DCT

2:07-cv-01683

Optium Corp v. Emcore Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:05-cv-02583, W.D. Pa., 12/10/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because the Defendants conduct business within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ patents related to optimizing optical signal performance are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct committed during their prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns technology for suppressing Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) in high-power fiber optic communication systems, a critical issue for increasing data transmission capacity and distance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint's central allegation is that the patent applicants intentionally withheld known, material prior art from the patent examiner with an intent to deceive. This prior art allegedly includes three published articles and a prior patent issued to one of the same inventors.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-02-02 Priority Date for '003 and '071 Patents (Application Filed)
2001-08-06 Filing Date of '071 Patent Application
2001-08-28 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,003
2002-12-03 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 6,490,071
2007-12-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,282,003 - "Method and Apparatus for Optimizing SBS Performance in an Optical Communication System Using At Least Two Phase Modulation Tones," issued August 28, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In fiber optic communication, Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) is a phenomenon that places an upper limit on the power of a light signal that can be transmitted effectively. Above a certain threshold, a significant portion of the signal is scattered backward, degrading performance and limiting transmission distance (ʼ003 Patent, col. 1:20-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to mitigate SBS by modulating the laser light with at least two different frequency tones. The core of the invention is a method for optimizing this process by first "establishing an operational region" of SBS suppression. This is accomplished by creating a contour map (see ʼ003 Patent, FIG. 2) that plots SBS suppression levels as a function of the power levels of the two modulation tones. An operator can then use this map to identify and select an operating point that provides not just high, but also stable, SBS suppression (ʼ003 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:47-59).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a systematic and repeatable method for optimizing a known SBS suppression technique, enabling the use of higher-power lasers and improving the stability of optical communication systems against operational drift (ʼ003 Patent, col. 5:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment of unenforceability, does not assert specific claims. The first independent claim, Claim 1, is analyzed here as representative of the patent's core teachings.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • a) establishing an operational region of SBS suppression as a function of said phase modulation such that said region identifies combinations of first and second phase modulation levels at which optimum SBS suppression is achieved for said first and second tones; and
    • b) using said operational region, adjusting the first and second phase modulation levels such that said system operates with optimum SBS suppression.
  • The patent includes 44 claims in total, and the complaint does not reserve rights to any specific dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,490,071 - "Method and Apparatus for Optimizing SBS Performance in an Optical Communication System Using At Least Two Phase Modulation Tones," issued December 3, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '071 Patent, a continuation of the application that led to the ʼ003 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of SBS limiting power in fiber optic systems (ʼ071 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The '071 Patent claims an apparatus or "configuration" for implementing the optimization method. It describes a system comprising arrangements for generating and displaying the relationship between the two modulation tones and the resulting SBS suppression, effectively claiming the system that creates the contour map for optimization purposes (ʼ071 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-18).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the physical or logical system that enables the optimization method taught in the parent '003 Patent, thereby protecting the apparatus that performs the novel optimization process.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not assert specific claims. The first independent claim, Claim 1, is analyzed as representative.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus/Configuration):
    • a) a first arrangement for establishing a first phase modulation axis along which phase modulation values of said light are plotted corresponding to phase modulation provided by said first tone and a second phase modulation axis...; and
    • b) a second arrangement for assigning an SBS suppression value to each point within a region defined by the first and second phase modulation axes such that sub-regions of SBS suppression are identifiable with said region.
  • The patent includes 35 claims in total.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint, being an action for a declaratory judgment of unenforceability, does not identify an accused instrumentality or provide details regarding the plaintiff's products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of patent infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint does not allege infringement, the construction of key claim terms will be central to assessing the materiality of the allegedly withheld prior art.

  • The Term: "optimum SBS suppression" (from '003 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "optimum" is critical for the inequitable conduct analysis. Defendants may argue that the withheld prior art is not material because it does not teach achieving "optimum" suppression as claimed, while Plaintiff may argue that the term's scope is broad enough to be anticipated or rendered obvious by that art. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes between merely suppressing SBS and a specific, inventive method of maximizing that suppression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "optimum" can mean the absolute maximum suppression possible, stating that "it is desirable to operate at the highest possible SBS threshold level" (ʼ003 Patent, col. 4:14-16). This could support an interpretation where "optimum" refers to the single highest peak on the performance map.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also teaches that the most "advantageous" operating point may not be the absolute peak but rather a point on a "relatively broad plateau" that offers greater stability against drift, even at a slightly lower suppression level (ʼ003 Patent, col. 5:53-65). This supports an interpretation where "optimum" is a balance of multiple factors, including both suppression level and operational stability, which may be a more nuanced and limited definition.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint's sole count is for a declaratory judgment that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶23-27). The allegations are not related to infringement.

  • Inequitable Conduct: The complaint alleges that the applicants and their attorneys breached their duty of candor to the PTO by intentionally withholding known, material prior art with the intent to deceive the examiner (Compl. ¶15, ¶25).
    • Alleged Materiality: The complaint alleges that the withheld prior art was highly material. Specifically, it claims that the applicants utilized diagrams and graphs copied directly from the "Willems Article" without citation (Compl. ¶18(a)), that this article discloses the contour maps and mathematical equations central to the patents (Compl. ¶18(b)), and that the applicants considered it the "closest piece of prior art" (Compl. ¶18(c)). The complaint further alleges that a withheld prior art patent ('640 patent), invented by one of the same applicants, disclosed technology that was being used by Defendant JDSU to manufacture and sell products during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶21).
    • Alleged Intent to Deceive: Intent is alleged based on the applicants' knowledge of the highly material references, which they purportedly used in their own research (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The complaint highlights that the named inventors signed declarations acknowledging their duty to disclose all material information to the PTO (Compl. ¶22). The alleged direct copying from the Willems Article and the relationship of an inventor to the withheld '640 patent may be presented as evidence from which to infer a deliberate intent to deceive (Compl. ¶18, ¶21, ¶26).

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

As this is not a typical infringement action, the case will turn on questions of patent prosecution conduct rather than the features of an accused product.

  • A core issue will be one of materiality: Do the allegedly withheld references—particularly the Willems Article—disclose the claimed method of "establishing an operational region" using a contour map to achieve "optimum" suppression? The court's decision may hinge on whether the prior art taught the specific optimization and selection process claimed, or merely the background principle of using multiple tones for SBS suppression.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent to deceive: Can the plaintiff demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to disclose the prior art was a deliberate strategic decision to mislead the PTO, rather than an oversight or a good-faith belief that the references were not material? The resolution will likely depend on what a court infers from the totality of the evidence, including the alleged copying of figures from the Willems Article and the inventor's pre-existing work on the withheld Logan patent.