DCT

4:23-cv-04787

Applied Optoelectronics Inc v. Molex LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-04787, N.D. Cal., 09/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically citing a physical office in Fremont, California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high-speed pluggable optical transceiver modules infringe six patents related to the mechanical design, internal component layout, and optical coupling techniques for such devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves high-speed optical transceivers, which are critical components in data centers and telecommunications networks for converting electrical data to optical signals for transmission over fiber optic cables.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint (FAC). The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge obtained no later than the filing of the original complaint or the FAC, indicating the willfulness claim is based on post-suit conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-12-10 ’383 Patent Priority Date
2013-10-02 ’826 Patent Priority Date
2015-10-27 ’383 Patent Issue Date
2016-04-25 ’116 Patent Priority Date
2016-05-23 ’301 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-19 ’431 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-20 ’826 Patent Issue Date
2017-07-13 ’432 Patent Priority Date
2018-08-07 ’116 Patent Issue Date
2019-01-08 ’431 Patent Issue Date
2019-08-13 ’301 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-05 ’432 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-28 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,523,826 - "Pluggable optical transceiver module," issued December 20, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a reliable fastening and releasing mechanism for optical transceivers that are plugged into sockets in communication equipment. It also notes that dust can contaminate and damage the transceiver's internal components during connection or removal. (’826 Patent, col. 1:17-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical design for a transceiver module featuring a main body and a separate sliding component. The sliding component has extending arms that engage with fastening parts in a socket. An elastic component biases the sliding component into a locked position, and a user-operated pull handle moves it to a releasing position. The patent states that the design, including specific sliding slots and limiting spaces, also serves to protect the internal photoelectric conversion circuit from dust. (’826 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a robust, user-friendly, and dust-resistant mechanism for securing and releasing high-density pluggable transceivers, which can improve the reliability and serviceability of equipment in data centers. (’826 Patent, col. 1:39-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Claim 1 recites a pluggable optical transceiver module comprising:
    • a main body with two side surfaces, two sliding slots, and at least one limiting space;
    • a sliding component with a linkage arm and two extending arms, where each extending arm has a second fastening part and a limited part;
    • an elastic component located in the limiting space between a surface of the main body and the limited part of the extending arm.
  • Claim 7 recites a similar pluggable optical transceiver module, further specifying the main body has a head part and an inserted part, and that the bottom surfaces of the two sliding slots are parallel to the side surfaces.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 10,466,432 - "High speed optical transceiver module," issued November 5, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional high-speed optical transceivers often require soldering an optical engine directly to a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA). This process is described as being unreliable, complicating manufacturing, and reducing production yield. (’432 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a modular architecture comprising a PCBA component (which includes the receiver and transmitter electronics) and a separate "passive optical element" (e.g., an MPO connector or a wavelength division multiplexer). Instead of being soldered, the passive optical element is designed to be inserted into the PCBA component via corresponding fiber interfaces and ferrules. This approach allows the electronic and optical components to be manufactured and tested separately before final assembly. (’432 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:56-67).
  • Technical Importance: This modular design decouples the complex fabrication of the PCBA from the optical sub-assemblies, potentially enabling more efficient, flexible, and higher-yield manufacturing for high-speed transceivers. (’432 Patent, col. 2:2-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Claim 1 recites a high-speed optical transceiver module comprising:
    • a PCBA component having a receiver (amplifier chip, photodiode array) and a transmitter (laser driving chip, base with lasers);
    • a plurality of fiber interfaces on the PCBA arranged on output light paths;
    • a passive optical element comprising ferrules and a fiber array;
    • the ferrules are inserted into the plurality of fiber interfaces in a one-to-one correspondence.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 9,170,383 - "Multi-channel optical transceiver module including dual fiber type direct link adapter for optically coupling optical subassemblies in the transceiver module," issued October 27, 2015

  • Patent Identification: ’383 Patent, "Multi-channel optical transceiver module including dual fiber type direct link adapter for optically coupling optical subassemblies in the transceiver module," issued October 27, 2015 (Compl. ¶4).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of fitting optical connectors into the small form factor of multi-channel transceivers. It discloses a "dual fiber type direct link adapter" that directly links to the internal transmitter (TOSA) and receiver (ROSA) subassemblies, replacing conventional, potentially bulkier adapters and thereby saving space. (’383 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4 transceiver infringes by incorporating a similar space-saving adapter design (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 10,042,116 - "Techniques for direct optical coupling of photodetectors to optical demultiplexer outputs and an optical transceiver using the same," issued August 7, 2018

  • Patent Identification: ’116 Patent, "Techniques for direct optical coupling of photodetectors to optical demultiplexer outputs and an optical transceiver using the same," issued August 7, 2018 (Compl. ¶4).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent aims to reduce signal loss (insertion loss) that occurs when coupling light from a demultiplexer, such as an arrayed waveguide grating (AWG), to photodetectors. The invention uses a tapered region with an angled surface at the end of the AWG chip to reflect the demultiplexed light directly onto an adjacent detector array, eliminating the need for an intermediate fiber array that would otherwise introduce loss. (’116 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4 is accused of using this direct-coupling technique to reduce signal loss within its receiver assembly (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 10,175,431 - "Optical transceiver with a multiplexing device positioned off-center within a transceiver housing to reduce fiber bending loss," issued January 8, 2019

