DCT
1:24-cv-05442
KMizra LLC v. Ciena Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: K.Mizra LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ciena Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP; Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05442, N.D. Ga., 03/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant Ciena maintains a regular and established place of business in Alpharetta, including an engineering facility with employees who work on the accused Blue Planet products. The complaint also notes a prior patent case where Ciena admitted that venue was proper in this district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Blue Planet Intelligent Automation Portfolio infringes three patents related to scalable network management systems, service-oriented network architecture, and application-aware traffic management.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns network automation and management software for large-scale telecommunications networks, a field critical for enabling Communication Service Providers to efficiently manage increasingly complex multi-vendor infrastructure and deliver quality-of-service guarantees.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant notice letters with infringement claim charts on February 13, 2024. It further alleges that following this notice, Defendant made certain technical documentation, previously available via URLs cited in the claim charts, inaccessible and altered graphics on its public-facing website.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282 Priority Date |
| 2005-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,735,320 Priority Date |
| 2006-08-04 | U.S. Patent No. 9,485,176 Priority Date |
| 2014-07-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282 Issued |
| 2016-11-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,485,176 Issued |
| 2020-08-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,735,320 Issued |
| 2024-02-13 | Plaintiff sent pre-litigation notice letters to Defendant |
| 2025-03-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,782,282 - "Network Management System," issued July 15, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the challenge faced by conventional Network Management Systems (NMS) as networks grow in size, noting that an NMS can be "easily be[ing] overwhelmed" by the thousands of events generated when a fault is discovered (Compl. ¶22; ’282 Patent, col. 1:17-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a scalable and robust NMS architecture that uses server clustering, distributed adapters, and load balancing (Compl. ¶25; ’282 Patent, col. 7:65-8:2). As illustrated in Figure 3A of the patent, this distributed architecture decouples northbound (NB) gateways and southbound (SB) adapters from the NMS application servers, allowing for failover capabilities where an adapter or gateway can re-establish an association with a different server instance if its primary server becomes disabled (’282 Patent, col. 9:58-65, Fig. 3A).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provided a method for network management systems to scale efficiently and maintain high availability in increasingly large and complex data communication networks (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶68, ¶70).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Receiving, at a first application server instance selected from a plurality of instances based on a load balancing process, first adapter processed information from a first adapter.
- Processing, by the first application server instance, the information based on an event management service to produce application processed information.
- Sending the application processed information to a gateway device, which in turn is configured to transfer the information to a second adapter for an operation support system device.
- In response to determining that the first application server instance has become disabled, facilitating the establishment of an association between the first adapter and a second application server instance, and between the gateway device and the second application server instance.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,485,176 - "Global IP-Based Service-Oriented Network Architecture," issued November 1, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inability of then-existing Layer-2 and Layer-3 Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms to adequately guarantee performance for internet-based services, particularly multimedia applications, that traverse diverse, multi-provider networks (Compl. ¶37; ’176 Patent, col. 1:51-59, col. 7:11-13).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "Global IP-Based Service-Oriented Network" (GIBSON) architecture that facilitates transport of service-guaranteed user traffic across multiple provider networks (’176 Patent, col. 3:16-18). The solution leverages pseudowires but determines the pseudowire label based on application-layer information identified from the "application header" (e.g., TCP, HTTP, MPEG), rather than just Layer-2 or Layer-3 headers. This enables the selection of application-specific routing policies to enforce QoS at the application level across disparate networks (Compl. ¶40; ’176 Patent, col. 5:19-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach allowed service providers to offer and enforce service level agreements (SLAs) for specific, high-value application traffic (e.g., voice, video) across complex network boundaries (Compl. ¶38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 9 (Compl. ¶108, ¶110).
- The essential elements of Claim 9 include:
- A system with a processor and memory with instructions to:
- Encapsulate a data packet with a pseudowire label determined based on an application flow identified by an application header of the data packet.
- Select, based on the application flow, a routing policy from a set of application-specific routing policies defined for the first network.
