DCT

1:09-cv-00978

Telcordia Tech Inc v. Tellabs Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:09-cv-00978, D.N.J., 07/27/2009
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged business activities in New Jersey, including shipping, distributing, and selling the accused products within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications network products infringe three patents related to multiplexing different types of network traffic, ensuring network survivability, and recovering timing in broadband networks.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for managing data transmission and ensuring reliability in high-speed telecommunications networks, particularly those employing standards like SONET and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of pre-suit interactions, including notice of infringement and licensing negotiations regarding the patents-in-suit beginning as early as 2002. It also cites prior litigation against other companies, including a May 2007 jury verdict where the asserted patents were found valid, enforceable, and willfully infringed by Cisco Systems, Inc. This history is cited to support allegations of willful infringement against Tellabs.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1987-11-10 ’306 Patent Priority Date
1988-02-04 ’763 Patent Priority Date
1989-05-30 ’763 Patent Issue Date
1990-01-09 ’306 Patent Issue Date
1992-10-30 ’633 Patent (Reissue) Earliest Priority Date
2000-03-28 ’633 Patent Reissue Date
2002-12-31 Notice of ’763 Patent infringement alleged (approximate date)
2004-11-05 Notice of ’306 Patent infringement alleged
2005-10-05 Notice of ’633 Patent infringement alleged
2007-05-31 Jury verdict in Telcordia v. Cisco litigation (approximate date)
2007-11-10 ’306 Patent Expiration Date
2008-02-04 ’763 Patent Expiration Date
2009-07-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,893,306 - "Method and Apparatus for Multiplexing Circuit and Packet Traffic", Issued January 9, 1990

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of migrating public telephone networks from traditional, rigid circuit-switched technology (like Time Division Multiplexing, or TDM) to more flexible packet-switched technology needed for emerging broadband services like video and interactive data (’306 Patent, col. 2:36-54). Building a separate "overlay" packet network alongside the existing circuit network was deemed capital-intensive and operationally complex (’306 Patent, col. 3:3-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention, termed "Dynamic Time Division Multiplexing" (DTDM), proposes a unified transport system. It creates a continuous train of fixed-size frames that can carry both traditional circuit traffic (e.g., voice) and bursty packet data. Critically, before being placed into a frame, even circuit-based data is converted into a "packet-like form" by adding a header, allowing disparate traffic types to be handled by the same multiplexing equipment and providing a flexible migration path from circuit to packet networks (’306 Patent, col. 4:51-6:1; FIG. 2). This architecture is illustrated in the patent's FIG. 2, which shows tributaries for voice (7), graphics (5), and circuit streams (9) being packetized and assembled into a single DTDM stream (12) (’306 Patent, FIG. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a strategy to evolve existing telecommunications infrastructure to support new data services without requiring an immediate and complete replacement of the network backbone (’306 Patent, col. 3:39-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶16). Independent apparatus claim 4 includes the following essential elements:

  • A means for generating a train of frames, with each frame including a transmission overhead field and an empty payload field.
  • A processing means for processing data from a plurality of sources into a packet format.
  • An inserting means that receives the train of frames and inserts the formatted packets into the empty payload fields of available frames.

U.S. Patent No. 4,835,763 - "Survivable Ring Network", Issued May 30, 1989

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Ring-based communication networks are vulnerable to failure; a single break in the communications path or the failure of a node can disrupt traffic for the entire ring (’763 Patent, col. 1:10-22). Prior solutions for creating survivability, such as providing a second parallel ring for backup, required complex and costly equipment to detect faults and switch traffic to the alternate path (’763 Patent, col. 1:23-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "hybrid ring" architecture that uses two rings transmitting identical, multiplexed communications in opposite directions. Each node in the network simultaneously receives the same data from both rings. If a node detects a fault on an incoming line from one ring (e.g., a signal loss), a simple selector at the node chooses the valid communication stream from the other ring. This allows for automatic and instantaneous service restoration without complex, centralized protection switching logic (’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:39-2:9). The patent's FIG. 2 illustrates this principle, showing a break (122) in the rings, with nodes re-routing traffic internally to maintain communications (’763 Patent, FIG. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This design offered a simple and robust method for building self-healing network rings, a critical feature for carrier-grade telecommunications services that demand high availability (’763 Patent, col. 2:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1, directed to an improved node in such a network, includes the following essential elements:

  • Monitoring means for evaluating the integrity of multiplexed subrate communications arriving on a first and second ring.
  • Insertion means, responsive to the monitoring means, for inserting an error signal onto designated subrate communications upon detecting a lack of integrity.
  • Selector means for choosing a subrate communication that does not contain an error signal.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. Re. 36,633 - "Synchronous Residual Time Stamp for Timing Recovery in a Broadband Network", Reissued March 28, 2000

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of "cell jitter"—random network delays inherent in Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networks—which disrupts the precise timing required for constant bit rate (CBR) services like voice or circuit emulation. The invention describes a "Synchronous Residual Time Stamp" (SRTS) method. At a source node, a small data value (the RTS) representing the precise timing difference between the service clock and a common network reference clock is generated and transmitted. At the destination node, this RTS value is used with the same common network reference clock to accurately reconstruct the original service clock, effectively filtering out the network-induced jitter (’633 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:11-2:4).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "at least one claim" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶44).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses products that "practice Synchronous Residual Time Stamp ('SRTS') technology," including those that support "AAL1 Circuit Emulation" and service "constant bit-rate (CBR) traffic" (Compl. ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide range of Tellabs products, including the Tellabs 5500, 7100, 8800, 8600, 6400, 6500, 1600, and 1000 series, as well as the Telliant 5000 platform (Compl. ¶¶17, 30, 44).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as telecommunications transport and switching systems. The complaint alleges that these products incorporate specific functionalities that map directly to the patented technologies:

  • "packet-over-optical channel transport capability, including... ATM-over-SONET, [and] packet-over-SONET" (Compl. ¶17), corresponding to the ’306 Patent.
  • Functionality as "Unidirectional Path Switched Ring ('UPSR') products" (Compl. ¶30), corresponding to the ’763 Patent.
  • The practice of "Synchronous Residual Time Stamp ('SRTS') technology" for handling "constant bit-rate (CBR) traffic" (Compl. ¶44), corresponding to the ’633 Patent.