  • Patent Identification: ’431 Patent, "Optical transceiver with a multiplexing device positioned off-center within a transceiver housing to reduce fiber bending loss," issued January 8, 2019 (Compl. ¶4).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention addresses signal loss caused by overly tight bends in optical fibers within the constrained space of a transceiver housing. By positioning the multiplexing/demultiplexing device (e.g., an AWG) off-center relative to the housing's longitudinal axis, an intermediate fiber connecting to it can be routed with a larger, less lossy bend radius. (’431 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-39).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4 is alleged to infringe by positioning its internal demultiplexer off-center to manage fiber routing and minimize bending loss (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 10,379,301 - "Multi-channel parallel optical receiving device," issued August 13, 2019

  • Patent Identification: ’301 Patent, "Multi-channel parallel optical receiving device," issued August 13, 2019 (Compl. ¶4).
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’116 patent, this invention concerns the direct coupling of light from an AWG to photodetectors. It discloses using a predetermined angle on the top surface of the AWG's output end to reflect the separated optical signals to photosensitive surfaces of optoelectronic diodes arranged in parallel, simplifying alignment and improving structural integrity. (’301 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4 is accused of employing this angled-reflection method for coupling its internal AWG to its photodetectors (Compl. ¶71).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as the Molex 100G QSFP28 PSM4 (Part No. 1064271206), the Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4 (Part No. 1064271020), and the Molex 400G QSFP-DD DR4+ (Part No. 1064281103) (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • These products are high-speed, pluggable optical transceiver modules designed for use in internet data centers and other telecommunications markets (Compl. ¶15). They are built to industry-standard form factors (QSFP28, QSFP-DD) and function to convert high-speed electrical data signals into optical signals for transmission over fiber optic cables, and vice-versa. The complaint alleges that these products are sold and offered for sale throughout the United States (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes a Google Earth image showing a building with a "molex" logo at an address in Fremont, California, to support its allegation that Molex has a physical office and place of business within the judicial district (Compl. ¶12, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts are attached as exhibits but does not include them in the provided filing. The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

  • ’826 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Molex 100G QSFP28 PSM4 and 400G QSFP-DD DR4+ products directly infringe claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶22). The infringement theory is that the physical construction of these modules, specifically their mechanism for latching into and being released from a socket, incorporates the claimed combination of a main body, a sliding component with extending arms, and an elastic component for fastening, as recited in the patent (Compl. ¶¶21, 23).
  • ’432 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Molex 100G QSFP28 PSM4 directly infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶32). The basis for this allegation is that the accused product is built using the claimed modular architecture, where a separate "passive optical element" is inserted into, rather than soldered to, a "PCBA component" containing the transceiver's core electronics (Compl. ¶¶31, 33).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute for the ’826 patent will be one of claim scope. The court will have to determine whether the mechanical release features in the accused Molex products constitute the specific "sliding component" with "extending arms" and "limiting space" as defined in the patent. For the ’432 patent, a key question is whether the accused products' internal architecture can be properly characterized as having a distinct "passive optical element" that is inserted into a "PCBA component," or if their construction is integrated in a way that falls outside this claimed modularity.
    • Technical Questions: For the optically-focused patents (’116, ’301, ’431), the infringement analysis will depend on the precise internal geometry of the accused Molex 100G QSFP CWDM4. The case raises factual questions that may require discovery or reverse engineering, such as: Does the product’s internal AWG device feature a tapered, angled surface for direct reflection as claimed in the ’116 and ’301 patents? And is that device positioned off-center within the housing to increase the fiber bend radius as claimed in the ’431 patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’826 Patent:

    • The Term: "sliding component" (from claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement allegation for the ’826 patent. The entire mechanical infringement theory depends on whether the release mechanism in the accused products meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term as its construction could be dispositive of infringement for this patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "sliding component 200 comprises a linkage arm 210 and two extending arms 220," providing a general structural definition that is not tied to a single shape (’826 Patent, col. 3:25-27).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict a very specific U-shaped structure for the sliding component (200), and the abstract specifies that its arms are "slidably disposed on the two sliding slots." (’826 Patent, Fig. 3, Abstract). This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to structures that are highly similar to what is depicted.

  • For the ’432 Patent:

    • The Term: "passive optical element" (from claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the modularity concept claimed in the ’432 patent. The infringement question hinges on whether the optical sub-assembly in the accused product constitutes a separate "passive optical element" that is "inserted into" the PCBA, as opposed to being an integrated part of it.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself broadly defines the element as comprising "ferrules corresponding to the fiber interfaces and a fiber array for emitting light," which could encompass a variety of optical sub-assemblies. (’432 Patent, Claim 1).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides concrete examples, stating "the passive optical element is a multi push on (MPO) connector" or a "wavelength division multiplexer." (’432 Patent, col. 2:4-5, 35-37). A defendant may argue that these examples limit the scope of the term to self-contained, connector-like modules.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement of all six asserted patents is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶¶28, 38, 48, 58, 68, 78). The basis for this allegation is knowledge of the patents and infringement acquired "at least... through, the filing of the original complaint" or "the filing of this FAC," which establishes a claim based on post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75).

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

  • A core issue for the ’826 patent will be one of structural correspondence: Does the mechanical latching-and-release system in Molex's transceivers operate in substantially the same way as the claimed "sliding component" with "limiting spaces," or is there a fundamental difference in mechanical design that places it outside the claim scope?
  • A key question for the ’432 patent will center on architectural interpretation: Do the accused products embody the claimed modular architecture of a distinct "passive optical element" that is inserted into a "PCBA component," or are their optical and electronic parts integrated in a way that avoids infringement?
  • For the remaining four patents, a dispositive question will be one of internal geometry: Does discovery and technical analysis of the accused products reveal the specific internal optical component layouts—such as off-center AWG positioning (’431 patent) and angled, direct-reflection surfaces (’116 and ’301 patents)—that are explicitly required by the asserted claims?