- The routing policy instructs that the data packet is to traverse at least a second network (associated with a second service provider) en route to a third network (associated with a third service provider).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 10,735,320 - "Application Wire," issued August 4, 2020
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,735,320, "Application Wire," issued August 4, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an "Application Wire" to improve QoS in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. The invention addresses the scalability and efficiency limitations of prior art QoS models by mapping one or more application flows to a plurality of pseudowires based on the application's specific bandwidth and traffic requirements, a technique described as "distributed mapping." This allows for application-aware traffic management without requiring changes to intermediate network nodes (Compl. ¶51, ¶53-55; ’320 Patent, col. 3:20-26, col. 3:62-66).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶149, ¶151).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ciena's Blue Planet Route Optimization and Analysis (ROA) feature, which is described as performing "path computation and provisioning capabilities" for IP/MPLS networks, of infringing the ’320 Patent (Compl. ¶152).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Ciena’s Blue Planet Intelligent Automation Portfolio and its various software components, including Blue Planet Inventory, Blue Planet Orchestration (and its sub-products), Unified Assurance and Analytics, and Blue Planet Manage, Control, and Plan (MCP) (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The Blue Planet portfolio is a software platform providing Operations Support Systems (OSS) to Communication Service Providers (CSPs), offered both on-premises and as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product (Compl. ¶2, ¶4). Its function is to automate and orchestrate network services across complex, multi-vendor, and multi-domain environments (Compl. ¶72). The system allegedly uses "resource adapters" to communicate with network elements ("southbound") and "Open APIs" to interface with other management systems ("northbound") (Compl. ¶73, ¶76). The complaint alleges these products are used by major network service providers like Consolidated Communications and DISH Network (Compl. ¶101, ¶105).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'282 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, at a first application server instance selected from a plurality of application server instances based on a load balancing process, first adapter processed information from a first adapter... | The Blue Planet platform allegedly utilizes a plurality of application server instances that receive data from network elements via "resource adapters." A "Resource adapter controller" is alleged to manage multiple resource adapter instances, demonstrating a load-balancing process. | ¶75, ¶77 | col. 8:7-12 |
| processing, by the first application server instance, the first adapter processed information based on an event management service to produce application processed information | The Blue Planet Unified Assurance and Analytics (UAA) platform allegedly performs this function through its "Fault Management" and "Performance Management" applications, which process event, fault, and telemetry data collected by the resource adapters. | ¶82, ¶83 | col. 11:1-5 |
| sending, by the first application server instance, the application processed information to a gateway device... configured to transfer the application processed information to a second adapter... to an operation support system device | The Blue Planet platform sends processed data to external OSS/BSS systems via "Open APIs," which are alleged to function as the claimed "gateway device." Northbound resource adapters or the APIs themselves are alleged to function as the "second adapter." | ¶85, ¶86, ¶92 | col. 11:21-44 |
| in response to determining that the first application server instance has become disabled, facilitating establishing an association between the first adapter and a second application server instance... | Ciena's use of a high-availability proxy (HAProxy) load balancer with a floating virtual IP (VIP) address is alleged to provide redundancy for REST clients, thereby re-establishing connections to a new server instance if one becomes disabled. | ¶94 | col. 9:58-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the software-defined components of the accused Blue Planet platform fall within the scope of the patent's architectural terms. For instance, does an "Open API" framework meet the limitations of a "gateway device" as disclosed in the patent, and do software "resource adapters" meet the limitations of the claimed "adapter"?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the HAProxy's redundancy function for REST clients performs the specific, multi-part re-association required by claim element [1D]—"facilitating establishing an association between the first adapter and a second application server instance and between the gateway device and the second application server instance"?