The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of these products beyond identifying the industry standards they allegedly practice.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’306 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
generating means for generating a train of frames wherein each frame includes a transmission overhead field containing timing information and an empty payload field The accused products' alleged capability for "packet-over-SONET" and "PON" transport implies the generation of a framed data structure for carrying payloads. ¶17a col. 4:51-54
processing means for processing data from a plurality of sources into packet format The accused products allegedly possess "packet-over-optical" capabilities, which inherently requires processing various data sources into a packet format. ¶17 col. 3:55-64
inserting means for receiving said train of frames and for inserting each of said packets... into any empty payload field of any of said frames available The accused products allegedly transport packets over optical channels, which suggests a mechanism for inserting data packets into the available payload of frames. ¶17a col. 4:65-5:6

’763 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
monitoring means, associated with the first ring and the second ring, for evaluating the integrity of the multiplexed subrate communications on the associated first ring and the associated second ring, respectively The accused products are identified as implementing "Unidirectional Path Switched Ring ('UPSR')," a standard that necessarily includes monitoring path integrity. ¶30 col. 3:4-8
insertion means, associated with the demultiplexers and said monitoring means, for inserting an error signal on designated ones of the subrate communications in response to said monitoring means detecting a lack of integrity... UPSR systems are designed to signal fault conditions upon detecting a failure, which the complaint alleges constitutes the claimed insertion of an error signal. ¶30 col. 3:8-14
selector means, associated with its demultiplexers for selecting, in response to the detection of said error signal... a subrate communication that does not contain an error signal The core function of UPSR is to switch from a failed path to a protection path, which the complaint alleges corresponds to selecting a communication that does not contain an error signal. ¶30 col. 4:3-10

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the defendants' implementation of industry standards like "UPSR" and "ATM-over-SONET" meets every limitation of the asserted claims. For the ’763 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the specific fault signaling used in the accused UPSR products constitutes an "error signal" as defined by the patent. For the ’306 Patent, a question is whether the accused systems convert circuit-based traffic into a "packet-like form" with a header in the manner described by the patent, or if they use a different architecture.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no specific evidence of how the accused products operate, relying instead on the names of standards they allegedly implement. A key question for the court will be an evidentiary one: what proof will be offered to demonstrate that the accused products’ internal operations actually perform the functions recited in the claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’306 Patent:

  • The Term: "packet-like form"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, which unifies circuit and packet traffic. The infringement analysis for circuit-switched traffic handling will depend on whether the accused systems convert such traffic into a "packet-like form." Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from systems that merely tunnel one format inside another without structural conversion.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to provide a "flexible migration strategy" capable of "effectively handling both circuit and packet traffic" (’306 Patent, col. 2:30-34), which may support a construction covering any method that allows both traffic types to share a common transport frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that to convert a circuit slot into this form, "it must first be converted into a packet-like form with a header at its front" and shows this process in FIG. 2 (’306 Patent, col. 4:58-62; FIG. 2). This could support a narrower definition requiring the specific addition of a header (H) to a circuit slot.

For the ’763 Patent:

  • The Term: "error signal"
  • Context and Importance: The entire self-healing mechanism relies on the insertion and detection of this signal. The case may turn on whether the fault-indication mechanism in the accused UPSR products qualifies as the claimed "error signal."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the signal’s function as indicating a "major line fault" or a "lack of any incoming signal" (’763 Patent, col. 3:7-10), which could be read broadly to encompass any signal that serves this purpose, such as a standard Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) in SONET.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example: "This could illustratively be accomplished by inserting a string of 1’s on each channel in a digital environment" (’763 Patent, col. 3:11-13). A defendant may argue this example limits the scope of the term to a specific type of data pattern rather than just a loss of signal.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations that Defendants induced and contributed to the infringement of all three patents by others (Compl. ¶¶18, 31, 45). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing instructions in user manuals or marketing materials.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges that Telcordia provided Defendants with notice of infringement for the ’306, ’763, and ’633 patents as early as 2004, 2002, and 2005, respectively, and engaged in extensive licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶¶19-21, 32-34, 46-47). Further, it alleges that the May 2007 jury verdict finding the same patents valid and willfully infringed by Cisco put Defendants on notice of a high likelihood that their own products also infringed (Compl. ¶¶22, 35, 48).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope versus industry practice: can Telcordia prove that the asserted claims, which predate many modern standards, read on the specific implementations of "UPSR," "ATM-over-SONET," and "SRTS" in the accused products? The case will likely require a deep technical comparison between the patent disclosures and the operational details of the accused systems, moving beyond mere labels.
  • A second key question will be one of willfulness and damages: given the detailed allegations of extensive pre-suit notice, failed licensing negotiations, and knowledge of the prior Cisco verdict, the dispute over willful infringement will be central. The focus will be on the objective and subjective reasonableness of Tellabs' conduct after being made aware of the patents and the prior successful litigation.
  • Finally, the case raises an evidentiary question of proof: the complaint's technical allegations are based on the functionality implied by industry standards allegedly practiced by the accused products. A critical hurdle for the plaintiff will be to adduce specific evidence from the accused products themselves to demonstrate that they perform each and every step of the asserted claims.