complex values" used for "amplitude scaling and phase shifting." The patent also discusses the coefficients in general terms, for example as elements w11, w12, etc., of a matrix W (’211 Patent, Fig. 4B, col. 9:1-6), which may support a broad definition covering any set of complex values applied in a matrix operation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might point to the detailed description of specific solutions, like the "diagonalizer XPIC" or the "minimum mean square error (MMSE) XPIC" (’211 Patent, col. 7:56-62, col. 16:22-31), to argue that the term implies coefficients derived from the specific matrix inversion or error-minimization techniques detailed in the specification, potentially distinguishing them from coefficients derived via the "constant modulus algorithm" allegedly used in the accused products (Compl. ¶19.b).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Acacia sells the Accused Instrumentalities with extensive documentation, datasheets, technical support, and design assistance that instruct and encourage customers to incorporate them into systems that perform the patented method (Compl. ¶¶33-38). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused DSP ASICs and Silicon PICs are material components specially made and adapted for use in an infringing system and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶53-58).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge of the '211 patent. The factual bases alleged include: (1) Acacia's monitoring of Plaintiff's prior lawsuits on the '211 patent against industry peers and fellow standards-body members (Compl. ¶¶41-42); (2) Acacia having likely been notified of the patent by its suppliers (Fujitsu) and customers (Cisco) who were involved in litigation (Compl. ¶¶43-44); (3) a "strategic partner" (ADVA) having received a direct notice letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶45); and (4) Acacia's alleged continued infringement despite the PTAB's three separate decisions to deny institution of IPRs against the patent (Compl. ¶65).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can the function described in Defendant's marketing and technical documents as "Polarization Mode Dispersion (PMD) compensation," allegedly implemented with a "constant modulus algorithm," be proven to be the same as, or to necessarily include, the claimed method of "mitigating cross polarization interference" using "a plurality of matrix coefficients"?
  • A second central issue will be a question of knowledge and intent: Can Plaintiff successfully use circumstantial evidence—such as Defendant’s position in the industry, its relationships with prior litigants, and its awareness of repeated, unsuccessful IPR challenges—to establish that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '211 patent and acted with willfulness or induced its customers to infringe? The outcome of the willfulness claim may be significantly influenced by the PTAB's prior refusals to institute review of the patent's validity.