'176 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| encapsulate a data packet... with a pseudowire label determined based on an application flow identified by an application header of the data packet | The Blue Planet platform is alleged to use pseudowires to encapsulate data packets associated with a specific service, which the complaint equates to an application flow. The complaint presents a screenshot from Ciena's documentation showing a "Pseudowires" tab to support the use of pseudowires (Compl. ¶121). | ¶120, ¶121 | col. 5:19-25 |
| select, based on the application flow, a routing policy from a set of application-specific routing policies defined for the first network... | The Blue Planet Multi-Domain Service Orchestration (MDSO) feature is alleged to perform "policy-based service orchestration." A graphic from Ciena's website, depicting a "Policy Engine" and a "Path Computation Engine," is used to allege the selection of routing policies (Compl. ¶131). | ¶129, ¶131 | col. 10:4-10 |
| wherein the routing policy instructs that the data packet is to traverse at least a second network... in transit to a third network comprising a third node device and associated with a third service provider entity | A marketing graphic for Blue Planet's "Wave Services Automation" shows a multi-vendor optical transport network with distinct network segments associated with Ciena, Huawei, and Cisco/Nokia/Infinera, which is alleged to demonstrate traversal across networks of different service providers (Compl. ¶131). | ¶131 | col. 3:56-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Can the term "application header" be construed to cover Layer 4 port numbers, which are commonly used to identify applications but are technically part of the transport layer header, or does it require inspection of Layer 7 data? The infringement analysis may turn on this distinction.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system determines the pseudowire label based on the "application header" itself, as opposed to other network parameters that merely correlate to a specific application? Further, does the high-level "policy-based service orchestration" perform the specific function of selecting from a predefined "set of application-specific routing policies" as claimed?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'282 Patent
- The Term: "gateway device"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory equates this term with Ciena's "Open APIs." The viability of the infringement case for claim 1 depends on whether this software-based interface framework can be mapped to the "gateway device" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if a modern, API-centric architecture can infringe a claim drafted for a more discretely-componentized system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the NB gateway's function as facilitating "transferring and translating information between the NMS server... and an OSS" (’282 Patent, col. 1:14-17), a functional description that could encompass an API gateway.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "NB Distributed Gateway" as a distinct architectural block separate from the "Application Server Instance" (’282 Patent, Fig. 3A, element 304). This depiction of discrete components could support an argument that an integrated API layer is not a "gateway device".
'176 Patent
- The Term: "application flow identified by an application header"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art that used only lower-layer headers. Infringement hinges on whether the accused Blue Planet system identifies flows for pseudowire encapsulation by inspecting the application header itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly gives examples of application headers, stating the architecture is able "encapsulat[e] the data packet based on the application header, such as an TCP, HTTP, or MPEG header" (’176 Patent, col. 5:21-23).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that "one or more headers associated with layer 4 and above are used to obtain a Pseudowire label" (’176 Patent, col. 5:23-25). A defendant could argue this language, by including Layer 4, does not require inspection of the Layer 7 application header specifically, and that using only Layer 4 information (e.g., TCP/UDP port numbers) would not infringe a claim limitation requiring identification by the application header.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The basis for this allegation is that Ciena provides its customers, such as network service providers, with products, technical documentation, operating manuals, and support services that allegedly instruct and encourage them to use the Blue Planet portfolio in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶105, ¶146, ¶183).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Ciena’s continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the patents-in-suit via letters and detailed claim charts sent by K.Mizra on or about February 13, 2024 (Compl. ¶104, ¶145, ¶182).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the architectural terms of the ’282 patent, such as "adapter" and "gateway device," which are described in the context of a 2003-era NMS, be construed to read on the highly virtualized, API-driven software components of Ciena’s modern Blue Planet platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Blue Planet system perform the specific application-aware functions recited in the ’176 and ’320 patents? Specifically, does it determine pseudowire labels based on information from the "application header" itself, or does its "policy-based orchestration" operate on lower-level network data that is technically distinct from what the claims require?
- The allegations of post-notice conduct, including the removal of technical documentation and alteration of website graphics, raise a question of evidence and intent: how will this alleged behavior impact discovery disputes and the factual predicate for the willfulness claim as the case proceeds?